None ignored
ON a small but important aspect of last week’s front-page story (Herald, October 17, 2015) I need to make it clear I have never said the council should ignore community views in relation to J-Shed, nor any other issue.
Indeed, last week I took steps to ensure that councillors had access to the full text of all the J-Shed submissions and I considered those submissions carefully.
The point I made at council was that difficult decisions could not be determined by reference to the number of submissions alone, and that representatives must consider the substance of all concerns raised in making their best judgement in the interests of the city as a whole.
Cr Josh Wilson
Deputy Mayor, City of Fremantle
Beaconsfield ward

Rethink your vote
I FIND it outrageous that a community action group such as Rethink The Link would endorse candidates for local government elections on its website and brochures. These are state and federal issues and not the realm for the function of local government.
Why would the Rethink The Link group presume to know what individual candidates views are on the Perth Freight Link when nobody has bothered to call to discuss them?
I know for sure in Fremantle that Claudia Green in the central ward, Noorel Mecklai in the Hilton ward and Tony Toledo in the south ward are in full support of the Rethink The Link campaign, yet they are not listed and were never contacted.
In fact when Tony Toledo contacted the organiser of the group he was told they’d done a Google search and he did not come up. What a joke!
This does not bode well for the confidence from the public on other facts presented by this campaign.
Is this just because of political alliances, and that independents do not have the clout they require? Or is this repayment for Fremantle council support and current councillors standing in this election. Very disappointing!
Fremantle and its councillors need to get back to the basics of good local governance and leave the pie in the sky projects to the state and federal big boys of town who can afford it. It time ratepayers’ money is spent on things the whole community values, not just a green core at the council. How about a bit of accountability.
Andrew Luobikis
Mardie St, Beaconsfield
The Ed says: Mr Luobikis was an unsuccessful south ward candidate at the Fremantle council elections. This letter was submitted after our deadline for last weekend’s edition.

Give them nothing
I WOULD like to respond to Andrew Luobikis’ comment about his disappointment that the Herald was not running enough stories on candidates.
I talked to Bryce Luff (from the opposition paper) a month ago about whether they would be running pieces on candidates and his reply was their journalists were told not to run any pieces on any candidates, sitting or not.
Andrew mentioned “only the candidates with future political aspirations and financial backing of the various parties” get the privilege to grace the local pages. Putting an embargo on all candidates effectively removes any advantage gained by trying that.
If you want to win an election, do it on merit, the fairest coverage is no coverage. If you want people to vote for you, don’t make that a journalist’s job, make that your own.
I think it has been an excellent policy that does even the playing field significantly. Sitting councillors can’t just spearhead an issue to try to gain free column centimetres in their campaign.
Kudos to you, Herald.
By the time this gets printed the election will be over, whether or not I am elected as a Cockburn councilor, I will know it was not because of unfair coverage.
Michael Separovich
Zukova Close, Spearwood
The Ed says: We don’t agree with not covering candidates, Michael. Democracy is not a spectator sport, it’s participatory, and providing voters with as much information as possible about the people and platforms on offer is an important component of the democratic process. We only wish we had more space and more journos so we could do the job more comprehensively.

Shifting is no solution
MELVILLE city council certainly seems to be invading Fremantle territory with its biased promotion of Roe 8 (Herald, October 17, 2015).
This week I found a rather dishevelled man walking along South Street, west of Stock Road, handing out Melville council stickers promoting Roe 8.
Like councillor Wainwright I am amazed Melville’s signs and stickers on “less congestion” and “safer roads” are actually being promoted where the opposite will occur if Roe 8 proceeds.
The issue here is not about “less” or “safer” but where the congestion will be located — shifting the problem from one area to another is not a solution. What we need is a new port now, not in 20 years’ time. Act now to solve the problem.
Jim Meckelburg
Davies St, Beaconsfield

Charity here first
THE latest statement by premier Colin Barnett shows there will be 1000 accommodation places for Syrian refugees.
Why aren’t these places being provided to our homeless and those who have been on the waiting list for years?
Because there is no electoral merit in it. Mr Barnett is now working on what is best for Mr Barnett, which will earn him extra points at the next election. Too late.
He cares for refugees more than he does struggling Australians.
Let’s demand housing/accommodation at Leeuwin for the single homeless and houses for those who have been on the waiting list for years!
I am not homeless or on the waiting list either. Just in case you thought I was.
Steven Cruden
Edwards St, Leda
The Ed says: This letter has been substantially edited for length and clarity.

Both sides not needed
YOUR article “NDA’s one-sided seminar” (Herald, September 26, 2015) was hardly newsworthy.
In fact, it appeared to be a deliberate attempt to incite controversy for the sake of creating division.
If the powers that be at the Herald have an agenda against the University of Notre Dame, or against those with a differing viewpoint with regard to marriage, or simply against Christians/Catholics, then perhaps use the editorial section to make this agenda transparent instead of reporting a weak and not-so-subtle “news” article!
It seems that when it comes to topics where there is an ethical consideration, you decry the “injustice” simply because it is not the secular or popular point of view to which you feel must be presented in every instance at NDA.
Not every seminar or presentation at a university needs to present “both sides” or engage in a “debate.”
What I think would have been more helpful for your readers is if you had written a news article the week prior about the event and its true intentions, as made apparent in an invitation for the event to the campus and wider community.
Then maybe those who do not understand the Catholic perspective on marriage and why it is of such value to Catholics, could have taken advantage of the opportunity to educate themselves and dialogue in a respectful and unifying manner.
You have done a disservice to your readers, and I find it juvenile that you have used your position to attempt to create more division in the community.
What is needed in the marriage debate is actual discussion and understanding of various viewpoints and that is exactly what the aim of the seminar was in this case—to “explore themes such as love, marriage, family, and identity from a Catholic perspective, in the context of current discussions about marriage”.
The advertisement plainly stated, “the seminar will seek to offer an authentic Catholic understanding of the person and of marriage, one that is both pastoral and positive. It will also discuss the interaction of the theological, legal and cultural perspectives in the current debate”.
Although I was unable to attend the seminar myself, I was disappointed to have missed what was sure to be an insightful and thought-provoking presentation.
Sara Bell
Delamere Lane, Beaconsfield