TAMAR SAFETY

 

Swimming in the Tamar Estuary may \

never be safe again says the Tamar 

Estuary Esk Rivers management 

program

• 

  Jackson Worthington

Community

Recreational swimming in the Tamar Estuary near Launceston may never be safe again under Australian guidelines, says a scientist.

In the past residents of Launceston and surrounds could enjoy the waters of the Tamar Estuary with sand imported to create a beach at Royal Park.

Swimming was deemed unsafe due to a high level of pathogens in the water and could never be safe again for other reasons.

In the '90s pathogen levels in the yacht basin were measured at 3.8 million enterococci per 100 ml. Now they are measured at significantly lower levels thanks to a variety of improvements in waste water and sewage infrastructure around Launceston.

Enterococci levels are an indicator of the amount of faecal matter in the water.

Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers program manager Dr Jo Fearman said it was unrealistic to think the estuary would be a viable swimming location near Launceston.

 Source: TEER

She said the make up of the estuary wasn't conducive to recreational swimming.

"The natural features of the estuary, like tidal mudflats and turbid water, make it less safe to swim there," Dr Fearman said.

"It's location near a densely populated urban area means that when it rains, flows from the catchment and stormwater from the city increase pathogens and impact on water quality."

The National Health and Medical Research Council recommend swimmers have firm ground to enter the water and are able to see the bottom at safe swimming locations.

Our River - Exploring the health of the Tamar Estuary:

• How the Tamar became polluted and what is being done to fix it
• Chamber calls for independent body to oversee river cleanup
• Why the Tamar Action Group want more done to fix the river

Due to the mudflats and silt which is found in the Tamar Estuary neither of these guidelines will be able to be met.

Then there is the fluctuating pathogen levels found in the water after rainfall events. Due to Launceston's combined sewage system the level of pathogens in the water rises after it rains.

The combined system means that sewage and stormwater is flushed into the estuary when it is over capacity.

TasWater in conjunction with the State government and the City of Launceston Council are in the process of upgrading the combined system to increase its capacity.

Dr Fearman said due to the combined system it was recommended people don't swim in the river for three days after a rainfall event.

"Pathogen levels in the Tamar estuary near Launceston vary over time and are usually elevated after rain. Rainfall brings pathogens downstream from the rivers and also from the urban environment which all meet in the upper estuary," she said.

"Pathogen levels are regulated by Tasmanian regulations, which say that pathogen concentrations below 140 enterococci per 100mL of water is safe for swimming.

"Recently, enterococci levels have exceeded the public health guidelines in about a third of samples taken during monthly sampling of enterococci in the upper estuary, but testing doesn't always coincide with rain. Rain events are being monitored this year to look at the changes in enterococci when it rains."

Can Launceston Join The Dots?

 ATTENTION LAUNCESTON: 

Rather than the implementation of self-serving, self-congratulatory, totalitarian bureaucratic mono-cultural planning relative to ‘culture’, now might be a very good time to actually start a cultural shift towards dealing with the CLIMATE EMERGENCY – in accord with already determined policy – and start to be proactive and facilitate and encourage investment in:

• The producing blocks such as the ones below; and 
• The start of production of the class of sustainable built structures such as the ones below; and
• The start of proactivity in removing plastics from the waste stream that posits plastic waste generated in Tasmania at sea in Tasmanian waters;
• The start of proactivity in energising a local circular economy;
• The start of proactivity in regard to the community generation of energy.

 

None of this is rocket science and well within the technical capabilities of a whole range of people in the region. People are over the excuses that this kind of thing “takes time” but when no ‘time’ is given to the implementation of environmental sustainability the city’s credibility bubble has burst.

 

This is the work of local governance and its planning function. If it isn’t why do ratepayers pay out all the money they do for ‘civic services’?

 

 

WATCH AND LEARN

https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/videos/1318003255204866

 

WATCH AND LEARN

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=2587490348034833&set=a.324745890975968

 

 

WATCH AND LEARN

https://www.facebook.com/StartupSelfieOfficial/videos/287044836057927

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ray Norman

LOOSE LIPS DOING THEIR THING IN HOBART

At the conference, it is rumoured that Tasmania’s Liberal elder statesmen et al are starting to pay close attention to the goings on in the City of Launceston and it is not before time. 

The shenanigans going on behind closed doors, in camera and in the dark beggars belief. Yet that wartime cry that goes 'loose lips sink ships' might not be directly applicable but somehow it comes to mind.

Yet, the ship of state might be at risk in these 'difficult times'.

