OPINION: IT'S TIME

OPINION: If you go down to Town Hall today you'll feel the tension beginning to build. Time is running out for the Mayor and the ground is shifting under his feet. The numbers are growing for those who want to knock his hat off. Also, Ald. Finlay looks less and less likely to get enough puff to knock it off.

Albert is in the line-up again apparently because there's a branch of a political party that wants to 'rain on Janie's parade' and curiously, they seem to see him as some kind of Messiah. 

However, recent events in Canberra have begun to shoot holes in that strategy. Here it might be worth considering 2 Corinthians 10:12  “Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.”

Politicising local government in a 'party context' is ever likely to backfire given the way the ground shifts. Not putting too fine a point on it, fingers can, and do, get burnt.  Long ago, Socrates in his wisdom recommended that one needed “to find yourself and then think for yourself” and in local government, if one has the wherewithal, that advice stands up well in a representational role.

Currently within the candidates lining up for the 'Top Jobs' there are three of the five so far who do not have  'party allegiances' or aspirations beyond community representation. That's very refreshing given that they look like they can also divine the difference between up and down, in and out.

In the 'deputy's camp' as yet its still unclear but those wishing to 'sideline Janie' have got one contender who has declared himself. However, others have joined the dance and are positioning themselves and beginning to 'bay for blood' given the overall background performances and the incumbency's culture of 'seat warming'. However, some may simply be jostling for place at the trough, – so beware and aware.

In the representative's camp you would like to think that that there will be alternatives to the status quo given that 'the quo' have well and truly lost or forfeited their status.

Dr Tandra Vale

Cultural Commentator

NOTHING TO SEE? WELL WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

The Albert Hall lease under consideration is for a continuation of the current group which is TLA Catering. [The] understanding is that the lease was due for renewal in April.

However, just like the Blue Cafe, Rowing Club, Bowling Club etc, this did not happen. Strange coincidence that all these properties are in some way linked to the proposed stupidity of the UTAS relocation – although one could reasonably argue "What isn't linked to it?"– with this compromised Council.

Rumours around City Hall suggest that negotiations have been going on for quite some time between Council and TLA and if all things were fair, and integrity and justice were part of the modus operandi of the LCC, then TLA should simply expect not only to renew the lease but also that it should be a lengthy one in order to allow them to conduct business with certainty as bookings for the Hall logically need to be in place years ahead of the actual events.

The alternative scenario, if this Council deals with TLA as they do to all but the favoured few around town – and one must remain highly suspicious because of the time delay and the secrecy involved with a "closed door decision"  – then TLA will either be shafted altogether or they will only be given a short lease which will fit in with the much discussed plans by UTAS to take over Albert Hall in its voracious grab of property around town, thanks to the "generosity" of Council with the ratepayers land.

BLOODY GRUMPY
Launceston

POSITIONS VACANT AT TOWN HALL

ALARM BELLS RINING AROUND THE TABLE

click on the image to enlarge

THE MESSAGE SEEMS TO BE: BE ALERT AND BE PREPARED TO BE ALARMED

Increasingly as the local government elections bear down upon Tasmanians, Launcestonians in particular,  there is much to think about and quite a bit to worry about. Reports coming in from around the traps is clearly suggesting the incumbent alderpeople need not to be taking their continued tenure for granted.

Three LCCnews 'operatives' have been out and about today and they've reported in that the "the punters out there are right pissed off with the Council" – in a nutshell.

The reasons why are hard to get a handle on as "they are all over the place". However, the incumbents and/or their supporters seem to be invisible 'out on the streets' but they may be resting on their laurels – such as they are.

Mostly however home owners are concerned about their rising rates demands and well might they be. Launceston's rates are at least $300 per annum above rates elsewhere. A Western Australian homeowner who recently moved to Launceston said "I just cannot believe just how high Lonnies rates actually are". At a recent Council meeting the Mayor responded to a question about the level of city's rates saying something like 'well Launceston has things like the museum, stadium and the aquatic centre' that people outside the city use and pay nothing towards'. Hello!

Well in the last 7 years Launceston's rates have increased by 24% an average of 3.5% a year. Out there in voter land "the punters are hurting and some really feeling the pinch". The big question hanging in the air is all about "what might have been the driver for all this". On top of all this the city's debt – rather the ratepayers' – has grown extraordinarily to something in the order of $20million.

