Kings Park cabins YOUR SAY

AGAINST

FOR WEALTHY ELITES

No, absolutely not. It’s the thin edge of the wedge for wealthy elites.

Chris Bailey

DISRESPECTFUL & ELITIST

No, just no. It feels disrespectful and elitist. Kings Park cannot truly belong to the people of WA when you go against a basic tenet since inception and make some areas off limits and only available to an entitled few. It just feels wrong. No to accommodation in our park.

Natalie Terry

BOTANIC VERGE

Our Premier Roger Cook is a true visionary, preparing to solve the housing crisis in WA with major building on some vacant land, formerly known as ‘Kings Park’. The three cabins are surely but a precursor of multi-storey luxury accommodation overlooking the most scenic areas, and more affordable construction in the (soon-to-be former) bushland centre of this prime real estate.

To be fair some of the Botanic Gardens will no doubt be kept for public enjoyment and will be renamed the Botanic Verge.

Families of modest means have for far too long wasted this valuable land, paying nothing for million-dollar views that should be netting the government a huge backhander from land developers. We should welcome these ‘temporary’ cabins to ensure that the deserving wealthy can enjoy the benefits of luxury city living.

Peter Markham

DEFINITE OPPOSITION

Definitely opposed to this proposition. Too much commercial and privatisation in the State these days. It’s a park for everyone. An A Class Reserve. Keep it that way.

Audrey Dawson

EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTING

It is extremely disappointing to see tiny cabins available for rent in Kings Park. This is a park that six million people are happy to visit to see the local flora and natural beauty. There are perfectly good lookout areas in the day time without any need for cabins.

There is no need for accommodation on Forrest Drive. There is plenty of accommodation around the vicinity that will gladly take the business.

The park needs to uphold the by-laws of the Crown Law Department. I strongly urge that people speak up and voice their displeasure at this idea from Premier Roger Cook.

Judy Kozak

BAD IDEA

Is accommodation in the “People’s Park” a good idea? No it is not. This looks, feels and sounds like the thin end of the wedge, especially when our Premier is espousing: “This is the start of a new era for Kings Park, as we explore new opportunities for hospitality and accommodation in the park itself” — ignoring the fact it is an A Class Reserve which forbids this sort of activity within its by-laws.

It seems “a park for the people” and “for the children 1000 years hence” does not mean a great deal anymore.

The operator of these cabins is a business offering “premium off-grid and eco-friendly accommodation all around Western Australia”. In the case of Kings Park, this is achieved by blocking off access to part of the “People’s Park” by the people for a commercial gain.

The photo of a Heyscape area alongside the Firefighters’ Memorial Grove sums it up — a fenced-off building site for commercial gain which denigrates this and other memorials along Forrest Drive and within Kings Park itself.

Russell Patterson

NEVER ALLOW IT

In my opinion, accommodation in Kings Park (the “people’s park”) should never be allowed. It would be the thin edge of the wedge in totally ruining what has been set up to be available for people to see what is authentic to Perth and WA.

When my cousin and her husband visited here a few years ago they welcomed being able to go to Kings Park as an easy way to see all the plants of WA, without having to travel umpteen miles in the short time they were here — and to have the totally uninterrupted view from the park over Perth waters.

It’s about time there was something set in place legally that for all eternity would prevent the park from becoming just another housing development.

Margaret Anne Ryan

ROAD CLOSURE

These cabins look unsightly with the construction fencing placed around the cabins. They are more suited to open areas and not plonked in a car park in the middle of a public park.

I used to take my 90-year-old mother to Roe car park on a weekly basis as it has the best views of the city and is the most accessible area for my elderly mother but we haven’t been able to go due to the road being closed for weeks. It’s so disappointing. I really hope the WA Government reconsiders bringing these cabins in permanently.

Brendan Allen

A DUMB IDEA

Accommodation in Kings Park — what a dumb idea. Kings Park is a quiet place for families in Perth to get together and overseas and interstate visitors can learn about WA flora and fauna. Not a hotel! It would be the thin end of the wedge and then all the other silly ideas will follow. Why is it that the Labor Government always wants to mess things up?