Launceston's mayor has not been in a good mood in recent times and he has been all over the place in the press saying this and something else next time. However, rumours about 'dummy spitting' are totally unsubstantiated, that's going on in Washington not Launceston.

Why the council is on its path to move the city's 'transit station' at great expense is a mystery. But being so cock sure of your plans is again turning out, it is said, to be yet another folly filled exercise that is said to be costing close to a $1Million without access to the land and with well perhaps that that is something for the future.

Around the. dinner tables, water coolers and coffee counters, councillors, and conference attenders, are being chatted about and nobody knows anything except all the names of those out of favour and others who are, it is said, cannot or should not be invited .... anywhere.

Then there are those who are 'not solid enough' but it'd be a good idea to look closer to home for leaks let alone on the battle front on Hobart's water font. Isn't that where leaking boats get to be parked ready for repair?

Do Town Hall's assertions pass the PUB TEST?

IN THE EXAMINER

 NOVEMBER 4 2020 - 3:23PM

Key creative precinct stakeholder 

evicted over 'unpaid rent'

• 

  Jackson Worthington

The City of Launceston council remains confident a $90 million CBD investment will go ahead despite a key stakeholder being evicted from its Cameron Street premises this week for allegedly failing to pay rent.

Private education provider Foundry was evicted from its Launceston residence, with a note saying the building had been reclaimed by the owners.

Foundry is a key stakeholder in a proposed $90 million creative precinct planned for the Launceston CBD with chief executive officer Chris Billings also heading the group behind the development.

In other news:

• Listen to our audio briefings on your smart speaker
• Melbourne Cup luncheon raises $3400 for charity
• Artists partner with Lifeblood to raise awareness for blood donations
• Nominations open for Launceston Business Excellence Awards

Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said the council had contacted Foundry about the rental dispute after media reports relating to the matter were published on Wednesday.

He said the council was working with Creative Holdings Pty Ltd and was confident commitments remained in place.

Chris Billings is the director of Creative Holdings and the chief executive officer of New Creative Group, an investment consortium made up of Foundry, For the People and Creative Property Limited.

"However we will be seeking further assurances from the entities involved," Cr van Zetten said.

Cr van Zetten said the council had multiple means to deliver a bus exchange, which is set to be part of the precinct, depending on future circumstances.

In related news:

• Questions raised over viability of proposed Launceston educational precinct
• Launceston creative precinct: $90m project unveiled
• Birchalls site to be revamped for food court, bus mall planned by City of Launceston

In a letter, sent to Foundry and seen by The Examiner, legal representatives for the owners of Foundry's Launceston campus said the organisation hadn't paid rent in months.

Rowan Browne, of FitzGerald and Browne, wrote that no evidence had been provided to show the organisation was protected by hardship rental eviction laws.

The outstanding rent owed by Foundry is $83,614.82.

In the letter Mr Browne also said unlike other businesses seeking rental exemptions Foundry had provided no information regarding their eligibility.

In response to questions regarding the eviction, what would happen to staff and students and the future of the Launceston creative precinct, Foundry's chief executive officer Mr Billings said it was inappropriate for the media to be interested in the matter.

He said the organisation had provided landlords with proof of their eligibility for JobKeeper.

"So many businesses are going through difficult times at the moment and just like us are working through these matters with their landlords under the coronavirus tenancy protection legislation," Mr Billings said.

"I have to ask why we have been singled out of the thousands of businesses going through these difficult times and the rental relief process."

When push comes to shove remember this when questioning the City of Launceston's ethics and morality

 

The Federal Government awarded Launceston, in Tasmania's north, a $10-million drought recovery grant to help build a "creative precinct" in the city's CBD, while knocking back a request for help from an east coast council that suffered one of its driest years on record.

Key points:

• According to the Better Regions Fund eligibility criteria approved projects had to provide economic benefit to areas in drought
• Grants ranged from $20,000 to $10 million and just three councils - Launceston, Coffs Harbour and Ballina - received the maximum amount
• Independent member Andrew Wilkie says the allocation of $10 million to the City of Launceston is "pork barrelling"

The City of Launceston was one of the three local government areas in Australia to receive a full $10-million grant under the most recently announced Building Better Regions Fund infrastructure grants program.

According to the eligibility criteria, approved projects had to provide economic benefit to areas that were either drought declared, had suffered a significant decline in rainfall or could demonstrate economic or employment decline because of drought.

Grants ranged from $20,000 to the $10 million — grants for the full amount were awarded to Launceston's council as well as the Coffs Harbour City Council and Ballina Shire Council, both in New South Wales.

