Climate change data shows city's danger

Hayden Johnson 23 May 2017, 6 a.m.
WET: New data shows what parts of Launceston will be inundated when sea levels rise across eight decades. Picture: Coastal Risk Mapping

The University of Tasmania Stadium and other parts of Launceston are predicted to be inundated by rising sea levels within 83 years, according to new data.

Using predictions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Risk Mapping <http://coastalrisk.com.au/> shows many more Australian homes, streets and critical infrastructure could be inundated by the year, 2100.

Scientists are forecasting levels will rise between 0.4 and 1.1m over the remainder of this century, depending on how rapidly the world reduces emissions of greenhouse gases.

The modeling shows a rise of 0.7 metres will put most of Invermay, including UTAS Stadium and the university’s Inveresk campus, underwater.
Launceston businesses on Boland Street, near Glebe Farm Road, are also expected to have soggy floors.

Coastal Risk Mapping website co-creator Nathan Eaton said it was critical for people to appreciate what rising sea levels could mean for their communities.
“Anyone can look at these maps and visualise exactly how sea-level rise, driven by climate change, will permanently alter our coastline and neighbourhoods,” he said.
“We already knew this was going to be bad news for low-lying areas, but the latest science is telling us to brace for even worse.”

University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre Professor John Church said a two-metre sea level rise was imminent if climate change was not taken seriously.

“With business as usual emissions, the questions are when, rather than if, we will cross a two-metre sea-level rise,” he said.
Across the globe, sea levels have risen an average of 17cm over the 20th century.

Airports in Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney, the Port of Melbourne and low-lying cities like Byron Bay, the Gold Coast, Cairns and Darwin will be inundated under the updated scenario of a two-metre sea level rise by 2100.

But Insurance Council of Australia communications general manager Campbell Fuller said the predictions were unlikely to affect premiums “when ascribed to perils many decades in the future”.

“Insurers underwrite premiums based on their assessment of risk over the 12 months of the policy,” he said.

But Mr Fuller said the council continued to urge the federal government to increase federal mitigation spending to $200 million each year.

“As the impact of climate change becomes more acute, higher spending on physical mitigation will be essential to protect lives and property, and reduce the vastly higher sums needed to repeatedly rebuild homes, businesses and infrastructure,” he said.

NOTE Apparently this information has been available to Launceston City Council and the Flood Authority for a very long lime. Council for whatever reason has chosen to look the other way albeit in the knowledge that if it were to impact upon Launcestonians sometime down the track they'll most likely (hopefully?!) will be out of office. Concerningly, it seems that the modeling hasn’t been done for Launceston or its catchments  by the local flood authority and it does beg the question, why not?

Lismore's [NSW]  had a flood event (2017) that demonstrated what can happen when decision makers look the other way for fiscal, aesthetic, whatever reason there's a real chance that there will be diabolic consequences – fiscal, social, planning, environmental, etc.

Now with Launceston’s General Manager leaving Launceston/Tasmania The Examiner suddenly tells its fading cohort of readers the story of climate change and flood risks. As a backdrop to Council and UTas planning to build a 21st C facility it appears as as if there’ll be no ‘climate change’ considerations in the planning.
 
Quoting the General Manager some time ago the current planning for Utas at Inveresk “is good town planning”. However, his words are quite unlikely to haunt him from wherever he finds himself well away from Tasmania.

 

Tamar Estuary needs Œless politics¹

FROM THE EXAMINER & FACEbook

Albeit that there's a fair bit of 'motherhood' invested in this move of Ald. Williams’, it is a step in a positive direction. It is very clear that the community needs its various ‘authorities’ to be working collaboratively and cooperatively towards a multidimensional outcome and in inclusive ways. Its something that's been evident to many for a long time.

The first notion that needs to be put aside is the one that suggests the Launceston City Council ‘operation’ has anything like the wherewithal to progress this kind of initiative by itself. If it had, and the problem is very, very old, we might have seen a lot more attention paid to it and in holistic ways a long time before now – not a bit of it!

On the evidence, Council and its operational wing have been looking the other way for decades. For progress to be made and real solutions found, innovative solutions, an authority cum research mechanism needs to be put in place that takes into account the entire bio-region and from a holistic perspective.

Launceston is situated at a point where in excess of 20% of Tasmania's drainage passes the city by. This is all too often downplayed and even overplayed for various political purposes.

Mondays meeting may be a start just so long as any grandstanding is put to one side. This is an issue that exceeds politics and the futility of bureaucratic egotisms.

Ray Norman

Alderman Emma Williams to ask City of Launceston to support a broader Tamar River solution.
Holly Monery 19 Mar 2017, 3:30 p.m.