A number of the city's older residents looking ahead have been suggesting it is to do with the city "maxing out on the city's presumed borrowing capacity", Many are saying that the city's General Manager in cahoots the with the State's Treasurer selling the alderpeople the proposition that "Launceston must develop at all costs and whatever it is". So, these ratepayers are in a pickle with the prospect of their rate demand increasing exponentially and with no sight of any relief at all. 

Interestingly, it has been reported that Launceston's population is shrinking while the state overall is growing, and significantly, after a longish period of stagnation. And yes, Hobart's population is growing along with its burgeoning student numbers. Concerningly, Australia's population is growing so fast that it's growth rates get a mention in all kinds of planners' journals etc. So, why is this so? Are, as has been suggested, young people moving away because Launceston has less and less to offer? Or, are we looking at serial failures going on Launceston's Town Hall?

At Council's next meeting the city's alderpeople will slink off yet again behind closed doors to consider the lease of Albert Hall, at the very least to not let anyone know who said what or how they voted. It does look a lot like they regard 'accountability' as being discretionary. As for 'transparency' that too is a standard it appears these elected representatives are quite willing to walk past.

But as they say "nothing to see here"!!

Machiavelli is pulling someone's chain at Town Hall

The politicians in the CANBERRAbubble might well be tossing and turning looking for a way forward. Likewise, their 'mates' in the LAUNCESTONbubble have got their fingers crossed and hoping that there is a way forward that looks 'something like what it is now'. 

Sadly, what's being missed is that 'the purpose' in all this stuff is serving and representing constituencies!

The plot is well and truly lost not only in Canberra but also in Launceston/Tasmania. Well people, in the end it is not about you as representatives. Yes people, in fact its all about the people in the places whom you represent. Hello!

Basil Fitch's call to 'keep party politics out of local government' is more than timely. The speculation that a branch of the Liberal Party, if the speculation has substance, the branch has encouraged, and apparently  endorsed, Mayor van Zetten as a mayoral candidate for the upcoming elections with Ald. Hugh McKenzie apparently as the endorsed Deputy candidate. 

Ratepayers and residents are likely to hear 'party political proponents' bleating that this isn't so but they, whoever they are, might be inclined to say that mightn't they.

For anyone who has been looking at what the cosy snuggle-ups between Launceston's Mayor and the Minister has resulted in will note that LAUNCESTONIANS are in debt – something like $20million in fact – and it's a legacy Launcestonians are stuck with for a long time ahead. 

The calculation being, seemingly, that none of it will touch the incumbents at Town Hall. They let the situation slip by while they dozed-off around the table and/or chose to look the other way on while taking their stipends.

Launcestonians need to be aware of the sort of things going on behind behind 'closed doors' at Town Hall and elsewhere. In fact it is more than worrying what has been happening in 'Closed Council Meetings' and in 'Machiavellian Meetings' in Newstead or wherever. 

Launcetonians need to be looking very, very carefully at the toxic circumstances in which they find themselves – very very carefully indeed.

Ray Norman

August 2018

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/380427/Good_Governance_Guide_June_2018.pdf

Civic Planning And The Spectre Of The Flood

 

click on images to enlarge

Severe weather warning for Tasmania including damaging winds and high tides

Given that Launceston is located at the confluence of a tidal estuary and two rivers Launcestonians should be able to take Wednesday's King Tide and a relatively minor flood event in their stride. Yet in should alarm the city's planners and alderpeople but it seems not.

Around and about in the underground 'newsrooms' the news is that the 'punters' are speculating upon what might have been – what could have been – in this or that scenario. None were all that far away from what was right there with the levy being reported as being just 30cm away from being breached and this place being flooded, and over there the water came much closer than expected, and so on. Clearly down at Town Hall there was a deal less complacency than there might have been. Had it not been for the looming council elections there might well have been no reason to worry at all.

It is bad enough to be distracted by such concerns, and even well into a term, it is as well to "bite your tongue" for fear of "frightening the horses". However at election time it is worth a politician's time to remember that, as someone said somewhere, “rats survive so well because they are rats. They know when to keep quiet and they know when to squeal.” If one had payed  close enough attention to this week's tides and flood it should have served as a salutary warning.

