LETTERS 9.2.19

LET’S make Australia great again.
Great again?
Please excuse the tweaked Trumpism; it ought to serve some useful purpose.
Here’s an explanation: Australia, after all, is a land mass only slightly smaller than the United States and with as much potential, though vastly different.
For tens of thousands of years, time beyond our imagination, the First Australians managed their island country well enough to serve their needs.
They did this by keeping in tuneful balance with nature and without being a threat to other countries.
What is greatness, if not such accomplishment?
Then without warning came the UK invasion and so-called “settlement” (at times a blitzkrieg).
From this emerged political parties to create, gradually, the dangerous mess in which we currently find ourselves. Hence our prospect of the lemmings’ fate.
Let’s have, at all levels, government by independents: people unhampered by tunnel-vision ideologies, greed and out-dated traditions.
Independents with positive attitudes and visions that inspire our youth to undertake the challenges that are multiplying by the day.
The most blatant examples being our banks, the Darling-Murray Basin catastrophe, and our senseless obsession with space travel while millions starve and our oceans remain more than 90 per cent unexplored.
Day by day the news brings us face to face with the dodgy future of our planet.
In the meantime, our next most likely prime minister will not have a hard act to follow.
There’s absolutely no guarantee, however, that his performance will be any better than those of his five immediate predecessors.
C’mon, ladies, now’s the time to stand up and be counted.
It’s as well, though, to keep on a short rein any great expectations.
Winsley Hurst
St George’s Terrace, Perth

Could Aldi do better?
THE Woolies development flyer in our letterbox gave us a big laugh.
Inglewood residents know just a little but about art deco, but obviously more than the PR company which made the dumb claim that their new development at the old Bunnings site is art deco.
The design has a lot more problems than the ones mentioned in your front page article “Building ‘an insult’” (Voice, February 2, 2019).
These include not enough greening of the site, the removal of street trees, outrageously large signage and yet another liquor store.
The design is obviously just a standard one Woolies uses for any location and then changes the description.
Inglewood deserves better. What happened to the Aldi site on Tenth Avenue? Maybe we should have a Bunnings there?
Graeme Cocks
Address supplied

Tinder dry argument
LAST week’s front page story “Building ‘an insult’” is a touch inflammatory.
I’m sure not all Maylands/Inglewood residents share the opinion of Paul Collins, president of the Art Deco Society.
Nor do we think using the word “insult” is a sensible way to have an open and honest discussion about what is going to replace the burnt down Bunnings on Beaufort Street.
Maybe the Voice could have titled its front page article, “Is this building Art Deco?” or “Woolworths-Art Deco?”; less sensationalist and more about getting the community involved in the process.
I will also contest that if Mr Collins doesn’t like the Woolworths aesthetics of what is art deco, he needs to take a good hard look at some of the other random architecture along Beaufort Street.
It smacks of double standards me thinks.
As far as this punter is concerned having competition for Coles down the road will give residents more choice and hopefully save them some coin.
I wonder if people like Paul Collins actually thinks about what is a good amenity for the ratepayers who live here?
Darren Moldrich
Ed says: We assume you’re joking Darren, but just to clarify, Paul Collins is president of The Mount Lawley Society, not the Art Deco Society.

Impost most artrageous
I AM right behind Woolworths bucking the iniquitous ‘public art’ impost on their development in Inglewood.
It is simply a council-imposed tax on owners, and offers nothing other than a subsidy to artists and no guarantee that it will be quality work.
Why should artists be subsidised by property owners? Writers and musicians aren’t.
An art subsidy ultimately is factored into building costs and the quality of the building may be compromised as development costs are finite.
There are many unfortunate examples of council-imposed art and three dimensional works scattered around shopping precincts and parks, paid by for by the owners who declined to have an ‘art work’ on their premises.
Some artworks on new buildings add nothing to the environment and can even detract from an otherwise acceptable building.
Commissioning of artwork should be a willing negotiation between the buyer and artist.
Perhaps people should support Woolworths and get council-imposed feelgood subsidies abolished.
Helen Pemberton
Brisbane Street

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