I thought it poorly reported in an unbalanced and unrepresentative way the evening as a whole.
Notwithstanding a cold and wet evening, 51 local residents voted for a resolution to oppose the proposed development with six against it.
While local liquor businesses were entitled to have some representatives present on the night, local residents spoke and voted.
Despite 90 per cent of local residents in opposition, 80 per cent of the page space (being about half of the article’s words, plus a large photograph of two dissenters) was allocated to the minority of six.
Missing from the article was mention of State MP John McGrath who spoke to oppose the proposed development, and conveyed to the meeting similar opposition from Federal MP Steve Irons as expressed in his media release.
These are our local MPs reflecting sentiment in the community to oppose the development for many reasons, especially including the impact on already heavy traffic congestion at the South Terrace intersection, plus the well-researched negative effects of discount liquor outlets, especially on 18 to 29-year-olds.
Missing from the article were comments from a Norton Street resident who was horrified at the prospect of living directly next door to a Dan Murphy, which as revealed in one of the five presentations could have more than 200 patrons an hour.
As was reference to a Hensman Street resident who said he and his wife had safety concerns, especially since being woken in the early hours one morning when a drunk driver crashed into their parked car.
Also absent was mention of a resident who spoke about personally known youths whose lives had been adversely affected by the abuse of liquor, which is often too easily available at low prices.
I was glad that the City of South Perth mayor and councillors, many of whom attended the special electors’ meeting, strongly supported resolutions to oppose the proposed liquor store in their submission to the Development Assessment Panel.
GREG BENJAMIN, South Perth.
Editor’s note: The Gazette has previously reported the opposition to this issue (24.6.14, 27.8.13, 11.6.13) and continued to do so in the July 22 article. In addition, numerous letters on both sides of the argument have been published. This latest report offered a new perspective; that there is support for the liquor barn proposal in the community, and these supporters attended the public meeting on which we reported.
The council met on July 22, which means the first time we will be able to report its stance on the proposal is in today’s edition.