Evidence-based action, not politics or single-focus plans, is needed urgently to address river health within the Tamar Estuary, says Alderman Emma Williams.

ACTION NEEDED: City of Launceston Alderman Emma Williams is seeking a multi-party resolution on the estuary.

She will put forward a motion at Monday’s City of Launceston meeting, asking the council to call on the state government to convene a meeting to resolve the strategic and financial commitments of stakeholders including TasWater and Hydro Tasmania.

Alderman Williams said studies had shown the health of the Tamar was not only linked to sewage but a range of issues including contamination in the catchment area.

“In order to address those we need to sit down around the table with those agencies and bodies that can actually do something, instead of just talking one to one, we need to sit down as a group,” she said.

“The Tamar estuary is an issue for the community in Launceston … its about developing actions that we can actually undertake and recognising that its not about one-off quick fix, even though sewage treatment is not a one off thing.”

She said repeated Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers Program reports into the health of the estuary indicate that the zone of the Tamar within the urban area of Launceston has a poor and degraded ecosystem health.

“These poor results represent not only a threat to environmental and human health, but other social and economic matters including tourism, lifestyle and business investment opportunities,” Alderman Williams said.

“A body of evidence-based work has been produced identifying influencing factors in the current state of the Tamar, including the TEER Water Quality Improvement Plan (2015). However, these factors can only be addressed by a multi-stakeholder approach to responsibilities.”

CONSCRIPTED INVESTMENT THE WAY TASMANIA GETS ITS MONEY

The fiscal landscape in Tasmania is starting to be very concerning. When government administrations collude to cut corners, and for the benefit of who knows who, you have to worry. However, it gets worse when the perpetrators of what appears to be fiscal delinquency place themselves beyond accountability and then you know its going to get seriouser and seriouser.

At the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council’s Annual General Meeting, a unanimous motion from the floor was passed querying the state of the Council’s finances. There was also overt criticisms of the processes in play where the General Manager, apparently acting alone, took a decision to apply for a $6Mil loan from Treasury. Now, clearly this is a bridge too far and especially so when management starts making ‘strategic decisions’ – governance’s preserve – and the State’s Treasurer, Peter Gutwein entertains the whole idea – indeed seemingly endorses the concept.

The Glamorgan Spring Bay $6Mil loan will be substantially directed towards the construction of a dam and the associated infrastructure to supply water for a controversial fish farm. However, what income will this farm be called upon to provide to Council if the infrastructure is funded by a $6Mil loan to the council. Glamorgan Spring Bay Council has a a $7Mil rate base? Indeed, has the issue of affordability been addressed in any way at all?  

Given the size of the loan and there being such a small rate base, it appears that a full assessment of the costs and benefits to the ratepayers has never been provided to the wider community. It would also seem that the General Manager, perhaps operating under SECTION 62 of the Local Govt. Act, has not seen fit to present councilors with a fiscal plan nor any other details relevant to the loan that, in the final analysis, ratepayers will pay off one way or another – quite likely via a rates increase or even a reduction of services.

The Glamorgan Spring Bay motion called for the engagement of an external, independent risk assessment and expert advice. That advice would be on the viability of providing commercial-scale quantities of fresh water to the Solis and Tassal companies. Interestingly, the General Manager under SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act is required to guarantee that councilors make their decisions based on “expert advice”. Here it appears as though he has deemed his own advice to be both expert and appropriate –and the lender has accepted it. 

Moreover, the Treasurer, the lender, seems to have done so knowing that ratepayers, or their representatives, have had only scant opportunities to interrogate their fiscal position from a strategic standpoint.

Indeed, did the General Manager have the Delegated Authority to approve a loan of the size he apparently has and has anyone asked him or anyone else about this? That’s something one might think that Peter Gutwein acting as the Treasurer and Minister for Local Govt. might have wanted to satisfy himself about but it seems not.

However, the Glamorgan Spring Bay situation is not an isolated one. In Launceston, by all accounts, the General Manager has been playing similar fiscal games that are equally risky for ratepayers. Just before the last meeting for 2016 it became clear that ‘Launceston’ was borrowing $9Mil for the redevelopment of the CH Smith Building and quite apparently on the initiative of the General Manager and seemingly operating under the aegis of SECTION 62 of the Local Govt. Act. 

While the aldermen, it seems, were on side they were also in the dark as to how this loan was to be serviced in five years. In effect 30 thousand ratepayers have been conscripted to invest in the development with their ‘pay-off’ being a 300 car parking station with questionable income prospects.

If this infrastructure is going to earn the income to repay the loan in the required five years it will need to make a $5,000 per week profit in the timeframe. Presumably Tasmania’s taxpayers will be picking up the interest bill – the same people really. The rhetoric embedded in the notion that suggests that this money is coming from somewhere else – Mars or its equivalent(?) – is quite concerning and deceptive to say the least.

