Our good samaritan - an update
Published 8 months ago in Where I Live.A few months back I posted the story of how our good Samaritan, a gentleman in his 60’s was watering council trees and his little pomerian ventured out the three metres to accompany him. Our hero walked back to replace the watering can when lo and behold our wonderful glen eira dog catchers nabbed him and fined him $161 for having his 3 kilo dog ‘at large’ – note it was not more than 4 foot away from him at any point in time.
Well I’ve heard on the doggy grapevine the sad, sad run of events. They are: not having paid the fine within the month, our good Samaritan received another threatening letter saying that unless you pay within the next two weeks we’ll take you to court. Our hero ignored this. Then there came a phone call from the dog catcher herself. Are you going to pay she demanded to know. The answer was simply – no, take me to court. Nothing happened then for months. Suddenly, as if by magic, our hero received another phone call from ‘civic compliance’ suggesting that if he had problems in paying then clowncil would extend the time to another forty days. The response was the same – ‘take me to court’! Well, the end result was that our good Samaritan was told to send in a letter and the fine would be ‘reviewed’. Guess what folks – the fine was ultimately rescinded. The ‘excuse’ provided was that under the pretext of ‘reasonable laws reasonably enforced’, clowncil had decided to withdraw the penalty. Aren’t they kind, caring, wonderful people?? Of course the truth of the matter is:
- had they been ‘reasonable laws, reasonably enforced’ right from the start, our hero should never have been issued with this fine in the first place
- doesn’t this make a total mockery of 100% success rate in prosecutions – of course clowncil may have 100% success rate, because they only prosecute when they know they’ve got 90% chance of winning!
- why did they withdraw this penalty – my guess is that they didn’t want the poor publicity; didn’t think they’d stand a chance given the way the legislation is currently written
- So what does this mean? How much have all these letters, officers’ time cost us, the ratepayers, for something that should never have happened and more to the point – why have they unnecessarily inflicted all this anxiety and stress on an elderly man who was simply doing council’s own bidding – ie watering their trees? But of course, common sense, does not apply here. And the lure of reaping $161 for ‘dog at large’ compared to $107 for ‘dog off leash’ may have also been an additional temptation?
- But the real question is: how many other residents would have stuck to their guns? How many have coughed up their hard earned money for something they should never have been accused of? How many have allowed themselves to be intimidated? The ‘moral’ of the story is that it takes courage to stand up for principle.
3 Responses to “Our good samaritan - an update”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
With a possible 27,000 dogs and cats living within Glen Eira, the fact that only 33 successful prosecutions were recorded says a lot about how rate payers money is spent.
I am pleased though that Council did back down, because some older folk get really stressed when threatened by bureaucracy. A lady I held a conversation with recently was severely traumatized by just being approached by an officer. Admittedly she appeared fragile to me, but even so, the maker of By Laws need to understand they are real, and sometimes, “scared” people they’re dealing with.
The hero in question showed resilience in not being intimidated, but the next person could suffer a heart attack. Most people don’t have the courage to withstand intimidating tactics of a system that believes laws (even bad ones) must be obeyed.
Just to add to the growing list of bully-boy tactics from council and the result of such tactics, here’s an article from the Dandenong Leader of this week (Esster) -
Council letter delivers health shock
Rebecca David
17Mar08
A DANDENONG South shopkeeper says his wife suffered a nervous breakdown after reading a letter from Greater Dandenong Council saying she faced $120,000 in fines.
Susana van de Weg, who co-owns Safari Antiques with her husband Gerald, was rushed to Frankston Hospital after reading the February 7 letter which stated their use of the Greens Rd property breached zoning policy.
It stated that a penalty of $120,000 would apply if the problem was not addressed with relevant planning approval.
Mrs van de Weg was in hospital for four days and continues to require counselling.
Her husband slammed the council for what he called a “crass and brutally ignorant letter”.
“Instead of like, shaking some handcuffs at us, this was like pointing a gun to our heads,” he said.
“My wife was just devastated when she read the letter, she started hyperventilating and having panic attacks.”
A Greater Dandenong Council spokesman said no fine had been applied to Safari Antiques.
“The letter gave notice that enforcement action would only be initiated if the matter was not addressed,” he said.
Mr van de Weg said many businesses on Greens Rd were flouting the “industry-based land use” required by current zoning.
“Now we are forced to sell all our stock at a huge loss as we have no funds or time to pursue the council through the courts,” he said.
Yeah, I read that one and remembered the lady about the dog being approached by the inspector. At a certain stage people become fearful and this is a classic example of overkill and not understanding fully the ramifications of bureaucracy.
I looked at the GE Communications officer sitting in on the recent Public Consultations and thought he looked quite unapproachable to the average individual, staring straight ahead with little evident humor. He isn’t like that really of course, but his attitude and intensity on the nights were not “inviting”….The other representative of Council looked open and friendly by contrast.