Launceston's funding was announced last month by Bass Liberal MHR Bridget Archer, Bass Liberal MHA Michael Ferguson and Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten.

The money will go towards a new creative precinct on a car park in the city's CBD.

Independent Member for Clark Andrew Wilkie labelled the drought grant awarded to the City of Launceston a "rort".

He said the Hobart City Council, within his electorate, was told not to apply for the funding as only the Glamorgan Spring Bay and Break O'Day councils on Tasmania's east coast were eligible within the state.

"Launceston sits in the Bass electorate and clearly the Government thinks it's OK to unashamedly pork barrel to try and ensure the Liberal member's [Ms Archer] re-election," Mr Wilkie said.

"You'd think they would have been scared off from doing this, for a while at least, by the scandalous embarrassment caused by sports rorts."

Bass is one of Australia's most volatile electorates, and the seat has changed hands at eight of the last 10 federal elections.

Tasmania's east coast has struggled through one of its driest conditions on record.(ABC News: Mitchell Woolnough)

But a spokesman for Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said the creative precinct project demonstrated a "direct benefit" for a drought-affected region.

"This project was one of 163 funded through $207 million of available funding," the spokesman said.

"As individual applications are considered commercial-in-confidence, any specific enquiries about the application submitted by Launceston City Council should be directed to the council."

The City of Launceston chief executive Michael Stretton also defended the funding.

"The application for funding was made through a collaboration between the Coordinator General's Office and the City of Launceston in December 2019, and was required to meet a range of eligibility criteria," he said.

"At the time of the submission, Launceston and the wider northern region were identified as areas of severe rainfall deficiency, with waterway flows consistent with those seen during the millennial drought."

'Feel-good project for a marginal Liberal seat'

At a meeting in December, Glamorgan Spring Bay Council on Tasmania's east coast resolved to apply for funding to upgrade the Triabunna Wharf, develop a business case for a new mountain bike trail and write an economic development plan.

The requests came to a total of $295,000.

However, the cash-strapped council — which recently announced it could no longer afford to operate tourist information centres — was not listed as among recipients of the Building Better Regions grants.

That council's mayor Debbie Wisby could not be contacted for comment.

Lyons Labor MHR Brian Mitchell, whose electorate takes in Tasmania's east coast, said the drought funding given to Launceston was "absolutely scandalous and outrageous".

"There are plenty of areas in the state that could do with drought funding for worthy projects," Mr Mitchell said.

"This is just a feel-good project for a marginal Liberal seat."

Tasmania's east coast has been experiencing some of its driest conditions on record.

Mr Wilkie has written to Mr McCormack for clarification on why Launceston received drought funding, when the Hobart council was told not to apply.

"Not only did the Government misuse $10 million in one electorate, it also told the mayor in another electorate to not even apply for a grant, which had the effect of not only favouring one electorate but explicitly disadvantaging another," Mr Wilkie said.

The Break O'Day Council received $30,000 under the Building Better Region Fund's community investments program to help develop a recreational trails strategy.

Go to source:  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-09/pork-barrel-accusations-launceston-drought-federal-funding/12437412

Albert van Zetten and questions about the City of Launceston's alliances etc.

 Quite apart from anything else a question hanging in the air here is what alliances, ideological or otherwise, are there between the company and various individuals on Council that sets this company up for a strategic alliance that will impact upon the city’s fiscal sustainability. Then comes the question about what due diligence has been undertaken and that is an investigation that might pass ‘the pub test’?

 

A private education company partnering with Launceston City Council on a $90 million CBD creative precinct has been kicked out of its premises for failing to pay rent.

Key points:

• The landlord has taken possession of the Foundry site in Launceston
• Foundry is a key part of Launceston City Council's $90m creative precinct development
• Lawyers say Foundry has provided no evidence of hardship needed to rely on coronavirus eviction protections, but the school's director disputes this

Information obtained by the ABC shows Foundry is $83,614 behind on its rental payments for its Cameron Street facility, and has not made any payments for more than seven months.

Staff who arrived for work on Wednesday were greeted with a sign at the door saying "the property owner has re-entered and taken back possession of this property as at 4 November 2020".

It is understood the landlord has taken back possession of the property multiple times since 2017, and has now changed the locks.

Foundry, which also has a campus in Hobart, has been touted as the centrepiece of Launceston's proposed $90 million creative precinct project.

It was announced in June, with Foundry director Chris Billing also the sole director of Creative Property Holdings, another of the companies involved in the project.

The Federal Government has awarded the Launceston City Council a $10m drought recovery grant to help build the precinct.

