LETTERS 20.7.13

16. 788LETTERSHard crossing to bear
FOR many years I have watched the intersection of Beaufort Street and Central Avenue in Mt Lawley/Inglewood.
This would have to be one of the most dangerous intersections in the Perth region.
Countless accidents occur here, and traffic lights are often knocked out of the ground.
Traffic on Central Avenue has the advantage of green arrows for turning right, but no such benefit is given to traffic using Beaufort Street.
It becomes totally impossible to make a right turn safely. Absolutely no chance.
I have constantly solicited politicians, Main Roads, police, and now the public to make something happen.
It is ludicrous open slather for tow truck operators and ambulance services.
The screech of sirens and debris at this intersection is horrific.
If the authorities had any sense they would have provided traffic lights at Carrington Street and Central Avenue, making that an arterial road, put lights at Walcott and Clotilde Streets as well as Walcott and Curtis Streets.
More use needs to be made of inner streets away from Beaufort. But of course we know that residents in leafy suburbs pay huge rates and want protection from traffic flow.
Councils are always anxious to appease those residents.
Motorists themselves should try to avoid the hugely problematic roads as much as possible. Anybody want to take me to task?
Raymond N. Conder
Central Ave, Inglewood

What about the trees, Michael?
FOR several years I have enjoyed bantering encounters in passing with Mount Lawley MP Michael Sutherland.
It is, therefore, more sad than surprising when he baulks on being confronted with a nitty-gritty issue.
Mr Sutherland, now WA’s parliamentary speaker, has failed to respond to a couple of requests for a meeting to discuss with concerned Voicelanders the need to set up a state watchdog for trees.
His apparent indifference should be alarming to all, barring local councils.
Such a body to be effective would need to involve the minister for the environment and heritage Albert Jacob.
Increasing vandalism perpetrated by local councils brings real urgency for a watchdog with teeth. The latest reported outrage, being on Whatley Crescent, Trees “too ugly” (Voice, page 5, July 13, 2013). How anyone could come out with such a reckless and insensitive comment beggars belief.
The biggest and most persistent culprit, of course, is monstrous Stirling council. Consistent letters of protest in the Voice are said to have saved the magnificent stand of fir trees beside Perth College during its ruthless expansion, hand in hand with Stirling.
One is unable to forget, either, Stirling’s needless slaughter, several years ago, of blooming Cape Lilacs on Clotilde Street, Mt Lawley. Delicate lopping being all that was needed to improve drivers’ vision. Space here denies other examples of wanton destruction by councils throughout the metropolitan area.
Returning to Mr Sutherland, his attitude is baffling. Pollution of our environmental will only become more problematic unless there are drastic changes in attitude by those who are expected to set examples.
One wonders what young Mr Jacob is actually doing to justify his status and salary. Empowering his office to jump on and prevent the destruction wreaked by rogue councils cannot come soon enough—and might already be too late.
It seems that WALGA is also an idle spectator.
Will Sumatra’s blazing forests that choke Singapore open our eyes to the prospect of more pollution-related illnesses for the generations to come? Trees can and do save us, given the chance. There’s no such thing as an ugly tree – even left to the mercy of such as Mr Kenyon.
In closing, an aside: wearing a saxe-blue gifted T-shirt emblazoned with “Michael Sutherland”, I voted accordingly. My reasoning? Better the bantering devil…
Ron Willis
First Ave, Mt Lawley

Forghetto the research?
I FIND your article (“Claustroburbia”, Perth Voice, July 13, 2013) to be sensationalist and very much in favour of a few loud resident voices.
Density doesn’t equal “ghetto like” problems.
Last time I checked we lived in Vincent not Harlem.
If ghetto means better amenities, more affordable housing and shock horror “ the opportunity to interact with our neighbours and share local spaces” then sign me up.
I’m sick to death of this lame scaremongering.
This article draws nothing from the vast academic research into the economic, social and environmental benefits of increasing inner city diversity.
H Ginbey

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s