Bach in December when the numbers started to be done in the community Council packed up for the year in the hope that their critics would head for the beach or the bookshop and forget about the issue of ‘doing the numbers’. Then suddenly enough it was 2017 and the borrowing had apparently grown to $20Mil, for an even larger shopping spree, surprise, surprise! This too is apparently the GM’s work and a strategy put together whilst the aldermen were away from the scene and out of sight and out of mind – if they were ever on anyone’s mind.

Apparently Launceston’s aldermen believed that they had to go with the GM’s strategy and there hasn’t been the slightest hint of descent. However, did they  have to and do they have to?

Somewhat curiously this whole process has been expedient and perfunctory. Also, missing is any semblance of the prudential elements one might expect, elements like tendering and consultation that would normally go with a $6Mil public expenditure exercise. Evidently, it’s a cut-corners approval process. It is also a process that raises a raft of uncomfortable questions. Likewise, accountability it seems has been deemed to be discretionary.

Back in Glamorgan Spring Bay, and given the background, and given all the questions to do with a large dam’s social impacts, contention abounds. And, that's not to mention the very well founded community concerns to do with financial risk the Council is exposed to. And that's not to mention the risk they are exposed to as residents and ratepayers.  If residents and ratepayers are outraged at the premature and imprudent approval of a $6Mil loan to assist a controversial and as-yet unapproved private commercial operation that ratepayers have been conscripted to fund – and by stealth – it is totally understandable that they might be. 

Ratepayers are worried, and quite reasonably they expect that they will ultimately carry the financial and social burden – and that's the case for Launceston and Glamorgan Spring Bay. Concerningly, in Glamorgan Spring Bay it will be the cost of a loan to subsidise a corporate development the majority don’t want that will be the burden.  Those who might support the development are, reportedly, very concerned about the lack of fiscal risk assessment not to mention the opacity around the whole process.

If all this smells a bit fishy then there might be a reason for that? 

If the noxious odour is so strong it might well be time to stop, think and thoroughly investigate the whole process in play – and from a state-wide perspective. The circumstances are such that any such investigation needs to be independent and transparent. 

Here is the rub, can anyone see the Treasurer or Local Govt. bureaucracies lining up for any such thing as an open and transparent investigation? More to the point, its not especially likely if anything resembling rigorous accountability is involved. Nonetheless, it should happen!

Ray Norman

Launceston Jan 2017

Is this a collapse scenario that's now in play in Launceston

Click here to go to The Examiner

FROM SUNDAY JAN 22  EXAMINER 

"North gathers momentum moving forward 
Piia WirsuPiia Wirsu 22 Jan 2017, 7 a.m.

Treasurer Peter Gutwein’s announcement on Saturday of a $20 million interest-free loan to the City of Launceston is another indicator the city is moving forward. 

The money will go towards a St John Street redevelopment, upgrades to the Cataract Gorge, Brisbane Street Mall regeneration works and a car park at the CH Smith site, fast-tracking estimated completion dates. 

As state tourism numbers skyrocket, ensuring the North is keeping up and has the infrastructure to both attract and handle tourists, visitors and locals is crucial, and this announcement shows it is on the agenda. 

It is an exciting time for Launceston, and the entire northern region, as the stimulus of improved tourism flow to the state, new events, and investor interest is harnessed to improve the area’s economy and infrastructure. 

This announcement comes on the back of a host of other developments and can assure Launceston residents the city is progressing and will be able to compete with the best. 

Last year saw a host of development announcements, with developer Errol Stewart and architect Scott Curran unveiling designs for a revitalised CH Smith redevelopment; plans announced for a redevelopment of the TRC site including car parking, a hotel and conference facilities; and continuing work on the Silo Hotel development. .

As City of Launceston deputy mayor Rob Soward pointed out, the accelerated projects are in addition to the council’s existing 2016-17 $20 million capital works program. 

“[This includes] the $9 million North Bank redevelopment, the major redevelopment of Civic Square, the redevelopment and repurposing of Macquarie House, the second-stage upgrade of the Seaport Boardwalk, and the $260 million University of Tasmania relocation,” he said. 

There is a growing momentum in the north, and these developments and improvements are overdue. The optimistic future they capture is welcome. 

The interest and investment from a range of sectors and people is just what Launceston needs to revitalise and continue to grow in tourism, the economy, business and industry. 

With such backing and optimism, the future looks bright for Launceston and the North. Let’s hope continued commitment and interest keeps the momentum up, as the region sets itself apart as a place for tourism, business and investment.