Earlier this year the ABC revealed Foundry staff had not paid staff, and had not properly paid superannuation for several years.

'No evidence' for coronavirus rental protections: lawyers

Foundry has campuses in Launceston and Hobart.(Instagram: Foundry)

There are protections against eviction for commercial tenants suffering hardship due to the coronavirus pandemic.

However, lawyers acting for the owner of the Cameron Street property have written to Foundry saying no evidence has been provided to show it is eligible for those protections.

"More particularly, you have supplied no evidence that the company, as tenant, is entitled under the JobKeeper Rules and is an SME entity for the purpose of the economic response package legislation," the letter from law firm FitzGerald and Browne said.

"Demonstrating the company's entitlement for a JobKeeper payment or its qualification for the JobKeeper Scheme would have been a simple process.

"But you have chosen to ignore my correspondence."

The letter said requests for financial information from Foundry had been made, but the company had refused to provide it.

It asked Foundry to get in touch to discuss the removal of its possessions from the building, and said continued tenancy could be negotiated on the basis that six months' rent was paid in advance and three months' rent was held by the real estate agent as a bond.

"The tenancy cannot be leased to you until a fresh lease is signed by the tenant and guarantor," the letter said.

Mr Billing said Foundry was eligible for Job Keeper and that he had provided proof to the landlord's lawyer.

He said the media attention on the issue was "highly inappropriate" and he expected no further coverage.

"So many businesses are going through difficult times at the moment and, just like us, are working through these matters with their landlords under the coronavirus tenancy protection legislation," Mr Billing said.

"I have to ask why we have been singled out of the thousands of businesses going through these difficult times and the rental relief process.

"This inappropriate media attention places undue stress on students who have already had a difficult year and are heading into their end of year assessments, and the hard working staff of Foundry."

LAUNCESTONIANS SHOULD BE ALARMED, VERY ALARMED

JUST WHY might Launcestonians be alarmed? Given the increasing level of evidence that ratepayers, and by implication, 'renting residents and business people' too, are being considered by Town Hall as some kind of 'fiscal milch cow' by the Town Hall bureaucracy and 'executive'. That alone is alarming.

For what purpose one might ask? Well for just about any fiscal foible that comes Town Hall's way, and in locked step, and it'll be uncritically embraced. So,

• It is alarming that Town Hall appears to be in locked step with a fiscal partner that  is clearly experiencing serious and very concerning financial difficulties!

• It is alarming that it is said that at Town Hall accountability is seemingly envisaged as a discretionary activity!

• It is alarming that Town Hall seems to think that it is okay for rate payers and renters to underwrite highly risky enterprises that do not seem to promise a 21st Century outcome!

•  It is alarming that it is said that atTown Hall seems quite comfortable sharing a platform with a developer who for whatever reason  is apparently reluctant, for whatever reason, to call upon funding options to pay staff, pay for professional advice and indeed pay an outstanding rent bill!

• It is alarming that Town Hall appears to be pursuing development at any cost on the basis that any short fall can be recovered from ratepayers vis a levy, rates or a tax!

• It is alarming that Town Hall is so, so willing to be 'in business' on ratepayers and renters' behalf with an operation that has not, and appears unable, to pay its bills in full and on time!

• It is alarming that Town Hall can see its way clear to claim funding, $19 Million, and in "good faith", for a drought the city didn't experience as did so many other local government jurisdictions!

• It is alarming that Town Hall cannot see the lack of morality in the apparent politically manoeuvres devised to dud truly deserving funding applicants!

• It is alarming that Town Hall might consider using such funding for a civic project totally unrelated to 'drought mitigation'!

• It is alarming that Town Hall would even consider 'compulsory acquisition' to facilitate ill founded, inequitable and self-serving development proposition that is likely to deliver long term debt to ratepayers and residents without delivering commensurate benefits!

• It is alarming that Town Hall might even consider stooping to what is said to amount to bullying in order to gain access to property!

• It is alarming that Town Hall continually engages in development projects that falter at every turn, that inevitably exceed budget allocations and that fail every pub test on close scrutiny!

• It is alarming that Town Hall demonstrates what is said to be fiscal incompetence relative to almost every civic development!

• It is alarming that Town Hall expects all elected representatives to be sycophantically compliant and to disengage in any form of critical discourse!

• It is alarming that Town Hall, and on the record, is antithetic to meaningful 21st Century community consultation processes, to wit citizen's assemblies/juries!

• It is alarming that it is said that at Town Hall every opportunity to squash elected representatives opportunities to deliberate upon contentious civic matters in open council!

• It is alarming that at Town Hall elected representatives cannot request, and expect to get, credible financial reporting as it is in evidence and on the record!

