Turbine turbulence reflects business impotence in the city

It's hardly news that business is under-represented in the City of Perth; we've run a number of stories to that effect in recent years.

Despite the huge budget commanded by the City of Perth, almost all of which is funded directly or indirectly by commercial activity, business has an ever-diminishing say in the composition of the council, which itself has one of the smallest electorates in the state.

Only 4,656 votes were cast last year to decide on five councillors.

That means only 932 votes were needed to win a council seat. Only one councillor, John Tognolini, got that in the initial round with 987 first preferences.

In mayoral race, Lisa Scaffidi received 1,911 first preference votes from 4,812 cast. Her nearest rival, Michael Sutherland, received 1,464.

According to the city's electoral coordinator, Ken Evans, the 2007 election roll totalled 10,513, made up of 4,787 non-resident owners and occupiers (which I'll refer to as businesses) and 5,726 residents on the roll.

Just more than half the registered businesses actually voted in the city's election last year- 2,550 businesses.

At the 2005 election there were 4,460 non-resident owners and occupiers and 4,833 residents for a total of 9,293 on the roll. Only 3,903 votes were cast at the ballot, 2,084 from the business sector.

In the 2003 election there were 4,705 businesses on the role and 3,888 residents, totalling 8,593 registered voters, from which 4,373 votes were cast, 2,540 being from business.

And, since 1995, despite massive growth in the commercial grunt and employment in the city centre, the business vote has waned from 57.2 per cent of 5,842 registered voters to the current situation where it is in the minority at 45.5 per cent of 10,513 voters.

You can see from this the growth in the residential population compared with business voters, and you can see the actual business vote by number has remained largely static.

This situation is likely to continue with building of apartments going ahead at full throttle as the city seeks to increase the number of residents within its boundary, ostensibly to provide life in the CBD.

What these numbers don't show, though, is how biased the system is against the business sector, even though it pays most of the rates, and attracts into the city the vast majority of people who visit either for employment, commercial or shopping reasons.

Huge businesses employing thousands get as little as two votes, giving them as much clout as a couple living out their dream retirement with a dose of inner-city living.

Under the current local government system, each resident who is on the state electoral roll is automatically registered to vote in the council elections, while businesses have to be much more proactive to become enrolled.

Furthermore, business occupiers (not owners) are dropped off the register after two elections, meaning the diminishing business voice is harder to harness.

All this makes residents a more lucrative catchment for would-be councillors seeking a seat, or those aiming for re-election.

The reason I raise this is not to demean the election wins of these councillors. While I find the number of votes cast appallingly low, I do believe the scrutiny applied to the City of Perth ensures a better class of candidate.

However, politicians are politicians. They need votes to keep their jobs and, with so few votes needed to win or lose, they are likely to make decisions based on the needs of a relatively few voters. This makes residential votes very powerful indeed.

My concern remains that the business heart of Perth is captive to the vested interests of a few residents who have a big voice in the city's affairs, even though they have comparatively little at stake. This is not how democracy is supposed to work.

As I've already stated, the idea of having a residential community in the city was supposed to bring life back into the central business district.

But I really do wonder about this objective.

There are many instances of commercial operations curtailing their operations or even closing down because of residential incursion.

Bars, pubs and restaurants - supposedly the very businesses that should thrive from a growing nearby audience - have regularly been at loggerheads with their residential neighbours, mainly over noise.

The irony in those examples is thick.

The latest example of this conflict is last week's planning committee decision to reject an application to build three wind turbines on top of the Stockland's new Durack Centre development on the corner of Terrace Road and Victoria Avenue.

The 65 objections to the nine-metre turbines came mainly from a neighbouring Altair apartment block with residents' concerns being mainly visibility and noise.

Whatever the detail in the arguments, here lies the problem: people who move into the city still want to pretend they live in the 'burbs. In my view, if you don't like noise, the CBD isn't the place for you.

Despite this obvious weakness in the residents' argument, those 65 votes give them a lot of power in an electorate where less than 1,000 votes gets you a seat on council.

It's unfortunate that, when the various suburban attachments were excised from the CBD in the mid-1990s to form the condensed heart we now call the City of Perth, more thought wasn't put into zoning the city to reduce the impact of residential power when it comes to operating a commercial district.

Land or strata titles ought to have so-called tombstone elements to highlight that noise, commercial activity and big buildings are what you get when you move into a city centre.

Unfortunately, it is getting increasingly difficult to implement such changes as the residential population grows.

The state may well have to intervene, especially if it really wants to deliver on its goal of developing the foreshore. Already we've seen some in the council balking at what the state proposes.

What's going to happen if a few hundred residents complain their view will be spoiled by new riverside towers, let alone lots of people coming in to ruin their quiet evenings at home?

This is one time business should be standing up for what it believes in and demanding a greater say in the affairs of the council it funds.