Today's Launcestonians have been left a 'colonial legacy' that no matter how much we want to look away and think of England the city suffers from serial civic planning follies. Just because something has been done, and it's worked, well sort of, up until now, it doesn't mean that it was ever enough. This week it was 'just enough' again yet the 'finger crossing' folly persists.

As Lismore (Far Nth NSW) [LINK] discovered to its chagrin in March 2017 when you look away and cross your fingers a flood is just as likely to come along and defy your best wishes and deliver a disaster. Lismore and Launceston share geographical circumstance [LINK] in so much as they sit at the confluence of extensive river catchments. Yes, Lismore's rainfall is higher than Launceston's and yes it does flood there more often but the crossing of fingers and the 'she'll-be-right' world view wound up costing that community 'zillions', the extent of which is still being assessed.

So, the lessons are there as to why local governance has an obligation to do the due diligence based local knowledge when it comes to floods. For a very long time Launceston's civic planners and 'governors' have come up wanting. Sorry, this is not what you want to hear when you've just got away with past mistakes and you're looking to keep your allowances, and you have so, so much invested in the status quo, and the upcoming elections are so very close.

Lismore's university is on the city's high ground and the idea of moving it to the CBD is not on the agenda. This university sees more profitable ways to develop their operation in their current location taking note of their geography. Interestingly, Lismore's university campus is about the same distanced away from its CBD as is Launceston's.

Conversely, the University of Tasmania and the City of Launceston's aldermen insist that the economics stack up for moving their operation onto a tidal flat. Also, it seems that the failing 'community representatives' think that its worth doing it and slugging its ratepayers more, and more on the strength of shonky advice most of which was hatched 'elsewhere' . For the most part the hatching was done by 'blowin bureaucrats' who have already moved elsewhere with their pockets full.

Just who is doing, or has done, the due diligence and why should anyone believe them? One also wonders why the 'business case' for a spurious move that would need extraordinary expenditure is consistently 'due soon'.  However, there are additional planning issues that are more complex than any of this suggests.

IT IS TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK AND REAL CHANGE

ITS TIME FOR SOME CREDIBLE PLANNING

Local Government No Place For Party Politics

It has been a much spruiked mantra that Local Govt and party politics do not belong together. A lot of candidates will tell you that they "do not belong to the party" yet they demonstrate their party allegiances in so, so many unsubtle ways. Also, at a local level over time everyone through their actions and alliances give the game away.

The GREENS were among the first to overtly announce their candidates unambiguously as party members  when it was a local government candidacy. Other parties have been less up front and the 'rumour mills' rumble with background noise when their members and 'fellow travellers' put their hands up for election in local government. These things get to be the worst kept secrets in town – and especially so when the favours start to be handed out. 

The apparently increasing number of 'Closed Council' meetings is cause for serious concern when all this starts to come together in worrying sways. The alderpeople/councillors who bring these meetings on should be ringing alarm bells when they slink off to make decisions away from the public gaze.

The deep problem is that once elected by the community as 'community representatives' the party aligned alderpeople/councillors tend to represent their party rather than their community – and all too often. Additionally, these alderpeople's/councillor's propensity to curry favour with their State and Federal party colleagues, mates even, does not always work out well for a lot of ratepayers and residents. When the development imperatives shifts  focus  alarm bells should start to ring.

                           . 

All of this is a contentious issue and it is about time that ratepayers and residents challenged candidates and incumbent representatives more fulsomely. This should not only be at election time but also throughout their now rather longish term. If they manage to wangle themselves past the issue and find themselves in office it is almost open slather for up to four years. 

Politics is sometimes a rather nasty business and there is no place for 'the nasty stuff' at the close quarters local governance needs to operate in.

None of this is really new or even an serious issue if aldermen/councillors hold themselves 'accountable' and if they're 'transparent' in their decision making.  Sadly, currently with the smell of party politics in the air, what's put out as 'accountability' is far from it. Transparency likewise falls victim to 'party political' imperatives way too often.

Be alert because when things start to to go wrong it all gets to be rather alarming.

