I’ve written before about Cubbies adventure playground in Fitzroy, and recently became aware that it will receive significant new funding from the federal government. Jenny Macklin’s 17 May 2010 press release reveals that Cubbies will receive $768,000 funding until 30 June 2014. The Herald Scum labels this pork-barreling aimed at keeping the ALP’s federal member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, in parliament.

Given that Cubbies has received state government funding in the past decade to upgrade its facilities, do they need so much money? I have no criticism of Cubbies, only of the government. Is this a genuine priority or a cynical attempt to bribe inner city people unwilling to vote Labor? This kind of bribery won’t work on childfree inner city types like me.

I’m struggling to find anyone to vote for, state or federal. ALP, no, because of their anti-sex and pro-censorship worldview. Liberals, no, because of their opposition to decriminalising abortion and other antiquated values. Greens, never again after they pre-selected the pro-censorship Clive Hamilton last year. Looks like I will be voting informal for the rest of my life.

Cubbies adventure playground receives new funding

13 thoughts on “Cubbies adventure playground receives new funding

  • 9 June 2010 at 1:08 pm
    Permalink

    Ever heard that saying about the perfect being the enemy of the good? Voting informally seems like a cop-out – pick the candidate or party that is closest to your world view, you’re never going to find perfect alignment. At least that’s what I tell myself…

    Reply
    • 9 June 2010 at 2:23 pm
      Permalink

      But agreeing to policies I think are wrong by voting for a broad party platform with good and bad policies is unacceptable. I’m very disappointed with the Greens and their recent endorsement of censorship, which to me is incompatible with their human rights policies. This is something I cannot compromise on.

      Reply
  • 9 June 2010 at 3:05 pm
    Permalink

    It’s not clear to me that the Greens as a party endorse the net filter – clearly endorsing Hamilton gives credence to his position, but my understanding was that their party position was much more cautious than his personal one. Even then, I think compromise is inherent in voting – I can’t imagine a political party meeting every one of my requirements. It seems to me that engaging in our democracy at all implies supporting at least some policies that you think are wrong. That might be tough to take, but I’m not sure complete disengagement is a better answer.

    Anyway, this is not particularly relevant to Cubbies anymore is it? Sorry.

    Reply
    • 9 June 2010 at 3:27 pm
      Permalink

      It’s fine to go off topic as long as the topic is interesting :-)

      Reply
  • 9 June 2010 at 4:44 pm
    Permalink

    Yes, Cubbies does need the money. I walk past Cubbies every evening, and there are many kids there. It provides a safe, supervised space for many kids in the area where there is enough space to run, build stuff and pat a rabbit. Compared to other community adventure playgrounds in Melbourne (e.g. Kensington and St. Kilda) it is underresourced. The amount of money is a tiny drop compared to the amount spent on resources for cars (i.e. roads). No need to be so cynical.

    Reply
  • 11 June 2010 at 9:55 am
    Permalink

    As someone that works at the Prahran adventure playground, I can say that no amount of funding would be too much for one of these playgrounds. They serve a vital function to the families who use them, and to the community in general. More funding into programs like this will almost certainly reduce crime and other antisocial behaviour and be saved in the justice system anyway.

    Even if it is just a way to win votes, it is much needed money and shouldn’t be complained about

    Reply
  • 21 June 2010 at 9:58 pm
    Permalink

    Hmmm. As a worker at Cubbies I can assure you that we were seriously FACING CLOSURE before we received confirmation of this funding. Without it, we wouldn’t be able to continue to provide such a valuable service to the kids in the housing estates.

    “So much money” Will ONLY JUST cover staff wages for the next 4 years. We are Not for Profit, the kids come and go for free, so with no dollars coming in from anywhere else the money was not so much of a bonus but a necessity. We will still struggle under this amount. It is actually LESS than what we have received from the government in recent years.

    If you think this is too much money that was given to the playground to secure the bourgeois fitzroy vote, you are missing the whole point of cubbies. These voters represent a tiny tiny number of the parents we deal with. We exist for families who cannot afford daycare. As stated previously, we wouldn’t survive without this money.

    Your ignorance on this matter surprises me. Perhaps you do not know your precious Fitzroy as well as you thought.

    PS – Tim: hear hear.

    Reply
    • 21 June 2010 at 11:11 pm
      Permalink

      The bourgeois voters whose votes I am suggesting are being bought are not the parents of the kids who attend Cubbies, and I never said they are. Poorer voters are likely to vote ALP anyway. It is the richer locals who need to be persuaded.

      I’m suggesting that the idea of funding organisations like Cubbies is being used as a political tool through the strategically timed release of press releases like the one I have discussed in this story. I remind you that I wrote ‘have no criticism of Cubbies, only of the government’. So I think you are missing the point.

      Reply
  • 22 June 2010 at 2:21 am
    Permalink

    The new funding coincided with the ending of our old funding agreement. Not the election.

    The richer “locals” (which in itself is questionable) don’t really have much to do Cubbies anyway, I doubt their vote would be swayed. Most of them think we’re a bit of an eyesore!

    It just hurts when you make out like we are a money gobbling political tool. When I know from the inside that we’re struggling so much. Your limited grasp of how much money it cost to run a small organisation lets your argument down here.

    Reply
    • 22 June 2010 at 7:50 am
      Permalink

      You’re misreading what I am saying. I’m not suggesting Cubbies is actively involved in the politics. It is simply the subject of the political games being played. The press release makes no mention of historical funding and has been written to imply that the money is a big new commitment. I’m questioning the interpretation of this. You seem unable to grasp the obviously stated fact that I am not criticising Cubbies itself. It’s impossible to have a discussion if you insist on deliberately misrepresenting what I have said.

      Reply
  • 22 June 2010 at 4:26 pm
    Permalink

    What?

    Brian, you cant say that. “Deliberately misrepresenting?” Eh?

    You say that you’re not criticizing cubbies but then go on to make them out to be the bad guys. Ok, never stated, but implied for sure. Eating taxpayers money and all that.

    “goosey” I wouldn’t reply. This is obviously a one way publication. Not open to forum.

    Bah. I thought this was a blog about fitzroy,not some dude pushing his IGNORANT political rants down our throats. I’ll stop coming by I think.

    It’s easy. Vote green.

    Reply
    • 22 June 2010 at 5:18 pm
      Permalink

      This is why I get so bored with people like you. You acknowledge that I don’t criticise Cubbies (and I haven’t) but then you assume without any evidence that I nonetheless am criticising them. I’m not interested in your distorted misinterpretation of what I have written.

      And if you missed my criticism of the Greens in this post let me repeat: I will never vote for the Greens again after they pre-selected the pro-censorship Clive Hamilton last year.

      Learn to read, then think, before replying.

      Reply
  • 22 June 2010 at 4:31 pm
    Permalink

    PS – “goosey” dont let him feel disheartened about the funding – you guys deserved it and we understand that it was needed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *