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  

Local Government in Tasmania and Brandolini's Law

Alberto Brandolini: The bullshit asymmetry: the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. ... 11 Jan 2013

In recent times, this picture has been circulating on the Internet. According to RationalWiki, that sentence must be attributed to Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant. It's been checked with Alberto and, unless someone else claims paternity of this absolutely brilliant statement, it seems that he actually is the original author. 

Here is what seems to be the very first appearance of what must, from now on, be known as the Brandolini’s law – or, as Alberto suggests, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. In regard to Local Govt. in Tasmania it clearly has an application and especially so in regard to SECTIONS 65 & 62 of Tasmania's dysfunctional, problematic and discredited Local Govt. Act 1993.

When a General Manager claims this Act to be, paraphrased, "an old friend" you just know that you in a particular instance and council constituencies more widely. With Tasmania's Local Govt. Sector in turmoil and exhibiting the tell-tale symptoms of dysfunctionalism there is a great deal to worry about.

The most concerning thing that's evident in this regard in to Local Govt. is when the Minister is perceived to be looking the other way in the face of the extraordinary costs being visited upon local communities and the servicing that is being foregone. It is time to be very mindful of Brandolini's Law.

Desmond Tutu tells us that "children are a wonderful gift. They have an extraordinary capacity to see into the heart of things and to expose sham and humbug for what they are." It now seems that Italian software consultants are to be treasured alongside children for their wit and wisdom and what that has to offer the world.

Get the sewerage out of the river!

Doug Wilkinson { Examiner 15 } and M . Seward { Nov. 3rd. } both make some valid points re. Tamar River sewage and silt problems. 

In 1992 I retired from L.C.C and the secondary plant was started and installed around 1993 at Ti –Tree Bend. 

Unfortunately L.C.C did not continue the upgrade to tertiary treatment level. 

Sheer neglect , and wrong priorities has resulted in a cost for Tas – Water { tertiary } $ 400 million , and council to find the $110 million to replace combined sewage and water pipes in front of proposed new Utas University at York Park move. 

Should silt be removed {$ 7.Million dollar state of the art dredge } and used to beautify banks of river it would make way for pleasure boats to take tourists on a river cruise , calling into wineries for meals , fishing,swimming,barbecue,weddings, you name it even cruises to Bridport and Flinders Island. 

I estimate 200,000 tourists a year would enjoy this experience , together with our beautiful Gorge walk and J .C development and Royal Park stroll. 

It is Launceston,s dream begging to go , but where our Aldermen L.C.C , Tourist Department , Chamber of Commerce , State and Federal Govt. members. 

 Action please. : get you elevators working. 

 Basil J. Fitch

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a matter that needs the attention and commitment of the Mayor and Aldermen rather than the operational component of Council. Hand balling this kind of issue to 'the staff' is just not on if ratepayers are to get "value from their representatives". There are innovative solutions out there and one or two might fit The Tamar. On the evidence the required experts are not in-house but they may be 'in the community' if it was a proposition supported by the aldermen to ask. It is time for a change in the way problems are solved. If not the risk is more problems will go on being created.

TRANSCRIPT: A Professor, a General Manager and a Mayor

FOREWORD: This interview was recorded live on Facebook, on Saturday afternoon 22 October 2016 at approximately 2.30 pm. After the announcement in the Examiner newspaper on Saturday about the university’s secret sponsorship deal with the Launceston City Manager and the Mayor, there were more than 280 comments and many more replies on the Examiner’s Facebook page. The Examiner reporter interviews:

•  the University of Tasmania’s Mike Calford, 

•  the Launceston Mayor, Albert van Zetten and 

•  the Launceston City general manager, Robert Dobrzynski, 

The interview itself drew another 87 comments and many more replies. The best parts of the video are the questions by the interviewer and the real time comments from viewers. (The video can be seen at the Examiner Launceston Facebook page, click Videos, “City of Launceston Official – the University of…” ) 

THE INTERVIEW: (complete with ums, ahs, ers and repeats. Underlined words are to show the emphasis made by the speaker) 

Calford: Er, Mike Calford, I’m the provost at the University and this is a great outcome. Ah, we’re working hand in hand with the Launceston City Council in many ways, as we bring about a transformation of education in the north of the state. And it’s wonderful to be able to put our name up early on this site, and also to do something really positive for the community. It er helps us, er, we’re putting something back in and we’re getting a lot from it too, because interstate marketing is an important aspect for the university. The university can’t survive just on the Tasmanian student numbers, there just aren’t enough. We’re bringing international students – about 850 international students currently in Launceston and a number of interstate students – not quite that number; we’d like to increase that number and getting our name well-known, well-understood early on, with potential students interstate is a great marketing outcome for us. 

van Zetten: Yes, so, look from a Council perspective we’re absolutely excited, and thank you to the university, the Utas for doing this sponsorship, for doing this sponsorship, and this, this, this facility here is regarded as one of the best in Australia, there’s no doubt about that and we know that when hawthorn come and play here they absolutely love the surface and they love playing here and they have adopted this as their home. So, we see this as a good mix as Mike has said very much so, we’ve, er, education being so important for Launceston and to grow, and we wanna see more people get involved in education locally and hopefully then people will come over from the mainland and specially when with the university now with the move to Inveresk is gunna to be extremely exciting for this whole precinct and, er, the extra programs that they are gunna to be looking at, and especially the ones to do with, relevant areas here in agriculture and relevant to Launceston or the surrounds of Launceston and this is not just about Launceston bur northern Tasmania, and even Tasmania, and we’re hoping, or I’m hoping, very much that people from the mainland who see that will also get to know a little bit about, about Utas and hopefully come to Launceston.” 

