POST PUBLIC MEETING REPORT

From Tasmanian Ratepayers' BLOG

CLICK HERE FOR LIONEL MORRELL'S SUBMISSION

The Examiner today gave a reasonably basic account of the meeting but as always there'll be arguments about the numbers [SEE THE EXAMINER] yet the thing is that Council had minuscule support in the room.  

The council's position of unequivocal and uncritical acceptance of the UTas proposition – albeit unsupported by any compelling evidence – is concerning.

It is somewhat concerning when the aldermen are left to represent themselves when they do not appear to be representing their constituency. Aldermen leave themselves open to unwelcomed speculation – warranted, unwarranted, scurrilous, substantiated, whatever – and that does not serve the community at all well.

The main point to be made here is that Council is a long way from claiming anything that looks like a consensus on this issue and possibly other issues too.

Dr Powell presented the meeting with a passionate account of the risks both the council and the university face in an era of change. Likewise his account of how the UTas northern campus had been "asset stripped" pointed to deep inequities in regard to the delivery of post-secondary education and training in the Tamar region.

Furthermore, he said that the 10,000 plus additional students can’t be guaranteed and is an aspirational figure only based on demographics, not facts, hence it is a fraud to say that figure will eventuate from this proposal.

Council claimed a majority of aldermen support their decision but that's hardly representational governance or anything like the good governance the Minister Gutwein is looking for in his guidance on Local Govt. and to quote that guide ... “Good governance is accountable; Good governance is transparent; Good governance is law-abiding; Good governance is responsive;  Good governance is equitable; Good governance is participatory and inclusive; Good governance is effective and efficient; Good governance is consensus oriented “ 

On the consensus count, in regard to the gifting of land, 'consensus' seems to have eluded Launcestonians. It also appears that the council believes that ratepayers and residents need to have decision making imposed upon them rather than bringing them on board in a consensus wherever possible. 

It's sad reflection that it takes the expenditure of so much effort on the part of a council, and the community, to have any kind of conversation about an issue that impacts quite heavily upon the whole community. 

Looking forward, if the council wishes to promote an active economy in the city, better still in the region, it needs to establish transparent and 21st Century collaborative and cooperative arrangements with institutions, business, collectives, etc. That will require a paradigm shift.

CLICK HERE To read the comments the Examiner's reporting drew

ALBERT HALL TUESDAY 21st PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

Here are a few ‘dot’ points to summarise Tuesday night’s Public Meeting:

•  Criticism of Council’s lack of due diligence, including construction problems/costs and issues with developing on the flood plains of the North Esk River and potential seismic risks 

• The track record of UTas in consistently chipping away at the Launceston campus making it but a shadow of what it was 20 years ago. There is no confidence this pattern will change 

• 10,000 PLUS extra students can’t be guaranteed. It is an aspirational figure based on demographics not fact, and a fraud to say that is the kind of figure that will eventuate from this proposal 

• Absence of support by electors 

• Risk of UTas plan not fully eventuating or finding success – the punt

•  Reliance on trust versus a properly defined and proven business plan 

• The Northern Campuses remaining lesser branches of UTas without the ability of independent initiatives to remain sustainable 

• Traffic congestion and parking inadequacies for UTas and other users of the precinct 

•  We need a uniquely Northern campus independent of UTas 

IS LAUNCESTON'S COUNCIL GETTING GREEDY?

People living in retirement villages and other aged care facilities should be very concerned about recent developments at Launceston's Council. 

Not satisfied with the fact that Launceston's rates are already the highest in Tasmania it seems that a group of aldermen and council's operational wing are forming a cabal led by Ald. Hugh McKenzie to investigate the ways council might extract extra rates from Launceston's retirement villages etc.

As Launceston's ratepayers know their rates are already $300 to $500 more than they might be given what's known about the rates that apply across the state. 

It appears that 'the McKenzie cabal' will be delivering a report to council as to how more money can be extracted from Launcestonians via the collection of rates from charitable institutions' properties.

The process that appears to be the one being followed is not one where residents and ratepayers get to be consulted in any meaning way. Almost for certain it'll depend upon so-called social media and other subterranean research techniques that will generate an outcome that'll appear out of the blue on some convenient council agenda without any prior reporting in the press – such as it is these days.

Rather, it appears that 'the McKenzie cabal' will proffer a proposal to council and almost without a whimper it can be expected that 'the aldermen' will fall into line and hand the task over to the operational wing of council. 

BINGO! The job will done and the residents of aged care facilities will join other Launcestonians in the 'rate churn' designed to grow the empires under the control of council's operational wing.