END

COMMENTS FROM AROUND THE TRAPS

FOREWORD: At the start of the working year this editorial speaks loudly about either Launceston Council's absolute cynicism or its ineptitude. The apparent reliance upon 'the punters' being asleep at the beach or off catching up on their reading is too, too cynical for words. In cahoots with 'The Treasurer' it seems that the Aldermen have abandoned any idea of careful fiscal management (Progress With Prudence) and have consequently left 'things' in the hands of 'management'. 

Well not everyone was as 'asleep at the wheel' as the 'cutters and dryers at Town Hall', that is Launceston's Mayor and General Manager have apparently assumed.  In attempting to 'pull a fast one' at tomorrow's Launceston Council meeting this act is just as deserving of the contempt as the contempt the entire Council appears to be holding its ratepayers and residents in.

Is this anywhere near good enough?

The following  comments and questions have been dribbling in throughout today:

• Far from being totally 'GOOD NEWS' the implications in this editorial is that Launceston's ratepayers are facing the spectre of their Council putting them into a position that might be described as an unsustainable debt crisis!

• Bulldust is bulldust even when it's printed by 'The Examiner' and far from saving Launceston,  Tasmania's Treasurer is visiting increasing debts upon the city that's ultimately to be repaid by 30,000 ratepayers and arguably for the benefit of a handful of business people working within an outmoded operational/business model.

• Just who is doing the numbers in all this? When one gets down to thinking about that, it's all the more worrying! It is especially worrying when the city's Deputy Mayor Soward comes out as a spokesperson and shows himself to be totally unable to do either "the numbers or the politics". With two chartered accountants on 'the team' just what have they been doing? In fact would you trust these people with your superannuation money?

• Before Christmas Minister/Treasurer Peter Gutwein was lending Launceston $9Million and now its $20Million all to be repaid by ratepayers over 5 years but there's no plausible explanation as to how they'll be doing it.

• Launceston's General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski, before Christmas is reported to have said that the then $9Million Loan would be repaid out of "parking income". Doing the numbers then, that meant that the new parking station was going to need to make $5K per week PROFIT. But who is/was doing 'the numbers' when "the interest free loan" was accepted? More to the pint who is doing them now that the debt is $20Million?

• It has been reported that Deputy Mayor Soward is saying that over 5 years each and every ratepayer in Launceston has been signed up to repay $700 PLUS. When did the community consultation for that take place? Is not this a rates increase by stealth? Is this the end of the 'fiscal folly' that Launceston City Council is embarked upon or is there more to come? How does this increased expenditure measure up against the city's 'Strategic or Fiscal Planning'?

• Just what value is being created via this expenditure and by whom for whom? Are the potential answers to all this being hidden and/or glossed over?

• Does West Tamar Council's decision to seek $1.7Million as an interest free loan for a project already planned for and to only accept 'the debt' after community consultation, actually tell us anything important about Launceston's apparent fiscal recklessness?

• With all this projected expenditure there is not a sausage being mentioned about 'fixing up the Tamar', so does this tell anybody anything at all about Launceston's Aldermen's concern for 'the state of the river', or for that matter 'the environment', or indeed their priorities or even their aspirations for the ratepayers they're paid to represent?

• To what extent has Launceston's fiscal planning changed, over what timeframe and at what cost to ratepayers? Who is aware – that is which Aldermen are aware – of the extent of change or indeed who has even been looking? Who is telling who what?

AND the answers to these questions pose ever more questions but who is going to answer them and/or even has the ability to do so?

Getting A Big Heritage Tick In Launceston/Tasmania

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE EXAMINER STORY

"Launceston’s infamous CH Smith site is a step closer to revival with the Tasmanian Heritage Council giving developers Errol Stewart and Scott Curran’s plans the tick of approval.

The pair discussed their vision with board members of the Heritage Council in Hobart on Wednesday.

“I understand that within about an hour they had called us to say that they had approved it, so they were pretty impressed with what we had presented,” Mr Stewart said.

“Now it’s back to Launceston City Council to make a determination, which I am pretty sure that they will do at the next council meeting, hopefully in the positive.”

The development application has been advertised for public comment and Mr Stewart said it had received a number of representations.

“At this stage approval has been given by the Heritage Council for our plans as presented, so now council will consider that at the next meeting and hopefully if they give us the green light then we will be good to go unless anybody takes us to appeal,” Mr Stewart said."

___________________________

EDITOR'S NOTE: To put this story into context it needs to be understood that representations to the Heritage Council and  Launceston Council closed at the end of the day December 20 and the HeritageCouncil, according to this story, had made its decision before linch the very next day. 

