$125,000 to stop a thin piece of wire
KU-RING-GAI Council has spent more than $125,000 of taxpayers’ money in its bid to prevent Orthodox Jews in St Ives from erecting an eruv. Revealed in council documents last week, the money was spent on lawyers as the council tried to argue its case against the proposal in the Land and Environment Court.
KU-RING-GAI Council has spent more than $125,000 of taxpayers’ money in its bid to prevent Orthodox Jews in St Ives from erecting an eruv.
Revealed in council documents last week, the money was spent on lawyers as the council tried to argue its case against the proposal in the Land and Environment Court.
An eruv is a thin wire that encircles an area to create a symbolic boundary, inside which Orthodox Jews can carry on Shabbat.
A total of $125,261 has been spent in the past nine months, including $88,003 in the quarter until March 2012, $30,410 in the quarter to December 2011 and $6848 in the quarter to September 2011.
Councillor Tony Hall said it was an outrageous amount of money and that lawyers’ bills will continue to roll in during the coming months.
“I think it’s a disgrace because we could build five roundabouts or a few kilometres of footpath for that money. It’s just crazy!” Hall told The AJN. “I find the attitudes of those in St Ives hard to understand, but for the rest of the residents of Ku-ring-gai, they would be horrified given that it is hard to find the eruv that already exists in Waverley.”
Hall said that the original case was based on emotions, not law, and that the appeals judge said as much.
“The commissioner said that if she had the power to approve the roads act application then she would when she approved the rest of the appeals that were lodged against council.
“The case is going to an appeal so it will cost another $20,000 or so again.”
While it is clear that individual councillors might oppose the amount of money that has been spent, an official statement from a Ku-ring-gai Council spokesperson defended the action.
“Councillors’ decision last year to reject the eruv was not taken lightly,” the spokesperson said.
He explained that when Ku-ring-gai Council rejected the development proposal last August, among its concerns were the visual impact of the eruv, public interest, and the impact on trees and vegetation.
“They carefully considered all relevant information, including a very large number of submissions from both sides of the debate.
“The decision was based solely on planning grounds and the need to consider the wider, public interest.”
The spokesperson noted that the legal costs were so high because there were nine separate appeals, they raised novel and complex issues, some of the appeals were amended by the Northern Eruv and that it took time, and therefore money, to liaise with the large number of residents that objected to the eruv.
JOSH LEVI
comments