It's time to call the 'the McKenzie cabals' bluff and head it of at the pass. Council has demonstrated it slack of enthusiasm to do anything with its constituency – rather it appears to be hell bent on doing it to them.

The petition that is being promoted at the moment is the first step in calling council to book, and in particular 'the McKenzie cabal', and getting the council back on to the accountability track. For more information about the petition please contact Basil Fitch - PH 6344 2688

 CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

REFERENCES:

• Retirement villages rates report for Launceston Council  CLICK HERE

• City of Launceston council passes rates changes CLICK HERE

• Charitable institutions rates motion CLICK HERE

Look what fell of a truck

Read these documents to gain some kind of insight into 'the politics' in play in regard to UTas's proposed developments in Tasmania.

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Dysfunctionalism And Tasmanian Councils

The Supreme Court’s decision on the Glenorchy Council wrangle offers nothing to suggest there are grounds to disqualify the board of inquiry that Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein ordered into that council. Down in the Huon Valley, where Gutwein last September also felt moved to inquire into its council’s “dysfunction”, the board’s final report is believed to be with the minister and, at time of writing, no application has been made to a court to object to the process of that inquiry. So, it should be reasonable to think that a decision on the future of Huon Valley Council is due any day soon. With the worst of Gutwein’s smoke-and-mirrors balanced budget behind him, and the forestry scene apparently relatively quiet, one would think the minister might have a bit of time to spare to focus his mind on his niggling local-government problems. - 

See more at: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?%2Fweblog%2Farticle%2Fhuon-valley-guessing-games-its-time-to-act-mr-gutwein%2Fshow_comments

"Calling all Swampies" ... FOODS, LAUNCESTON AND THE PAPER "COMING READY OR NOT!"

FOREWORD 

Dr Jillian Koshin has responded to the Conference Paper below – "COMING READY OR NOT!" – and three further questions. Dr Koshin is a researcher who lives in Invermay/Invertesk and consequently she has an interest in the community in which she lives and a working knowledge of current community perceptions and attitudes. 

For whatever reason Launceston Council while serving the community well enough in a crisis, very well in fact, curiously Council seem largely oblivious to 'local' community perceptions, understandings and sensitivities.

PAPER Coming ready or not! – Perceptions of flood risk in the Launceston community 5 th Victorian Flood Management Conference at Warrnambool, 9 - 12 October 2007  [LINK] K. F. Willis, J. Vince, M. Vogt University of Tasmania and Launceston City Council Launceston, Tasmania 7250 AUSTRALIA .... CLICK HERE

Abstract Launceston is a flood prone municipality. The last major flood occurred in 1929. In this flood, approximately 4000 people were made homeless overnight. Three similarly large floods occurred between 1852 and 1893. If a similar flood to the 1929 flood occurred today, it may affect around 640 homes in the flood area. However, all of the low-lying suburbs of Invermay/Inveresk could remain inaccessible with service interruptions that might prevent occupation of homes. Major roads would also be closed. This means that somewhere around 3000 residents and 270 commercial properties would be affected.

In addition, it is envisaged that a flood of this magnitude would cause significant damage to infrastructure of state significance such as Aurora Sports Stadium, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and the University of Tasmania’s Inveresk Campus. Such damage would incur significant financial loss and require both immediate and long term economic recovery. The state of the flood levee protection has received considerable Council (and media) attention, with Council attempting to secure state and federal funding to upgrade the levee system.

It is estimated that without flood levee protection, 40% of Invermay/Inveresk could be under water during high tide every day. The water could be over 1 metre deep at some locations. This could continue twice a day until any breaches in the levee banks are fixed and flood waters are pumped back into the river. Recent engineering advice indicates that in the event of a ‘modest flood’, there could be significant damage to property and interference to land use, commercial activity, employment and people’s lives for an extended period.

Despite the fact that this is a high profile issue in the Launceston community, there is little knowledge about the perceptions and beliefs of the residents most likely to be affected in the event of a major flood. 

This paper reports on a research collaboration between the Launceston City Council and the University of Tasmania aimed at finding out more about community flood risk perceptions. Taking a sociological approach to risk perception, the project aims to examine in detail the demographic composition of the affected area, and a study of residents’ perception of, and readiness for, a major flood event. It is intended that the information gained from this study will assist the Launceston City Council to develop effective risk communication strategies, and to develop appropriate policies for emergency management should a major flood event occur.