• It is alarming that at Town Hall there appears to be nobody, not a single councillor in particular, with 'the bottle' to call out a lack of accountability, blinding inequity, fiscal folly, flawed sustainability, non-performance, or anything in any way contestable in reality!

• It is alarming that it is said that the press in Tasmania is so, so disinclined to engage in any kind of critical discourse that would disrupt the status quo at Launceston's Town Hall, despite the evidence that it well might be serving its public better by doing so!

OPEN LETTER What might this be about? Any ideas anyone?

Dear Premier and Ministers, 

Be it the case or otherwise, but rumour has it that Thursday’s meeting, as advertised, is to be held:

• Behind closed doors; 

• In deadly secret; 

• In the dark; 

• Well away from any kind of community scrutiny; and 

• With a secret agenda. 

Whatever the agenda, clearly its going to be about backing the GM/AKA CEO’s personal agenda whatever that may be. 

Speculatively, and as is widely rumoured, on the agenda, is his bid to 'compulsorily acquire' the Myer Carpark site. Put another way, endorsing his ‘power thrust’, so far unsuccessful apparently, in the hope of generating a ‘vicarious buzz’ perhaps to infect ‘the entire council’ – who knows. 

But why the secrecy? 

• Yes, the carpark site would be a good site for a transport terminal and well yes, the city’s CBD is dying as are CBDs nationally and internationally too apparently. 
• Yes, every development project directed at reviving the CBD as gone way over budget and has fallen short. 
• Yes, tenants are apparently fleeing the mall. 
• Yes, property values in ‘the city’ are falling as are rents but not rates. 
• Yes, the carpark owner’s investment in ‘his property’ is almost without doubt delivering a return pretty much unachievable elsewhere.
• And yes, there are other venues in the city for a 21st C transport terminal. 

Likewise, the supposed ‘co-developer’ comes with compromised credentials and is apparently proposing to embark upon an enterprise laden with risk and in a fiscally struggling city. 

If they, as developers, were truly serious and focused on an appropriately credentialed operation they would be spoilt for alternative sites currently. If they were really looking for anything more than a ’free kick’ from Launceston’s ratepayers, what might that be? 

Given that it seems that it would be highly unlikely to be ‘ratepayers’ who would willingly endorse such a project/development, why meet in camera otherwise?

This ‘development’, most likely, as widely rumoured, is that which is being deliberated upon. It looks like it will be in its totality a lose, lose situation for ratepayers, so is that the rationale for secrecy? 

The level of transparency in the decision making here might well be equated with that found inn solid concrete. Not as the Premier when Minister for Local Govt. advocated for, transparency and accountability. 

Why isn’t the city ‘collaborating’ with the owner rather than, as it seems, bureaucratically bullying the owner into submission via council’s – given the GM/AKA CEO’S SECTION 62/2 of the Act – extraordinary powers to compulsorily acquire property for the ‘greater good’. 

What is the greater good here? In fact, is anything like the ‘greater good’ the case here? It does seem however that ‘the deal’ as discussed/rumoured has anything but the greater good driving it. Winning an aspiration maybe, but the ‘greater good’?

Ratepayers and residents are to be locked out it seems as it seems councillors too apparently. This meeting is, apparently, all about the assertion of ‘power’, nothing more, nothing less. 

Ratepayers, in the rumoured scenarios, will be victims rather than beneficiaries, but who cares? It is widely rumoured that the operational wing think that if you, as administrators/managers, make a mistake you can always tax the ratepayers. It is in-house wisdom apparently.

What seems to be missing at every turn is the ‘social licence’. 

However, is it being sought? SECTION 62/2 of the Local Govt. Act is careless of such things. Does anyone remember the social licence Gunns assumed that they had, or should have had, or indeed they said they were entitled to, for a pulp mill on the Tamar? 

This missive might well be peeing up wind into a force10 gale, but that’s the lot of hapless ratepayers. And, the ‘elected councillors’ will quite probably not see ANY veracity at all in the rumouring that is being passed on here or indeed have a concern for ‘the citizenry’. 

Council’s civic accountability will inevitably reveal itself as such things do. That famous quote about truth ... “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself” ... is as reliable as it has always been down the centuries. Will anyone confront the lion? 

The fear of judgment is the mark of guilty knowledge and the burden of insecurity which is why shonky decisions are made in the dark, and murder trials take place in the light of day out in the open with citizens determining guilt or otherwise. 

Yours sincerely,

Ray Norman

For and on behalf of the Launceston Concerned Citizens' Network