This seems both fast and hasty and it seems a fair question to ask, just how carefully has this body of decision makers considered ALL the submissions made to it? What submissions were made about what?

We might well consider this "R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done"

However in the current age of deeming that might well be a redundant concept or at least an idea that's adhered to 'somewhere else'! It couldn't have passed its use by date could it??

Contact Them

Heritage Tasmania

GPO Box 618

Hobart TAS 7000

Phone: 1300 850 332

Email: enquiries@heritage.tas.gov.au

Website: http://www.heritage.tas.gov.au

COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS

There is an apparent need for communities to initiate solution to their problems and issues in ways that fit their circumstances. 

It is increasingly obvious that communities themselves need to be a part of 'the solution' to the problems they themselves identify.

Rather than have solutions imposed upon them by governments, regulators, authorities, organisations, administrations, etc. communities need to be empowered to work together plus interact cooperatively and collaboratively.

Communities, that is ‘community organisations’, charities, activist groups, social networks, community clubs, etc., need to come together and establish a networks of networks .
These networks, once established, could work towards communities finding solutions to problems they identify and prioritise.

With prospective solutions to hand they will be empowered to hold their elected representatives to account.

Can you identify a community problem in need of a solution? Are you interested in becoming a part of such a solution oriented network?

For More Information eMAIL: LAUNCESTONprojects@bigpond.com

THE-TRUE-STORY According To Basil Fitch

FOREWORD

Over at Tassie Times there is a bit of stoush going on with a couple of 'commentators' taking Lonnie's council to task.

Basil Fitch has come out for Christmas with a present of 'the truth' for anyone who wants to know it. 

The entire exchange is worth reading in that just about all the issues are explored together in ways that, as likely as not, they are not being looked at by Launceston's 'Alderpeople'.

The Council is clearly at 'sixes and sevens' while all the time fumbling around trying to stay below the radar. It is increasingly clear that it is so. The bit that is not being considered all that often is that it is the Local Govt. Act that is not serving Tasmanians well. Launceston Council is just a carbuncle on the backside that is aggravating and annoying those people looking for some accountability. 

THE-TRUE-STORY According to Basil Fitch

The con job by Gutwein Liberal Party , the Examiner, L.A.F.M and selected proponents of Utas started back before the federal election., double banger. 

To get Nikolic elected and also prop up Gutwein and Co. for state election 2018. 

In May 2015 Gutwein introduces ” MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING “{ M.O.U }signed by Utas ,Liberals , Launceston City Council and T.A F.E all in agreement to move Utas from Newnham to Inveresk. 

Then the secret deal was exposed Council had already sold 120 Unit site to Utas for $500,000 dollars and it was immediately placed by Council right behind flood levy .

Council also agreed to give free Willis Street Car Park returning $88,000 dollars per year and old Velodrome land for nothing to Utas. 

Council valuation $4.5 million dollars for both but never put on open market , I consider both to be worth between $10 and $20 million for both. 

A Group called L.C.C {Launceston Concerned Citizens } network took all parties to task , but neither Mayor , General Manager or Aldermen would hold a public meeting I asked 4 .times . 

We then issued a petition to the council with 1,500 signatures to council under section 57 Local Government Act , forcing council to hold a public meeting. 

The meeting voted unanimously for the council to rescind council decision , but they refused ,so much for Gutwein,s Local Government Act. 

The Examiner refused point blank to allow Launceston Concerned Citizens to make any press statements and editor would only allow comments in : letters to the editor : and they were scrutinized . .

All those proponents involved reminded me of the “Pulp Mill ” debacle , the only thing missing was Martin Gilmour who know doubt had plenty to say now he is the Premier,s C.E.O 

Launceston City Council passed this great con job on November the 9th November 2015 and still Utas has not yet put in a development application into council and there are no plans. 

The Examiner led the way before the Federal election and forced Shorten and Turnbull to finance this shonky deal for $150 million dollars. 

The York Park sponsorship was given to Utas by the General Manager { and naming rights University of Tasmania.} However will not release the financials {commercial in confidence}The Aldermen were not notified and when questioned the General Manager said he could make a decision with out getting council approval under section 62 of local government act .

Now you all should be aware why Huon , Glenorchy , and others are in such a mess City Managers have complete control not Mayors or Aldermen. 

C.H.Smith another Gutwein con job this is a real cracker Gutwein gives Council $9 million dollars loan interest fee Council to repay in 5 years time in full. 

Council behind scenes talks to Errol Stuart and Scott Curran developers . 

Stuart and Curran lease from owners C.H.Smith building with option to purchase.

Council will give Stuart and Curran $9 million dollars and they must build 300 car parks , when finished Stuart and Curran hand over car park and land to council. 

