Urban food security, urban resilience and climate change - weADAPT

… the residents of S Park called a public meeting, which some of us attended,and the residents were extremely aggressive and they were really feeding offeach other and getting very, very upset about the situation...it was going to bringdown property prices and there was somebody there who worked in a real estateagents saying this again and again so they really picked that up. And then one ofour members was actually accosted [by someone] who said – you won’t get agarden there over my dead body, I don’t want o you hippies coming in sellingyour drugs and turning my kids into druggies – so that was very hard for some ofour members because most of them are older and retired. Most of them are notgardeners at all...a lot of the regular members are single women, older, around60...and R who’s a permaculturalist ...After this meeting it was clear to the group that this site was not viable because of theintensity of local opposition and they agreed instead to invite a council officer from GoldCoast Parks to attend one of their meetings to talk about what might happen next. Thishas not yet occurred and the group now rents a plot at a site run by Gold CoastPermaculture so that those keen to grow food are able to do so.The experience of dealing with the council has not been especially encouraging for thegroup, although they recognise that support has been forthcoming from both officersand councillors. The main problems appear to have been in relation to communicationand to joined-up local governance (or lack of it). It appears that a consistent messageabout what is possible and where it might be possible has not been forthcoming fromcouncil. This may well reflect a lack of communication between different sections ofcouncil. There is also evidence of a somewhat heavy handed regulatory approach,again compounded on occasions by poor communication. For example, in planning thefencing for their garden the group was required to obtain a number of quotes for theirpreferred fencing, but ultimately discovered, ‘...oh you can have any style of fence youwant, but it has to be three foot high with black mesh!’.The group also experienced significant problems in planning for toilet facilities, as oneof the designs presented to them (by one of the support officers) was for vegetablebeds accessible to people in wheelchairs. This in turn triggered a requirement toprovide a toilet accessible to disabled people and a debate about the scope forproviding a composting toilet that also met this requirement. The point is not that thegroup was opposed to making the garden accessible or that they were insistent on acomposting toilet, rather than what was acceptable or not to the Council was neverentirely clear to the group.These issues were compounded by the group adopting a highly participatory style oforganisation, which of necessity required meetings of the membership to determinetheir requirements and preferences. Unsurprisingly, after over two years of planning fora community garden but not achieving one, the active membership of the group hasdwindled to between 10 and 20 people, out of a total membership of around 90. Andsome active members are concerned that their initial reasons for joining are not beingfulfilled:I joined the garden to be outside and to talk to people; I seem to spend most ofmy time sitting in front of the computer screen doing the administration for it.Urban food security, urban resilience and climate change 55