 |
| Original artist unknown LINK |
COMMENT: Just to have the opportunity to put faces and importantly 'voices' to Launceston's homeless, well it was a small but important victory.
At this ordinary meeting of council, a cohort of Launceston's 'voiceless homeless' fronted up and kind of took centre stage. In polite and respectful ways collectively they 'shirt fronted' the assembled Councillors and Council Officers. That took 'a lot of bottle' but there we go.
These are the very same people who before 'that meeting' Town Hall operatives in their various guises, they would tell you how repugnant these people are plus the equivalent of "they should go back to where they came from" – with this always taking place somewhere where if reported it was one person's word against another's and of course this didn't really happen did it.
Over Easter these homeless people were being moved on by 'the cops' even if there was nowhere to go. You see, Launceston has 'a great place to be tourism award' and you cannot have people sleeping rough and making the place untidy – we do not want that do we ... not in our bloody back yard.
This 'ordinary' council meeting had on its agenda items like the "conflict in the Ukraine", "Paterson Street car park", "copyright issues" and "construction of an additional dwelling" BUT it turned out to be extraordinary meeting in so many ways.
It is more than interesting that Launceston City Council actually voted to support a portable locker service for homeless people for the next 12 months in OPEN COUNCIL.
Launceston's Council runs a class of decision making where much of this kind of decision making goes on out the back somewhere. Somehow it seems that the 'champions for the homeless' – Strike It Out et al –shut that technique down this time.
Interestingly, Mayor van Zetten was absent along with another 'sometimes Councillor' as too was the CEO away on leave, meaning that Acting Mayor Danny Gibson was in the Chair.
Mayor van Zetten's modus operandi at times when someone wants to make a submission they are given 2mins to do so. Then they are cut short, and then, typically he will make some patronising summation before moving quickly on.
Interestingly, Acting mayor Danny Gibson gave these 'homeless people' enough time to tell their stories their way. They did so respectfully and without rancour, and reportedly there was a detectable atmosphere of shame in the air and around 'the table'.
Upshot, the homeless people's lockers were granted the reprieve sought somewhat against 'the officers' better judgement'. A victory if you like, but what's to like in all this?
As if to put his moral compass down ... “Acting Mayor Danny Gibson said the council would do its best to address the issue by working with service providers and the state government. …. "This is a multifaceted problem and we know that it's a problem that is increasing," he said. …. "Council is not responsible for housing but we want to play our part to ensure members of our community who don't have a bed, who don't have a house... [that] their story is heard and that we can help facilitate some outcomes for them."
Sadly, Cr. Gibson's comment here is pure and unadulterated BOVINDUST given that the Act does allow Local Govt to invest in ‘property development', including housing! AND, as 'planning authorities' Local Govt makes decisions about whit is built where and HOUSING is front an centre in all that – and inescapably so.
What is missing here is the 'mindset' to proactively engage IN & WITH housing projects – it is not the authority to do so that is lacking. In fact, there are models that suggest that a 'not-for-profit' community enterprises (say a housing cooperatives?) can and do engage with 'social housing' in cooperation with ‘their communities’. In fact such an enterprise could well be cost neutral even if it might challenge the profitability 'for profit businesses'.
NOW, where is all this going?
