With the year of ‘Miss-Information 2024’ so wonderfully, satirically, and artistically presented by the Echo on its holiday edition cover page, it is discouraging to see more of the same in a letter by local correspondent Dean Pressor, so soon in its very pages (January 1, 2025). ‘Media rat’ no doubt he is not, but his misleading claims on behalf of the group, ‘Let it Flow in Suffo’, cannot go unchallenged (the name of this group is actually ‘Keep the Flow in Suffo’).
There are several of these misleading claims. They include that, through his group, he is speaking on behalf of the majority of the Suffolk Park community; that the pertinent majority oppose traffic lights; and that a Suffolk Park Progress Association (SPPA) meeting was organised to engineer an obvious outcome. Further, whilst claiming too, didactically, to ‘educate’, it is apparent that the writer has not taken the time to source some of his own facts, and depended instead upon erroneous sources, I’d suggest from within this group, with a dedicated agenda of their own.
That Mr Pressor is not representing the views of the Suffolk Park community, specifically those immediately impacted by the dangerous intersection, but a much wider community base in ‘The Bay’, is evident in his discourse on the broader community’s historic activism and other contributions over time. That traffic lights are not the ‘Way of the Bay’ strengthens the conclusion. Some of these people from town and across the shire undoubtedly have implacable ideological convictions or commercial motivations behind the orchestrated campaign and illegal signage opposing lights in Suffolk Park. Traffic lights will simply not do, impacting as they might on the amenity and character of a lucrative real estate market.
It is patently not true to claim that a majority of affected residents in Suffolk Park, especially from beachside, do not want traffic lights. They may have preferred the roundabout option in the past, but it is well recognised after twenty years that this is not viable due to size safety constraints, with prohibitive costs constructing it. That is why after decades tirelessly advocating for the community, the SPPA has not been able to achieve a solution. It is also why most people attending a community meeting opted for traffic lights after listening to the options and summaries of Byron Shire Council (BSC) reports provided. Unlike those filling out an online survey, these residents had the opportunity to obtain an understanding of the traffic and safety reports, with their complicated and extensive documentation. The concentration of online comments on Hans Lovejoy’s story ‘Suffolk Park Residents call for halt to traffic light plans’ also make for interesting comparison in assessing claims for majority support, at least at the time of writing.
Similarly contestable, and evidence of misrepresentation, is the framing of the aforementioned meeting at the Park Hotel prior to BSC debate. Unlike Mr Pressor who was ‘aware of the 51-attendee vote at the SPPA meeting’ I was one of these attendees. It was not an ‘SPPA meeting’. It was organised at the request of BSC by the SPPA president and widely advertised to get a sense of LOCAL community feeling. The aim was not manipulation as is darkly suggested, by the ‘clear agenda’ of a ‘supporting association with dominant numbers’ seeking to establish an ‘obvious outcome’. Of which ‘the community is still only now becoming aware of this matter’. This is not respect for the organisation as is claimed in the opening paragraphs of the correspondence. It is inflammatory, arrant nonsense without a shred of evidence to support it. It is disrespectful in particular to the SPPA president who strove to act impartially and in good faith consistent with his decades of service to the community. There has been no meeting of the SPPA executive and membership since its AGM prior to the grant funding and its agenda tabling by BSC staff. The organisation has not taken a formal position. Most of the allocated time at the Ordinary Meeting for the speech in support of the motion emphasised the painstaking balanced approach in obtaining community views. Councillors, recognising the time constraints within two weeks to gauge them, acknowledged these services, as they did with the organiser of the ‘Survey Monkey’ survey who spoke against the motion. I suggest an apology to the SPPA and its president is immediately warranted.
In thinking it ‘best to educate’, Mr Pressor states that traffic lights twenty years ago did not meet Roads and Maritime Services Mandatory Traffic Safety Agenda. A question on precisely this issue was raised by the mayor and posed to Council staff. ‘This is really bugging me… What has changed?’ Technologies and infrastructure that have mitigated the safety issue, warning lights ahead of the intersection, etc. Interestingly, it was also pointed out by BSC staff that queuing traffic was a potential problem associated with the roundabout option as well as signals. Both could be managed. The Ordinary Meeting is available online and is an excellent source for members of the community to get more abreast of the issues. It is unfortunate that the correspondent did not consult it himself.
Much more could be said in critiquing this contradictory and misleading letter. If Mr Pressor has not got the name of the very group he represents correct, it is difficult to have much faith in the letter’s veracity and argument for the roundabout as his ‘final solution’ (yes, this term was used, twice.) 2025 as a year of Truth and Beauty? We can only hope!
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
