Residents ignored

The Campbelltown Council’s proposal to realign its boundary with the Adelaide Hills Council is not without merit.
The metropolitan council argues that its ratepayers are subsidising services provided to Adelaide Hills ratepayers and that some affected residents are more affiliated with metropolitan Adelaide than the Hills.
It’s important the Campbelltown Council considers what is best for all involved – including its own ratepayers.
But the latest development in the saga – the silencing of a group of residents the plan will affect – suggests the metropolitan council is losing the PR battle.
The boundary realignment is a three-stage process and, under recent law reforms, every council has the right to seek a realignment even without the support of affected councils.
The Campbelltown Council’s decision to explore the possibility of change was entirely reasonable.
However, its insistence on pushing forward, despite failing to gain the support of most affected residents and the affected council may not work in its favor.
The Mayor’s decision to delete Facebook comments that oppose the plan only adds to the perception – whether accurate or not – that the Campbelltown Council is acting only in its own interests.
Everyone has the right – and indeed the responsibility – to monitor interactions on their social media platform.
Defamatory, rude or crude behavior shouldn’t be tolerated but the Morialta Residents’ Association argues its comments were none of those things.
Instead, it believes it was standing up for its community and was being ignored.
It’s been about six months since affected residents voiced their opposition to the Campbelltown Council’s plan via an Adelaide Hills Council survey about the proposal … but nothing has changed.
In any public policy change it is vital that all involved parties – including the public – approach the matter with an open mind.
But part of that is knowing when to stop.
The Campbelltown Council must now consider whether pursuing the boundary change will bring about the greater good for all involved and whether the pursuit of the proposed change is worth the potential fall-out.