Dobrzynski: Ah, Robert Dobrynski, general manager of the City of Launceston. Look, it is an extremely exciting announcement um, we have one of the pre-eminent organisations in Tasmania, um, entering into a partnership with the largest council in Tasmania, the City of Launceston, From an operational point of view we see tremendous potential moving forward with the inner city campus being constructed, ah, adjacent to, to this stadium, ahm, that we can, um partner and take our partnership even further in terms of use of the facility and in terms of the development of the facility. So its extremely exciting, um, The university’s essentially contributing financially to the operation of the premiere sporting facility in Tasmania. It gives them enormous exposure in terms of national, and international, markets because certainly AFL games are streamed live overseas, so it provides some really strong mutual, er mutually beneficial outcomes we believe.” 

Interviewer: What are some extra details about the sponsorship deal in terms of what each party is getting? 

Dobrzynski: Well it’s a five year sponsorship deal, um, and it, um, it provides exposure to the university and in terms of signage, in terms of activities that they’ll be able to undertake at the facilities here at the stadium, um, and it also enables us to continue a dialogue on, as I said earlier, how ah, the university and the stadium can, um, um, partner to provide services to the community, not only to the student community but also to the community of, of northern Tasmania. 

Interviewer: Is there any information, about exactly how much the sponsorship deal in terms, of dollars terms? .

Dobrzynski: Well, it’s significant enough for the mayor and I to be extremely excited, but, um, clearly that’s a commercial in confidence information and it’s not information that we’ve released in the past publicly, um, and um, it’s probably be inappropriate that we do so now. 

Interviewer: Were there a number of other sponsors being considered or was the university the only one? 

Dobrzynski: Look, um, there are difficult commercial circumstances in Tasmania at the moment and we find that corporate sponsorship is difficult to get so we were particularly excited to get such a good fit as the University of Tasmania interested in sponsoring the stadium. 

Interviewer: Um, there’s been a bit of criticism of the Council’s – I speak…excuse me…I speak specifically um of the um, on the Danny Gibson Facebook post where he’s said that aldermen were only informed by about 5.23 pm via email of the deal and weren’t told anything prior to that. What’s your response? 

Dobrzynski: Look, it’s disappointing that such a grand announcement is perhaps being hijacked by social media posts. Um, the aldermen are briefed thoroughly in terms of operational, er, in terms of policy and strategic matters, um, in order that they can make decisions on those areas, they are the statutory responsibilities of elected members and the council. Operational responsibility falls exclusively to the General manager and we have an organisation that’s over 100 million dollar budget over 500 million, er, 500 employees and one point four five billion dollars worth of assets and it’s just simply not practical for aldermen to be involved in the operational activities of the council and indeed the code of conduct for aldermen explicitly (RD’s emphasis) excludes aldermen being involved in operational matters, so, um, um, the system works well, ah, um, on occasions we have hiccups.” 

Interviewer: Do you think that there should have been um, that potentially, that consultation with aldermen before it was announced, um, by, you know, in the media, so given that the Utas move has been such a sensitive issue for some members of the community? 

Dobrzynski: Well, the aldermen were certainly strongly supportive of the, the university’s move inner city campus project and, um, I understand the vote was, as I recall, ah, for the move. We’re in continued discussions with the university at an operational level and at a policy and strategic level. Any of those matters that require council decisions from the legislative point of view under the Local Government Act, aldermen are thoroughly briefed on in order that they can take those decisions fully informed. 

Over 90 per cent of the comments oppose the sponsorship and/or the name change to the university name. Where are the funds coming from etc etc. The video and real time comments can be seen at the Examiner’s facebook page under videos.

Letter to editor ... on Launceston City Council and accountability

Basil J Fitch 06.11.16 

Front page Examiner Saturday October 15th. censured Launceston City Council Manager Robert Dobernysky Mayor Albert Van –Zetten UTas Mike Calford announces sponsorship and naming rights for York Park (University of Tasmania ). 

This deal was done without any consultation with the elected Aldermen . 

At question time L.C.C meeting 17th. October I had to ask City Manager 3 times to get an answer , who authorised deal with Utas. 

City Manager response was he did under 62 Local Government Act , which reads functions and powers of General Manager . 

• 62-1g To liaise with Mayor on affairs of the council and performance of its functions. 

•  62-2 General Manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his/or her functions under this or any act. 

The City Manager has more power than the elected 12 Aldermen. 

I also asked City Manager what financial agreement had been reached with Utas, his reply commercial in confidence. 

Ratepayers in all municipalities of the state can know understand why there is so much conflict and friction state wide with councils . 

All councils are riddled with restrictions, such as operational (Alderman can not discuss) code of conduct (break rules) mediation (on track) counselling (behaviour) call police and heaps more. 

Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein should abolish 1993 flawed Local Government Act immediately and implement amalgamation through regional councils North – South – North West, using proven New Zealand model as a base. 

See more at: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/pr-article/letter-to-editor-...-on-launceston-city-council/#sthash.Orfu7RIK.dpuf

EDITOR'S NOTE: Basil Fitch served 11 years as an alderman and councillor on St. Leonards and Launceston Councils. During that time he was part of a research team investigating Local Governance in New Zealand. He has served on many council committees and has maintained an active interest in local governance affairs since his retirement from Launceston's Council in 1992. 

LOCAL GOVT ACT

SECTIONS  62  Click Here & 65 Click Here