Paul and Pat Bebbington

THROW THEM OUT

1. Their installation is probably an unlawful use of an A Class Reserve.

2. Aesthetically they are an affront to the environment and with their eyesore of sewerage and water supply facilities they constitute a squalid intrusion into the landscape.

3. Their installation and associated closure of Forrest Drive have constituted, and continue to constitute, a “nuisance” at law to free access to the park.

4. Education of the citizens of WA as to the treasure that is the unique flora of the park is best served by joining a free walk regularly conducted by the volunteer guides of Kings Park.

5. Placing one of these monstrosities adjacent to the Firefighters’ Memorial is an insult to those who so valiantly serve the community.

6. To charge $1000 for two nights accommodation is a gross insult to those seeking reasonable accommodation during the crisis of housing affordability.

7. To imagine that these sheds will become a “tourist attraction” for visitors from Rome or New York is, simply, delusional.

Throw them out!

Gregory Boyle

NO CONSULTATION

I do not support the decision to build cabins in Kings Park. This decision was made with no consultation. I and a number of others were unaware this was happening.

Jan Rakich

NO BENEFIT TO PUBLIC

Kings Park was proclaimed for the people of WA. It is slowly being changed with restaurants, children’s nature areas and buildings to do with research taking up space. However, these are all positives for both the environment and all people who visit the park.

Activities such as the lights or concerts bring people together and are short-term. The small units for overnight accommodation are only for a select few and stop people using those areas so are of no benefit to the wider public or the park.

Barbara Kington

REALLY BAD IDEA

Having accommodation facilities in Kings Park is a really bad idea!

Jeff Bowen

EMPHATIC

Emphatically NO.

Chris Clare

LOVE TO DRIVE THROUGH

Kings Park is the most beautiful and tranquil part of a visit to Perth. There is no need close off the best roads for driving through the park to see the views. We love to drive through every time we come to Perth. Why turn it into an accommodation venue, there are plenty of hotels in the vicinity. In my opinion, Kings Park doesn’t need accommodation.

Sue Robertson

WINNER WITHOUT JUNK

NO, NO, NO to this idea and anything like it! This park has just been awarded a top tourist attraction in all of Australia — without the junk imposed on it recently — for its glorious natural attractions.

Accommodation in Kings Park is the craziest idea ever. What are the board doing to let this happen? Where are environmentalists? Where is Reece Whitby? Isn’t he supposed to look out for things wrecking the environment?

Who is to benefit from tacky “little homes” spoiling the landscape for people who come there to enjoy nature?

So precious. Any thinking person must be opposed to this trashing of our special place.

Marian Hillam

AGAINST FOUNDING FATHERS

I am so glad you are highlighting the glamping trial in Kings Park, which is a ludicrous idea “to liven up Kings Park” (Roger Cook’s words). That seriously goes against the founding fathers’ vision for no accommodation. Apart from which it is visually offensive to millions of park users who are unable to camp there.

Carol Wilkins

GRADUAL ENCROACHMENT

NO to allowing accommodation to become part of the Kings Park landscape. I see it as the thin edge of the wedge that will gradually encroach on the enjoyment of the use of the park for the general population.

Mary Owens

STICK WITH THE VISION

I find it unbelievable that anyone would consider placing three accommodation units in Kings Park. For what purpose? Even at thousands of dollars a night, it would have no impact on the cost of maintaining our beautiful park. I even regret that maintenance sheds are allowed to be built within the park.

Catering for tourists and locals with meals and cafes is fine, but only as currently installed or where attractions bring groups.

I love taking my grandchildren to the Park and strolling along the pathways. I don’t wish to have to come across accommodation chalets at each turn. Three now will be 20 next year, etc.

Stick with Sir John Forrest‘s vision, please.

Terry Allen

STOP DESECRATION

We must stop this vulgar desecration of our world renowned Kings Park and Botanic Garden immediately.