The land left over Stuart and Curran build a 500 staff office block . 

On A.B.C Leon Compton, a person rang in and said it was going to be used by public servants in the north in one area. .

Both the council and city manager? where will the repayment of $9 million come from , both have said money from generated from 300 car parks. 

300 cars $4 per day equals $1,200 dollars $9 million over 5 years equals $5,000 dollars shortfall $3,800 dollars per day. 

God help us have a happy Christmas Scratchrat 45 and Daphne-Bowen -Smyth 

Basil J. Fitch 

Former City Alderman  

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE TASSIE TIME SAGA

HOW TO FIND 9MILLION SMACKEROOZ IN A HURRY!?

Apparently General Manager Robert Dobrzynski is out and about selling ‘The C H Smith Deal’ as something that is financially viable. Well maybe?!

It also appears that he and Ald. Soward are doing so on the strength of the argument that “parking revenue” will fund the loan repayment ($9million) in the timeframe. So, let's unpick such a proposition a little.

This is a worrying argument in so much as it does not seem to be backed up by any realistic economic modelling that includes all the elements. Tasmania has been there before, and on the Tamar even, and look where that went and what it didn’t deliver as promised. 

The lack of such modelling might well have been the reason that Council needed move into closed council to confirm the (their?) decision to proceed with the deal Treasurer Gutwein had offered the Council. Doing this avoided the prospect of inadvertently disclosing the weaknesses etc. in open council. 

Anyway, proceed with what? On the evidence the deal has many of the hallmarks of a political stitchup negotiated in hush tones in a darkened room somewhere. Treasurer Gutwein, the General Manager and quite possibly the Mayor it seems have been doing the stitching. Or put another way, making a deal with all the characteristics of something that’s been scratched out on the back of an envelope in a car park – but there you go that's politics for you.

Given that Launceston Council has two elected chartered accountants at the table and the advantage of the expert advice of the General Manager and his staff you would think that somebody might have been able to cast a critical eye over ‘the numbers’. If they had, and it all looked good for everyone, then we would all know about it and in spectacular detail no doubt. 

Alarmingly, it seems otherwise.  The naysayers, as you would expect, say the “numbers just do not stack up” but what is most concerning is when there are yeasayers out there echoing their doubts almost in unison – and seen to be biting their bottom lip at the same time. 

Robert Dobrzynski clearly has a great deal invested in ‘the deal’. It’s quite apparent that he has been in the driving seat for quite some time and that the ‘elected representatives’ have been hanging about chatting amongst themselves in the antechamber waiting to be invited in. Once in, apparently they’re required to be polite – and thankful too perhaps. 

Perhaps we’ll all see some credible numbers ‘going forward’ if anyone is bothering to do them. However, if one joins the visible dots it is clear that it is highly unlikely that the parking revenue will service the debt, highly unlikely indeed!

Likewise, Ald Soward’s is reported as making the somewhat extravagant assertion that the parking revenue will “fill council coffers”. Clearly this is ill informed, or misinformed rhetoric, and offered up for the purposes of colour and light before the “elected 12” retired to give their tick of approval in camera – and before too much more was said. 

I’m taking bets that the the debt will be repaid in the age old reliable way. For those who forget what it is, the name for it “conscripted investment” or put another way, via rate demands to 30,000 ratepayers. 

Most people can do those numbers. So, my answer to the ‘wag’ who suggested that all this was “just a shell game“ is that he is probably right but there is still time to reveal the pea under the shell if there is actually one there. Otherwise, it is pay-up and shut-up you've lost – and the game goes on.

To be sure, and let there be no doubt whatsoever, this C H Smith Development Project that’s being promoted here is very very welcome.

Why? Mostly because this machination of 'the development' is the sort of thing that’s been promised for far too long and that has not been delivered. The cityscape will be enhanced and there’ll be arguments about the details as there should be. Moreover, once, and if, the ‘bureaucratic-blowins-from-elsewhere’ and the ‘compliant-rent-seekers’ are sidelined, outed and edited out of the picture, as they need to be, a positive outcome might well be worked towards – and more importantly delivered.

It's time to move forward with everyone's cards on the table, then all the player who are doing what, with whom and why can bee seen. Most of all, everyone will be crystal clear about who is paying what for what.

Ray Norman
Australian Blowin of 30 years standing

DEVELOPMENT: So Many Question So few Answers So Far!

Foreword: The apparent impending development of Launceston's now derelict heritage site, "The C H Smith Building" will without doubt be welcomed by Launcestonians. A great deal of the city's colonial and post-colonial heritage and histories is invested in this piece of the city's geography. Likewise, a great many Launcestonians, in Tasmania and elsewhere, have significant aspects of their social histories and cultural understandings in some way invested in, and linked to, this site. 

