Plea to Fremantle Council to ACT.

Stall-holders association - Plea to Fremantle Council to ACT.

What I am going to propose to you tonight is a drastic measure but one that should be carefully evaluated for the sake of the Markets, the council, the stallholders and the ratepayers.

Over the previous 30 years the council, the market management and the many small businesses at Fremantle Markets have had a successful and mutually supportive relationship. It was a winning formula for everyone. With the granting of the head lease most thought that the conflicts and debate of the previous 31/2 years had come to an end. The decision had finally been made, the conditions set and we were ready for a new era.

We had no reason to believe the Markets would be any different in fact they would be better with the promise of 5 year leases with 5 year options to replace our one month agreements and periodic rent increases linked to cpi. Stallholders could see their businesses would be more valuable through increased goodwill.

Then everything changed. In June the head lease was signed and by July we were notified that there would be no leases and options - only license agreements.

In September we first heard of the size of the rent increases. Then in November with the first batch of EOI’s the realization that what was promised was not being delivered. Overheads more akin to a shopping centre than a market were imposed and then came the news of the redevelopment of the new food area and how this would be achieved by downsizing other stalls or forcing others out through prohibitively high rents. The fruit and vegetable traders also learnt their shops would be downsized but their rents increased. And this is just the start.

What’s behind those changes, we believe, amount to a serious abuse of trust of both the stallholders and the council. What was publicly promoted as a carefully crafted and thoroughly researched business plan has turned into a mess…not just from a stallholder’s perspective but increasingly in the opinion of the broader community.

Stallholders and councillors now must question why, what was promoted and promised has not materialized? These were black and white commitments, fundamental to the awarding of the lease.

The marginal support the Murdoch brothers once had at the Markets disappeared with the broken promises…, once stallholders realized what the new agreements, the rent increases and the Markets redevelopment meant, they knew they had been manipulated.

Remember Jamie Murdoch’s comment from last year’s Special Council meeting:
“We don't want to lose any stallholder’s; we want all the stallholders we have to come along. We have 200 stallholders who are all fantastic people who we want to continue. We don't want to preclude any stallholders from anything.”
What a load of garbage!
Question Time FCC Council Meeting 27th May 2009

They knew then what was planned but misled and betrayed us.

They needed both the stallholders and councilors support to secure this lucrative lease. Now that they have it, we are all being treated with contempt.
The Murdoch brothers are difficult people to deal with, which we all now fully appreciate.

The question for council is not just in addressing the apparent breaches of the head lease but more importantly how and if you address the many misrepresentations made to both stallholders and yourselves.

We have legal advice which confirms the Murdoch’s may have breached sections 51A and 52 of the Trade Practices Act….that is “where they have engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive”. Such conduct is unlawful. We have provided Council with our legal advice on this matter and a proposed resolution for council.

The stallholders do not have the resources nor should they have to mount a challenge against this deception. It is the council who voted to support the business plan based on the information before them and it would be open to the City if they were so inclined to bring an action against the Murdoch’s for the apparent breaches.

If the City and the councillors now believe what has occurred, is not what the council was led to believe would happen, then the question is …what do you do to rectify if? The unlawful activities have already taken place and there is nothing that can be done to undo it.

For the Stallholders Association we believe there is only one answer and that is to…terminate the lease under Clause 20 of the head lease?

The Mayor and Mr. Dougall made public assurances to stallholders in relation to the safety of their businesses under the new Murdoch regime. These assurances meant nothing to the Murdoch’s. They have totally disregarded them as they did with the Mayors attempts to have Richard Murphy reinstated. Those assurances now also mean nothing to the long established stallholders who have lost their livelihoods and their goodwill. Bob Williams, Mary Cole, Richard Murphy, Penny Bannister and many others. What is their compensation in this sorry saga?

Our Association has the strong support of our many members at the markets… these are small business people who through their dedication and loyalty have helped make the markets what it is today. They are totally disillusioned with the Murdoch’s and how they have turned their lives upside down.

Unless something is done within a very short timeframe, stallholders will fall apart as both the financial pressure and continued stress will prove too much.

This proposal cannot happen without your support. You have heard over the past months many stallholders stand here and recount how their lives have been dramatically affected by what has taken place. These are genuine hard working people who this should never have happened to. It can never be undone. It now urgently needs your commitment to make sure that it won’t happen in the future.

My question is to the CEO….. If your legal advice, like ours, supports the allegation that breaches to the Trade Practices Act have occurred in relation to misleading or deceptive conduct both during and after the awarding of the Markets lease, will you convene a Special Meeting of Council, to determine if councilors support the action to commence legal proceedings against the Murdoch’s and terminate the head lease?




Most recent post http://sonyagreen.blogspot.com/