Geoff Dodge

HOW LUCKY WE ARE

Thank you for highlighting the concern felt by many over the commercialisation of Kings Park.

I was a guide there for five years from 2008 and without fail visitors would comment on how lucky we are to have retained this remnant of native bush so close to the city centre.

Its retention has been hard fought and it astonishes me that Roger Cook and Reece Whitby do not seem to understand or respect this history.

I sincerely hope that public opinion will prevent further folly.

Barbara Foulsham

IS NOTHING SACRED?

It is with dismay that I read of plans for Kings Park. Mr Cook and developers, keep your greedy hands off that park! The by-law says no person shall camp, lodge, sleep or tarry overnight. And don’t you dare change those laws! No trial accommodation in that park! Is nothing sacred? That park is for the people please keep it like that. A big thank you to Dr Hopper that made the fauna what it is today, for future generations to enjoy. We hope.

Tove Mackay

FLABBERGASTED BY EXCLUSIVITY

I don’t agree with the proposal at all. Why enable a small, very exclusive minority to have the privilege and close part of the park off to the general public? The price tag of almost $1000 for a minimum two-night stay means that only the wealthy and privileged will be able to access the accommodation.

That is completely out of the scope of the park’s intent, and I am completely flabbergasted that this exclusivity is being enabled at the expense of the general public’s access to the park. To add insult to injury, it is a private company that will be profiting from the initiative, not even the local taxpayers.

Angie Rabbitt

SHOCKED & HORRIFIED

We are not in favour of this idea. My wife and I are shocked and horrified at this idea. We totally believe that it should be maintained as the People’s Park, with no special access for those who are more financially advantaged. Physical structures in Kings Park should be minimal, and we should be maintaining the very special botanical nature and preserving the by-laws that “no person shall camp, lodge, sleep or tarry overnight”.

This already-introduced tiny cabins trial is bad enough, but even worse is Roger Cook’s statement that: “This is the start of a new era for Kings Park, as we explore new opportunities for hospitality and accommodation in the park itself.” What Mr Cook is implying is that the three tiny cabins is just the start, and we could see anything up to multi-story hotels in Kings Park.

If we hear of organised protests against Mr Cook’s idea for Kings Park, we will be very active participants.

Neil and Denise Chugg

RESTRICTING ACCESS

If both Fraser Avenue and Forrest Drive are closed, this makes it difficult to locate accessible parking bays in prime locations on both of these roads.

My husband is legally blind and when we are in Perth visiting specialists, he likes nothing better than a visit to Kings Park for lunch or just coffee, and a visit to Aspects. You might say that there a parking bays for people with disabilities in the main car park, however these are usually occupied and limited. We use the disabled bays opposite Fraser Restaurant in Fraser Avenue.

The proposed road closures will also restrict many of the small buses bringing residents (such as my parents) from nursing homes for a drive to Kings Park, just to exclusively accommodate people who can afford almost $1000 for two nights in Kings Park — the supposed People’s Park.

I would suggest the proposal is discriminatory. Please record our disappointment with such a proposal.

Tiiu Stojanovic on behalf of Peter Stojanovic

PART OF ME NOT KEEN

I like tiny houses and think they are a great idea. Not sure we need them in Kings Park — the People’s Park — where the only people staying there will likely be tourists.

Not all people can be trusted to keep places nice, clean, free of rubbish and not trample on plants or otherwise damage them. And will the accommodation be safe from anyone passing through who might decide to damage them? We have plenty of idiots around our fair city who’d think that might be fun.

And when will these two or three accommodation spaces not be enough and more approvals will be requested and more units erected in other areas around the park?

Part of me likes the idea but part of me is not keen. So I think I’d like to keep Kings Park as a park, free of accommodation. It’s easy enough to enjoy it without needing to sleep in it, there’s plenty of accommodation nearby. The six million annual visitors have managed OK, so far.

Pamela Robb

FOR

None.

(Editor’s Note: Not even a “proportional representation”. Just none at all.)