Launcestonians' attachment to this site is loaded and this is often overlooked by 'recent arrivals' with their personal histories and cultural realities located 'elsewhere'. Its all too easy to overlook social and cultural attachments to 'place' but in the end they are there and they variously affect people's lives – socially, culturally and as often as not economically. So, what happens to, and on, this site is non-trivial despite the imperatives of 'blow-in pragmatism'.

The story behind the fabric of the building is a significant part of the  Launceston story and indeed the Tasmania story. The site’s Canal Street warehouse represents and reflects Launceston’s development from a colonial maritime port to the present.

C H Smith established a successful trading company that was known as one of Launceston's and Tasmania's key mercantile traders from the mid 19th century to the early 20th century. The company was carried on by his sons after his death in 1904. Mr Smith was not the only businessman to utilise the site though, with one of Launceston's early breweries believed to have used the Canal Street warehouse. The 1830s warehouse was said to have been part of the Tamar Brewery, started by John Griffiths and his son-in-law John Scott in 1855, and is now one of Launceston’s oldest surviving buildings.

The is no doubt that this site will carry the 'Launceston story' with it well into the future whatever the current development proposal brings with it. It is just the case tat the wider community, as investors in the city's heritage and histories, have an interest in and a need to be part of the decision making process.

Ex-alderman Basil Fitch said today "Launceston people must be a part of the decision making equation rather than being politically and bureaucratically sidelined as it appears there is currently a danger of them being. More to the point the politicians and aldermen must be accountable and held to account."

That said, the apparent 'Christmas present to Launceston' is welcomed albeit that there is more than a hint of 'Indian Giving' about the proposal. It is just the case that development cannot be regarded as being necessary at any price.

Click above to enlarge

RANDOM EXAMINER COVERAGE OF THE SITE: 
•  [10 Nov 2016 ] – [20 Aug 2016, ] 
•  [10 Nov 2016 ] 
•  [1] – [2]  – [3]  – [4] – [5] 
•  [7] – [8] – [9] – [10] – [11]






ON THE AGENDA AT MONDAY NOVEMBER 28th 2016 COUNCIL MEETING    [LINK]

The Recommendation 

“To determine a proposal seeking a $9m interest free advance for a period of five years to fund the construction of 300 public car parks on the CH Smith site, subject to certain guarantees.“ 

When a development proposal turns up for a site loaded with contention there are bound to be questions. When it happens on the cusp of Christmas when everyone is preparing to go away, forget the world for a while, think about other things and so on, additional questions pop into mind – rightly or wrongly. 

At the very least all this exercising minds about processes and the various levels of ‘appropriateness’ invested in and embodied in the proposal and 'the process'. 

When the process goes public with a sense of urgency and with the minimum of detail at such a time wonderment is ever likely. If there is a hint that objectors might be admonished and ridiculed if they wish to make a contribution to any kind of consultation or debate, its worrying. If people’s concerns, no matter how genuine and well-founded their they may be, are downplayed this too is worrying. If representations are “taken into consideration and noted” that’s always worrisome. If timing and circumstance make good use of hiding behind administrative processes and “commercial in confidence”, embargoes, etc. even when there is public money involved that too is worrisome.

The big question is ever likely to be who paying whom for what? Then there others that flow on from it. Questions like:
• Where is the Master Plan and what is its purpose? 
• How does ‘the proposal’ fit the plan? 
• Who framed the plan, when and under what circumstances?
• What is the imperative/s driving the proposal, how were they determined and by whom?
• In what way does the process in play take account of the issues of accountability and the integrity of governance?
• Who is going to repay the loan and by what means?
• How many additional parking places for the City of Launceston does this proposal deliver if realised?
• What income will be generated for the City of Launceston as a direct consequence of this proposal?
• What account is being paid to the fact that something in the order of 50% of the city's ratepayers and residents are in receipt of some form of social security and what costs and benefits will flow to them/
• What benefits are intended to flow to what groups of residents and ratepayers plus how will they benefit as a consequence and how will this be articulated to them?
• When will plans for the proposal be made public and by what mechanisms – eg. public display, Internet, etc.
• What is the anticipated timeframe for the 'approval process' and what form of community consultation will be initiated as a part of the approval process?
• Where, and when, will the proposed ownerships of the the development site be articulated given the ultimate ratepayer investment in the project?
• What will the direct economic impact and benefits of the development be in the Tamar region and how will they be measured?
• What environmental and social impacts are being anticipated for development and how is anticipated that they will be realised and/or mitigated  – eg, storm water management, traffic movements, etc?  

