Dear Mayor van Zetten and Councillors,
You are quite probably unaware of my current research focus which serendipitously keeps on bringing the CULTURALlandscaping at the confluence of two fresh water river systems and an estuary at kanamaluka Tamar ponrabbel – upon which Launceston is situated. You will however be aware of the increasing volume of various ‘disgruntled local activists’ calling for ‘the river to be cleaned up’.
Concerningly, most of commentary seems to be pointing to the advocacy of a HEROICengineering ‘solution’. All that I’ve noted you saying, albeit as subtext and quite often, is that this would be expensive and by extension you seem to be asking, and quite rightly, who will pay and for what? You are so right in taking this approach.
Because this unproductive, and largely ill informed, discourse falls into my lap so to speak, it is increasingly clear that there are quite a few ‘commentators’ with something to say, albeit from differing perspectives. All of them have concerns, all of whom have something to offer and all need to be heard. All together they are member of various layers of ‘the river’s Community of Ownership and Interest (COI)’.
To remind you, a COI is an all-inclusive collective/community of people, individuals and groups, who in many ways have multi layered relationships with a place or cultural landscape – e.g. roads, schools, a community service, a landscape – SEE [LINK]. It is neither feasible nor appropriate to rank these commentaries despite the typical knee-jerk reaction to do so.
Therefore, I suggest that it is increasingly clear that ‘the matter’ is essentially a cultural issue despite the city’s so-called ‘cultural strategy’ looking as it is, almost everywhere else for relevance. However, it is a cultural matter:
• Not exclusively a matter of ‘science’;
• Not exclusively a matter to do with ‘the environment’;
• Not exclusively a matter of ‘health’ – environmental or human;
• Not exclusively a matter of ‘engineering’ or even HERORICengineering;
• Not exclusively a matter of ‘economics’;
• Nor a political issue and certainly not exclusively in the political arena; albeit that none of these issues can be put aside in the exercise of ‘placemaking’ – the actual issue that clearly seems to be driving the ‘debate is cultural’ – and in the end, it’s at the crux of the matter.
The kanamaluka Tamar ponrabbel ‘debate’ is to do with ‘the nasty mud’, the one that’s currently in play and it is the one that is culturally driven – or put another way, largely to do with aesthetics. Nevertheless, one consideration does not by itself outweigh all, or any of, the others.
That said, the matter of the whole river cum estuary system’s pollution is a CULTURALlandscaping issue. It has been suggested that there are upwards of 20plus communities quite deliberately and mindlessly flushing their sewerage into ‘the catchment’ – the environment(!) – and that expresses itself very clearly in the confluence of the waterways. So, among the mix of ‘concerns and considerations’ it seems quite clear that incrementally increasing the disposal of human and animal waste ‘to the environment’ – via the waterways – for over two centuries now has, has had, and will have, increasingly concerning outcomes that will impact heavily on ‘placedness’ and the amenity of ‘place’.
What way forward?
I raise this matter with you again, and against the background of yourself, and on multiple occasions, being a blatantly antagonistic towards the very concept of ‘participatory democracy’ [LINK]
You have shown your disinclination to engage with such strategies in public, and significantly on the record in open Council meetings and on a number of occasions.
Nevertheless, with that said, I raise the issue again, and here, given that ‘Citizen’s Juries/Assemblies’ have consistently been proven to be productive elsewhere – and on multiple occasions. Here, in regard to the kanamaluka Tamar ponrabbel CULTURALlandscape, given the diversity of, and the scale of, the COI, the case for empanelling a ‘Citizen’s Jury/Assembly’ appears to be something more than strong. I suggest that there is compelling evidence that it a strategy most likely win community support given that it offers ‘all voices’ an equal opportunity to be heard in the context of deliberation rather than debate!
I now put this openly to you now, in as much as, ‘the commentary’ in the press, social media and elsewhere is out there pointlessly looking for a SILVERbullet – or claiming to have one available. Seemingly, ‘the players’ all point to Launceston’s city council and likewise assert that . While that might be misguided, nonetheless, Launceston might well take the lead in engaging with the kanamaluka Tamar ponrabbel CULTURALlandscape’s COI, the State and Federal governments and the various regional jurisdictions in regard to a more inclusive outcome.
Most of all, the important and impressive work of NRM-TEER [LINK] needs to be much better known and more openly acknowledged. I say so, given the careful, diligent and mindful attention this group has to its work in regard to ‘the health of the river’ albeit that it has not received, and clearly is not receiving, the appropriate recognition due to the group and the individuals within it.
Albeit that Citizens’ Juries have no legislative or regulatory authority, strategically, they have amassed a rather impressive record of creditability and a proven track record in regard to delivering appropriate outcomes where other strategies have not delivered.
I look forward to your considered response given all that is at risk relative to the confluence of waterways upon which the City of Launceston is located.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
Independent Researcher, Cultural Geographer & Cultural Producer
AND THEN THERE IS THE SPECTRE OF THE FLOOD
GO TO https://www.examiner.com.au/story/4979955/levees-avoided-losses-worth-260-million-in-june-floods/
The entire idea of a Seaport was both exciting, a fatuous mistake and finally, a fraud. We knew that the silt was a natural product of the two rivers, and it built up each and every year. Building the first seaport so far from the sea relying on an old, slow moving river whose main product was silt, was a folly flying in the face of reality. The latest seaport was fraud because it relied on 100 or so years of history of siltation being somehow reversible. Buyers and businesses in the seaport were excited by the concept until the raking and stirring achieved nothing but minor perturbations in the mud, and ther realities of not being able to insure their asset assumed a greater importance. THe Council raced to approve the idea of building a community of people who couldn't insure their buildings or businesses, and who would be stuck with a rapidlly devaluing asset as the silt continued to build. 52+ reports failed to convince the Council who, as usual, were easily swayed to spend more public money on a dodgy proposition. Now, it's tears all round with the main stakeholder fleeing to Beauty Point, the Council in denial and the proud property owners wearing the losses. All tiresomely predictable. And they don't want to talk about any of it because it just keeps exposing their guilt. Class action anyone? What other recourse is there?
ReplyDelete