Ray Norman

August 2018

Albert's up and running in the 2018 Local Govt Stakes

Well the horse has hardly bolted but it's up and running in the 2018 'election stakes'! Today, Albert van Zetten has announced that he plans to stand for Mayor of Launceston.  Ald. Hugh McKenzie's candidacy for Deputy Mayor was announced a little earlier on 7LA and Ald. Janie Finlay was out of the blocks last week. So be it, and off we go.

It seems that the real issue is yet to really present itself given the sorry state of representational local governance in Tasmania. The burning issues across Tasmania is 'accountability and transparency' – A&T – and after that comes the affordability, or rather the increasingly unaffordability of rates, in some jurisdictions.

In the weeks ahead the issue of  A&T should top of ratepayer's list of concerns and the thing they should be looking into their memories for the evidence of relative to their experiences of A&T over the past four years. 

Local governance in Tasmania after a 'four year term' shows all the signs of dysfunction and serial disconnection from its constituency and it seems that it is increasingly so. Now is the time to test our perceptions of our local council's 'performance' and ask all the questions we have in mind and get some answers before we vote.

......................................

THE EXAMINER AND ALBERT VAN ZETTEN'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Launceston’s longest serving mayor will recontest his position at the upcoming local government elections. ............. Albert van Zetten announced his plan to stand for the position of mayor on Friday. ............. “I really believe that stability is important and after many conversations I realised I still had passion,” he said. ............. Alderman van Zetten has been Launceston’s mayor for nearly 11 years and has been in local government for 13 years. ............. He said he had made it his life’s purpose to serve the city of Launceston in any way possible. ............. While he said sometimes the mayoral position can “feel like you’re on your own” he had been heartened by a number of people who called and asked him to stand again. ............. “I have had phone calls from the business community, and from other alderman, asking me to stand again.” ............. Alderman van Zetten will join Alderman Janie Finlay as announced candidates for the position of mayor. ............. An election for the City of Launceston council will be held in October.

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN, WHO IS PLAYING WHO?

Well, well, well down at Town Hall today it seems that the army of council ‘Spin Doctors’ are in danger of believing in themselves and taking themselves and their bureaucratic authority a bit too far. Just look at the spin in action as we head towards the 2018 council elections in October.

It’s reported that Basil Fitch returned to his post in the public gallery today and he asked the mayor his quota of questions. One was about him using his incumbency and ratepayers funding to promote himself on Television and elsewhere. 

Initially Ald. van Zetten claimed that he did not understand what Mr Fitch was talking about but aldermen around the table helped Mr Fitch out and confirmed the basis of his questioning. 

Possibly the mayor was oblivious to the potential to him being seen as operating outside the bounds of best practice and credible moral standards. Whatever, he seems quite comfortable about putting himself about without too much self reflection.

It seems that there are some serious question waiting to be answered. Like, does the councils public relations team favour the status quo and do they consequently structure their work towards maintain it? Then again, are aldermen actually aware of the 'spin doctors’ preferences and predilections? If so, do they actually see themselves as the recipients of back grounding to enhance or otherwise their election prospects?

This is a serious matter with serious implications but many ratepayers and residents are already laughing behind their hands in polite company, some wishing one thing, others wishing another. It is about time the mayor and aldermen did something about their appearing to look away when morals and ethics, and indeed accountability, comes under scrutiny in a discussion. The punters are not stupid – well not so very, very stupid.

Then there is the question of $14.8Million that is outstanding in regard to commitments not being met by ‘grant providers’ etc. Who in voter land is looking at that? In fact, which aldermen are taking any notice at all? 

Council’s placatory words are very worrying in the context of ratepayers now servicing $20Million in loans. With the expenditure of this money not being intended to generate income of any sort to relieve ratepayers of the debt well into the future. Just what is going on?

In addition, these loans are bound to create maintenance expenditure issues well after the life of this council’s term is over and at a time when the decision makers – elected and unelected – have left the scene with their superannuation and so on quite intact.

As per usual, the aldermen slunk off to do some decision making behind closed doors again today. The more this happens the more concerning it is. What cannot be said out in the open and who voted how? Were is the accountability?

Ratepayers and residents should keep these things front of mind when candidates come knocking and when  candidates are putting themselves up as credible contenders. In fact, if ratepayers are going to vote they had better confront candidates with some home truths or bear the consequences of their not taking strong enough action along with them to their graves.