Dr. Koshin's 2016 response to this paper "Coming ready or not!" ... CLICK HERE

The Postponed Public Meeting's Date Time and Venue

Notice of Public Meeting

Public Meeting 7 June 2016 postponed to 21 June 2016

The public is advised that at the Public Meeting held at the Albert Hall, Launceston at 7pm on Tuesday 7 June 2016 in response to a petition received by the Council Meeting, the subject matter being:

1.    That the Launceston City Council call a Public Meeting for the purpose of discussing the Council's decision to transfer (free gift) land, known as Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome

2.    Call on Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015 to transfer said land (free gift) to UTAS

3.    That the said land be placed for sale on the open market via a public auction with a Reserve Price of $5 million,

the following decisions were taken:

1.    That Mr Don Wing AM is appointed as chairperson for the purposes of the Public Meeting; and

2.    That in view of the flood crises that is threatening Launceston and with respect to the efforts and pleadings by the petitioners and their representative for this Public Meeting to be rescheduled to a later date since yesterday, such a request having been refused by Council's representatives, this meeting now be adjourned forthwith and resume at this same venue on Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 7pm, so that those people attending can now return home safely.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Meeting will be held in Albert Hall, corner of Tamar and Cimitiere Streets Launceston, commencing at 7pm on Tuesday 21 June 2016 to consider the matters sought by the petitioners, namely:

1.    That the Launceston City Council call a Public Meeting for the purpose of discussing the Council's decision to transfer (free gift) land, known as Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome

2.    Call on Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015 to transfer said land (free gift) to UTAS

3.    That the said land be placed for sale on the open market via a public auction with a Reserve Price of $5 million.

The chair of the Public Meeting shall be Mr Don Wing AM and the Meeting shall be conducted in accordance with the Local Government Meeting Procedures (Regulations) 2015, as appropriate. The agenda of the meeting will be:

1.    Opening remarks from the Mayor, Alderman A M van Zetten

2.    Introductory remarks from the Chair, Mr Don Wing AM

3.    Report on submissions by the General Manager under section 60A(4) of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas)

4.    Statements of position (15 minutes each)

(a)  Council

(b)  Petitioner

5.    Motions on the subject matter

6.    Close

Written submissions in relation to the subject matter have been summarised by the General Manager and will be available to those attending the Public Meeting and can be viewed at www.launceston.tas.gov.au.

Robert Dobrzynski

General Manager

THE EXAMINER: UTAS public meeting postponed

June 7, 2016, 8:20 p.m.... CLICK HERE

A public meeting to discuss the City of Launceston’s transfer of land to the University of Tasmania has been postponed for two weeks due to the ongoing flood emergency.  ......... The public meeting at the Albert Hall in Launceston on Tuesday.   ......... About 100 people filed into the Albert Hall just before 7pm on Tuesday to attend the meeting, which had been organised in early May.   .........  A motion to postpone the meeting until June 21 was put to the floor just after chair Don Wing was appointed.   ......... A number of attendees spoke to the motion, many urging the meeting to support it, but some voicing their disappointment at the “waste of time.”   ......... Former alderman Basil Fitch told the meeting that petitioners had tried to persuade the council to postpone the meeting throughout Monday and Tuesday.   .........  Launceston general manager Robert Dobrzynski said the council had been in a difficult position because he did not believe they had the “prerogative to make unilateral decisions” on cancellation.   ......... He said the decision had been to convene the meeting and then the meeting could determine whether to postpone in fairness to all parties.   .........  A petition on the UTAS land transfer deal was presented to council in March.  .........  The petition called on the council to hold a public meeting on the decision to transfer the Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome.  .........  It also called on council to rescind the transfer passed at the meeting of November 9, 2015, and for the land to be placed for sale on the open market with a reserve auction price of $5 million.

PUBLIC MEETING LOOMS

On Tuesday night in Launceston, a public meeting will take place to challenge Launceston Council’s decision to gift land valued something in the order of $5million to the University of Tasmania (UTas).

UTas is planning to relocate its Launceston campus from Newnham to Inveresk and occupy the land.

The meeting follows a ‘citizens petition’ with well in excess of the require 1,000 signatures calling upon the council to rescind the November 2015 transfer of the Willis Street Car Park and Old Velodrome at Inveresk. 

The petitioners are calling for the land to put the4 land up for sale on the open market with a reserve price of $5million to determine its market value.

Council has not tested the market to establish the value of the land by tender or any other means and it is relying upon a so-called independent valuation. Interestingly the valuer notes that the market for such land is volatile. In fact it could realise significantly more or even considerably less – its an open question.

Yet The Examiner tells us that “any piece of land is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.” And they ask “if no one is willing to pay anything for a piece of land, does that in fact make it worthless?” They do however admit to themselves that this sort of rhetoric takes “things a step too far.”

