Was the choice right?
FOLLOWING council’s decision to follow the recommendations of the council senior officers, it is timely to assess the activities of the Scrap Our Place group, their reasons for taking a stance, and the level of their commitment.
The members of this group are all locals and passionate about the continuing presentation of the Pioneer Settlement (PS).
In it’s unique interpretation of the development of the Mallee.
It is our strong contention that a modem building inside the PS does not align with the concept and intentions of the founders of the Pioneer Settlement and even more so to include an art gallery within the proposed building.
Visitors and tourists come to engage in the historical aspects on display, not a modem building which sadly, will be compromised by the removal/relocation of some artifacts to allow for construction of option one.
The current art gallery is architect designed (by the original architects, Sir Roy Grounds) to display a type of building common in the Mallee (that is mudbrick, which is part of the story of the Mallee evolving).
Swan Hill council’s contribution to build Our Place is reportedly $5 million. How much better would it be to improve the existing art gallery with that $5 million and leave the Pioneer Settlement and Spoons alone?
A small entry building where option two was suggested could include a visitor information centre, thereby providing economies by staff reduction a win-win situation, and then the grant could be utilised in another river front location for an alternative attraction.
This is not a case of sour grapes as a result of the decision to adopt option one, but more as a protest in the way the project has been handled.
It was stated in the special council meeting that all key stakeholders had been consulted and they agreed that option one was the better option.
Those consultations did not include the Scrap Our Place group since the presentation of the petition, and who in fact are not a rabble of protesters as has been portrayed, but a representative body of local ratepayers, ex-pats, tourists, and regular visitors.
Interestingly, the response to the council survey indicated that a majority disapproved of option one inside the settlement, so it appears that the minority rules.
A comment in a recent national paper said “in a democracy like ours, the people (represented by a majority vote) are always right”.
Councillors, please note.
David Quayle,
Swan Hill