Apart from these questions other will surely arise as the development and the approval processes proceed. It can only be hoped that the process will be timely and one that meets the Minister's "Good Governance Guide 2016" – LINK

Huon Council and Local Govt/. Generally: Its time the crap stopped!

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

This council's affairs are a case of knock'em down and drag'em out almost one by one. It is excruciating and its becoming clearer that if there are any innocent victims at all it's Huon's hapless ratepayers.

Where might the fault lie? There is a good case for the fault being with the Local Govt. model and the Minister just not having a handle on the situation. If you go hunting in this news story for clues fault seems to be somewhat to do with the GM's ability to interpret the law in a way, her way, that was totally different to the views held by councillor's.

Who is right? What is wrong? The evidence is piling up on the Minister's shoulders with him, it appears, being unable to see the issues clearly enough, or really able do anything, or even willing to act in a timely way. Frightened as hell about being seen as less than able his ineptitude realises his fears for him.

The recent NSW by-election was clearly effected by that government's Local Govt. amalgamation policies. Perhaps the Minister is reluctant to really deal with his portfolio in a decisive way for fear of the electoral backlash. One way or another if this sore is allowed to continue to fester there will be unwelcomed outcomes.

The bills are certainly mounting up for Huon's ratepayers all of whom are being slugged the cost of governing their constituency. It's time, no way past time, that someone got down to tintacks!

They¹re selling out regional aussies

Hello Joel Fitzgibbon's office,

We absolutely agree with your email on the Turnbull government's ridiculous illogical backpacker tax. On the topic of regional Australia, however, the ALP should look at its own wasteful pork-barrell policy in the Bass electorate. In relation to the idea of a relocation of the University of Tasmania's current Launceston campus to Inveresk - just a couple of kilometres down the road to a tidal flat, not just to a flood plain but to an area that lies below high tide level - Labor, like the Turnbull government, and interestingly the Greens, has not carried its own due diligence in relation to this waste of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. Instead, Labor has taken the university's claims as  if they are true and honest, without any independent, indepth scrutiny or any consideration of public and regional concerns. Until such time as the ALP conducts genuine research and listens to the regional public on this university relocation plan and fully assesses the sensible alternatives, then we will not be donating to the ALP or
any party that supports the wasteful and illogical relocation plan.

Yours faithfully,
Poppy, L. McKenzie, Tim, Margaret and six others.

CC in addition to the above - Launceston Concerned Citizens, Tasmanian
Ratepayers Association, SpeakUp Launceston, Launceston Businesses,
Academics, Associates and Friends (LBAAF).


On 2016-11-12 14:37, Joel Fitzgibbon wrote:
Poppy, Aussie farmers are the lifeblood of regional Australia – they’re the ones creating jobs and keeping our regions growing.  But the Turnbull-Nationals Government is selling out our farmers by increasing taxes on backpackers to as high as 32... | The latest politics update from the Australian Labor Party |
Poppy, ...........  Aussie farmers are the lifeblood of regional Australia – they’re the ones creating jobs and keeping our regions growing............ BUT THE TURNBULL-NATIONALS GOVERNMENT IS SELLING OUT OUR FARMERS BY  INCREASING TAXES ON BACKPACKERS TO AS HIGH AS 32.5 PER CENT............  This means that farmers won’t be able to get enough pickers to harvest crops and our regional towns will see less tourists. That means less money to go around for everyone............ WHY ARE MALCOLM TURNBULL AND BARNABY JOYCE SELLING OUT OUR FARMERS? TO FUND THEIR MASSIVE $50 BILLION TAX CUT FOR BIG BUSINESS............ We’ve already seen the number of backpackers coming to Australia fall over the last year and a half, because of the uncertainty the Liberal-National have created with their backpacker tax............ Labor knows how important our farmers and regional towns are to Australia. That’s why we’ve come up with a sensible compromise: a lower 10.5 per cent tax. This will bring the backpacker tax into line with New Zealand, while ensuring overseas workers still pay more tax than Aussie workers............ Despite Labor offering a compromise, Turnbull and Joyce aren’t  listening to reason and WE NEED TO SHOW THEM THAT AUSSIES LIKE YOU WANT A FAIR DEAL FOR OUR FARMERS............  CAN YOU SHARE THIS GRAPHIC ON FACEBOOK AND TELL THE GOVERNMENT THAT YOU WANT THEM TO STICK UP FOR FARMERS? [2][3] The last thing our Government should be doing is selling out regional Australians just to give the big businesses a $50 billion tax break............  Let’s show Turnbull and Joyce that we want them to stick up for Aussie farmers and accept Labor’s sensible compromise on the backpacker tax.

 Thanks, Joel Fitzgibbon ........... Shadow Minister for Rural and Regional Australia