Let me outline that there are a group of people who don’t want the trees to go, regardless of why. In my experience a large chunk of this group have either not looked at the truth of why they are going much or at all and many have unfortunately relied on mistruths that a small group have been perpetuating.

There is also a significantly larger group of people that want the trees to go. I would add that not many of this group seem to have gotten across the facts either.

Then there is by far the largest group of people who have made contact with me who would love the trees to stay, but have engaged with the reasons they must go and accept it. I fall into this group myself.

The five camphor laurels are being removed because of serious infrastructure damage (including three heritage buildings) and numerous expert reports (dating back to 2002) that they are approaching a dangerous level of ill health – the trees have not been well cared for over the years – including being totally crowned and then allowed to regrow huge limbs (as long as 15 metres) from those points – very dangerous, and having no area of aerated soil around them at all for decades now.

Despite many comments from ‘Monday’s experts’ that the arborist was lying or had a vested interest at the time, the first and only tree to be removed back in 2011 was indeed exactly as the arborist reported – full of heart rot. There is a sample of this particular tree at council if anyone needs to see it with their own eyes. 

Tree removal was not voted on by the current council, but by two councils ago in 2011 so myself, Dominic King and Toni Wright-Turner as the three greens councillors were not involved in the DA at all and yet have received a continuous stream of vitriol from a small group of people about ‘betraying our core values’.

The council-of-the-day stated that the remaining trees would be removed as and when street segments were upgraded (ie. funding-dependent).

We have reviewed huge amounts of that old information as well as current information (including the fact that hundreds of older people have had falls in the area in the last few years) to check if there is any possible solution that keeps the trees and I can honestly say that there isn’t. I wish there was, but were the tree removal to come to the current council we would have no option but to vote for their removal again as we don’t have the luxury of basing decisions purely on our feelings or the feelings of part of the community only.

We are legally bound to consider all views as well as safety, asset protection, financial responsibility, business needs, environmental outcomes, accessibility ... etc

What we actually voted for recently (and unanimously I might add) was to commence works on the Main Street Plan which has a huge NSW Government grant to upgrade the town centre to include disability access (finally), safer road crossing points, install traffic calming features, gardens with water permeability (currently not much of this exists) and around five times more trees – all of which will be natives, and hopefully mostly local natives which is a huge win.

The tree choice is about to go out for consultation online so get over to Create, the online portal, to have your say or drop me or councillor Steve Jenkins a line as we are on the committee to oversee that process.

The works also plan to bring in as mature as possible trees so the constantly spouted idea that we will have a concrete jungle or no shade are also patently false.

We have a future shade plan for the next generation which, if we just waited for these trees to get really dangerous/dying and lose this grant, we would have no money or plan for.

We only barely made it as ‘fit’ last year and so to turn down $741k for trees that have been given at most 10 years until they die based on their health would be completely irresponsible.

The upgrade follows all those principles of research that show that making town centres more about people and less about cars give environmental, social and economic outcomes too numerous to count.

The new spaces for people are bigger, flatter and have more room for seating, art and other cool stuff. With regards to council listening to community, firstly the consultation about the main street was the biggest this council has ever done and over 1000 submissions were made (huge for a shire of 12000 people that normally gets a few hundred at most) so the signs, petitions and comments that claim council has had no consultation or aren’t listening are patently false. Just because council makes a decision other than your option does not equal no consultation. 

To put some perspective in the views across the shire, I have received a total of seven formal submissions on this issue, five being after our decision date. I have been absolutely swamped with support for the decision in person, on Facebook and in personal communications. I would also like to touch on the two petitions that have been started on this issue.

Firstly neither were submitted before council made its decision, despite this issue being on the table for almost six years. One was submitted a week later but the other has still not been put to council despite news that the trees are being removed on this Sunday.

Secondly both have used obvious lies to gain signatures and are therefore invalid and unrepresentative. One contains over 50 per cent signatures from outside the Shire and yet clearly states that the undersigned are residents that use the area daily.

The online petition contained defamatory material about myself and all the other councillors, gained 700 plus signatures and then removed the defamatory content, also thus rendering the petition invalid. There has been no count of signatures outside the shire yet for this petition as it hasn’t been submitted.

I welcome people’s feelings and opinions but, really, a simple petition with integrity has still not been formulated and that’s a shame. 

What has been most difficult about this issue has been lies and mistruths being passed around as fact. I received a letter yesterday that didn’t contain a single sentence that was truthful and it was a page and a half long! It has been profoundly disappointing to see so many people spreading lies and mistruths and so many people believing them.

I have been personally vilified by some of these people because I made a little video about how real the access issues are in our town centre for our family (my daughter is a wheelchair user). Some of the stuff that came my way was absolutely disgusting. 

Allow me to elaborate on the list of lies and mistruths: that the trees are being removed because of their weed status; that they are being removed because of wheelchair access; that I somehow made the latter happen; that I control mayor Dominic King; that the streets are perfectly accessible; that because some people with disability (PWD) don’t find the town centre hard then none do (homogeneity among PWD); that the trees are being removed to make way for gravel truck movements; that camphor laurels make great colonising species (!), that the trees were planted in 1880 (definitely not there in photos dated 1922); the grant should/can be spent on X, Y, Z; the roots can be pollarded, shaved, capped; there has been no community consultation; that we should let the buildings go as they can be rebuilt and the trees as sentient being cannot; that the 2011 protests stopped the plan to remove the remaining trees; that platforms or boardwalks can be built above the roots and access and trees can co-exist; that the trees can live for 3000 years; that they provide habitat for animals; that they don’t spread seed; that they are heritage listed; that the Greens have a secret agenda – no one has actually explained what that might be – I can’t really refute that until they do. So far our agenda has been public and clear.

And more than 50 per cent of Bellingen townsfolk voted for us based on that agenda, including my very high-profile position on bring the town into the current century in regards to disability access and inclusion. If anyone needs any explanation of why any of the above are false, please just ask, I can speak to any of these points and have done to anyone who has asked. I have also been on radio, in the newspapers and on TV, as has Dominic, in addition to so many council media releases that I have lost count. The website is jam-packed with information too.

Please stop spreading untruths as it benefits no-one. Ask.

There has been a lot of talk about liability to council of falls so let me state for the record that I am less concerned by the financial implications of the claims than by what it means for our elders and other mobility-vulnerable people.

As I mention in the video above, falls are a high priority for prevention by governments because of the research that shows how frequently they are the beginning of a cascade of health decline for older people that ends in death. I don’t blame people for making claims – I know people have made claims – people don't claim to profit, they do it because suddenly they have dental bills or physio or other rehab bills that they simply cannot afford.

People without ambulance cover might also be more likely to make a claim because they have been transferred to hospital (and the cafe owners and staff have confirmed this has happened a great deal over recent years) but cannot afford the $300 to $400 bill.

So the trees are going this Sunday. And there are very important reasons for that. And I am sad too. And I am really glad to see some people stepping up to organise some community love, grieving and goodbye time for them and for us. I hope people can take the time to engage, read, ask and join us in the next stage for our town and our visitors.

Remember all change brings stage up for people.

Remember how vocal some people were about the Youth Hub?

The northern end of Church Street upgrade?

The Urunga to Hungry Head cycle path?

The Urunga antimony rehabilitation?

These are examples of people reacting to change. We need to move past reaction to action so that everyone in our community can be a part of our town centre.