'Value' is never a simple matter and when it comes to public land in the end money tends to be a rather poor ‘measuring stick’. Various people/communities will imagine such land differently giving it layers of value – cultural, social, fiscal, recreational, aesthetic, heritage, etc.

The notion that a valuer from somewhere else can truly imagine a piece of land in multi-layered contexts that match the ‘vales’ the community does, and communities within it do, is challengeable. At least it is without asking them!

Here the council has used the services of an outsider to do what they, as a representative governing body, should have done themselves. The fact that council didn’t seek to do so makes for all kinds of unwelcome speculations.

The fact that council hasn't required UTas to present it with a Development Application poses many questions.

The claim is that, albeit gifted “the land will in fact be of considerable value to the city and its residents.” Maybe, but what is forgone? Moreover, where is the plan with the modelling and case studies to back up the assumptions UTas is making?

The Examiner’s editorial, on behalf of the council(?), begs its readers to “consider the value of the proposal itself.” They also make this rather large leap of faith that government will stump up $300 million for capital works. Alongside that there is this blind faith that the university has done the research and the modelling.

But has it? If it has where is it? There are assertions and assumptions, but is that enough to win the kind of ‘public investment’ the institution is looking for? Will the investment deliver the speculated upon dividends? In fact does the community trust UTas enough to grant it the social license to spend its money and use its land in this way? If so on what evidence?

Yes, the money the workers might earn and spend during the development phase the city may well see something of an economic boost. However, the assumed ongoing benefits of the assumed future university students living and studying in the region are just that ,assumptions. The study paradigm worldwide ahead of us is quite, quite different to the past or even the present. Already students are quite often 'attending'  online, thus any assumption that they'll be on campus in Launceston is a questionable assumption.

Students once could be expected to add up to $30K a head to the local economy but no longer. Students no longer need to buy things in the communities in which they live except for food and rent. In fact in many instances they no longer need to reside in the communities their chosen university is located. Indeed why should, or would they unless there is a benefit? There are so many assumptions here and so little evidence to back them up.

The notion that “the region gains no benefits from an empty stretch of land” discounts the layering of values people have invested in the places being offered up. Currently the “community values” attributable to this land are significant, it is just the case that nobody has actually asked anyone what they are.

Whatever, it is entirely the business of UTas if it aims to shift campuses at an enormous cost. Therefore, it’s also entirely up to UTas to convince those with the funds available to invest in their plans to do so. At best that is a work-in-progress.

As Malcolm Turnbull says, paraphrased, if you are to invest in infrastructure you need both a plan and a purpose. His purpose for public transport is to put people within 30 minutes of where they want/need to be. That’s pretty much the case for the Launceston/Tamar region already and in the most parts it would be 15 minutes. This would seem to discount the geography imperative that UTas is relying upon.

So what is the purpose of UTas moving 4K? Where is the evidence that it is indeed the geography that is the issue? Why hasn’t the nature and relevance of programs UTas offers been considered as the reason students are voting with their feet?

The associate degrees being touted as ‘the answer’ to the course offerings so far lack any evidence that they’ll be taken up. Where is the risk assessment that UTas has done? Where is the demonstrated demand? How has it been tested?

Clearly UTas needs to lift its game. However, does that need to happen at the expense of Launceston’s ratepayers given the ongoing infrastructure implications that in all probability will fall to them if the plan is realised?  

Council amalgamations would need to proceed somewhat urgently if the inherent risks involved in giving UTas a blank cheque are to be mitigated or diluted. Launceston’s ratepayers already bear too heavy a burden meeting regional needs delivered by council’s non-core cost centres. Council amalgamations might just dilute the ongoing cost implications for the kind of "gift" Launceston Council has contemplated.

The Examiner’s support of Launceston Council’s follies is one-dimensional. And yes as they say “it’s time to be progressive and look to the future”.  

Government, Local, Sate and Federal, need to be much more measured and demand substantial evidence of institutions begging gifts to enable them to get out of the holes they have dug themselves into.

Those attending Tuesday night’s meeting must keep in sight the big picture – something that seems to be lost sight of thus far in this whole debacle.

General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski's Summary of Submissions To Launceston Council's Public Meeting – Albert Hall Tues June 7 at 7 PM

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS SUMMARY ONLINE

Click here to access some submissions submitted to LCC News

SUBMISSIONS SUBMIITED TO COUNCIL FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING ALBERT HALL JUNE 7 AT 7 PM

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE SUBMISSIONS

NOTE 

Not all submissions to the meeting 

have been copied to LCC News