The end of an era for Freo markets

I have the highest respect for most of the councillors at Fremantle council. In a previous post I have named the extraordinary people who have stretched themselves in their determination to get things right for Fremantle and specifically the Fremantle Markets and the stall-holders.

Personally, I don’t understand the motivation of community-minded, ethical and passionate people taking on the thankless and sometimes sacrificial tasks of council. It impresses and heartens me to see the hard work, long hours and commitment they have demonstrated. But, how they function in such a dysfunctional environment is truly beyond my comprehension.

Obviously it is naïve of me to believe that government operates on a system of ‘the ultimate good of the majority’; fair play, common sense, community protection, environmental respect, prosperity and progress, heritage and tradition, well equipped services and support. I think some of these issues are the motivations for good people to step up and serve on council, but cynically, I do seriously wonder how anything can be done without enormous frustration, delay and nit-picking. On a more subtle level, are the personality conflicts, political posturing and personal agendas. You need to understand the languages of jargon, spin, dodge, bamboozle, gobble-de-gook, dismiss, talking without saying and open-minded-non-commit. You might receive an answer as a synopsis which has no content or a lengthy document which numbs the brain and convinces you that you don’t understand the answer. Unless you are very tenacious, you just might not get an answer at all.

Probably the most frustrating and time consuming but seemingly vital consideration, is ‘the legalities’. Everything is filtered through legal rights and responsibilities and the interpretation of…

And this leads me to where we are today.

The council renewed the Fremantle Market lease with the Murdoch brothers after much opposition, debate and legal advice. The councillors voted 6-7 in favour. It later came to our attention that the councillors were not privy to confidential information and had to vote according to direction given by the council’s lawyers.

Three, have since stated off record, that they would not have voted in favour if they had known then what they now know. Well that and other discrepancies are all water under the bridge now and I won't go into all the details but to say that the lawyers who drew up the lease and the councillors who were either ill-informed or indifferent to the predictions of the stall-holders or the 500 letters of opposition are now left with the reality that the Fremantle Markets are in a state of collapse.

As much as I would love to tell of individual and tragic stories of betrayal, intimidation, vendettas and sheer nastiness, I can not at this point, as it would identify people still struggling with the reality that they will soon need to shut up shop and walk away from their business. The council was warned this would happen and gave reassurances (not in writing) that stall-holders would be protected. And yet, no consideration or legal protection was written into the head lease. The stall-holders association was actually taken out of the renewed lease. (How could the lawyers get it so wrong?) Not only that, but they didn’t even give the council itself any real power. In effect they basically gave the Murdoch’s a free run for 20 odd years with virtually no accountability to either the council or the stall-holders.

The new head-lease did come with a rental increase of 12% which was probably fair at the time; considering it was at the height of the real estate boom and economic times in Western Australia were very, very good. The council confirmed that they had the rent valued by a licensed valuer. How the Murdoch’s could justify passing on an 80% increase to stall-holders is gobsmackingly incredulous! Why the council didn’t jump into action at the first notification is beyond me. No one said anything until the stall-holders showed up, and even then, the council dived for cover and said it was out of their hands and a matter for the Murdoch’s and the stall-holders to sort out. (Legally we don’t need to do anything, we are not accountable. Basically, ‘go tell someone who cares.)

The stall-holders had nowhere to go but to their own lawyers and begin what was to become a year long battle to get council to agree to another valuation. This was only done after the stall-holders themselves employed a valuer; who strongly confirmed that NO rent increase was justifiable. Understandably so, due to the current economic recession, falling interest rates and estimated 20% drop in real estate right across the board.

Strangely, the head lease stated a 12% rise between council and the Murdoch’s and yet the stall-holders rents were to be determined by “Fair Market Rent”. Why? And this is the main issue of contention.

How is fair market rent determined or interpreted and how flexible is the scale?

Wouldn’t you think that the fastest and easiest way to sort this out would be to have a completely new independent valuation done? That’s what the stall holders thought when they had theirs done, but unfortunately, as they were not given access to the markets, the valuation was considered incomplete. However, it was compelling enough to force the council to have their own done – even if it took a year! I also mention that the stall-holders report was completely transparent and the methodology was explained throughout; price comparisons to other markets in the Eastern States as well as WA, shopping centres and businesses within the Fremantle CBD.

This week the Murdoch’s sent a press release out stating that the new appraisal has justified their 80% increase. No one from the council informed the stall holders and even after two requests from Colin Wright and two more from the stall-holders lawyers the council did not speak with or notify the stall-holders. Colin Wright found a synopsis of the findings on the Fremantle council website. The council did not even have the courtesy to direct him to the website! I find this contemptuous act of disrespect so offensive I will be writing to the Minister of Local Gov and the council myself.

It was NOT a new and independent valuation. It is a report given under the direction of the lawyers to assess if the Murdoch’s valuation was done by acceptable methodology and that the increase was “WITHIN THE RANGE” of fair market rent.
(Would zero to 100 be within the range?)

The details of the report remain private and confidential. No one, not even the councillors get to see how the report was compiled and I don’t think anyone (other than the lawyers and the council administrators) knows what the lawyer’s direction was.
(Bear in mind the same lawyers implemented the lease and it is in their own interest to find in favour of the Murdoch valuation)

Why is this report not transparent to all concerned parties?

The report is dated 30th of June. Why has it been with the Murdoch and Council lawyers for a month?
(Surely, the valuers report, written in his own words and in full should be presented without any tampering or interpretation by biased parties.)

The bottom line is that the Stall-holders have agreed that they will accept the umpire’s decision and unfortunately this is it. No-one is fooled by any of this, but it is blatantly obvious that this is how the game is played and will continue.

Semantics aside, there is only one definition of fair market rent. The tenant’s right to refuse to pay it.

Already the markets are struggling to find new tenants. There are empty stalls there now and new, casual traders are being offered reduced or more succinctly, ‘subsidized’ rents. Long term tenants have walked and I personally know of at least twenty more making the transition out within the next few weeks. The markets over the past twelve months have taken on a tired, tacky lifelessness and still the Murdoch’s and the council live in denial.

Ironically, if they hadn’t been so defensive and hostile with the stall-holders they could have saved and maintained a much loved icon. Greed, incompetence and arrogance basically, but totally ignorant of the fact that it was always the stall-holders and the customers who made the markets the success that it was. 20 years is a long time, but hey, they climbed into bed together...


http://sonyagreen.blogspot.com/