Monday, 23 March 2020

eMAIL to elected representatives on CITY of LAUNCESTON

This email has been sent to each elected 
representative on City of Launceston's Council

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
Dear Councillor 

Given the COVID19 crisis, and the ‘climate emergency’ that Council has declared, together these things are currently, and will continue to, impact upon the city of Launceston’s finances, future planning priorities going forward. Consequently, Council’s operational priorities need to be seriously reconsidered. 

Unavoidably, these factors will, in fact arguably must, continue to be given proactive consideration for the foreseeable future. So, on the evidence, status quo thinking is inappropriate as planning for the future is reconsidered and realigned. 

Against this backgrounding members of the Launceston Concerned Citizens Network have resolved to write to each Councillor individually to canvass your individual and independent position in regard to:

  1. Proactively engaging with citizens, ratepayers and residents, in regard to budgetary decision making. More specifically, doing so by initiating a ‘citizen’s assembly’ to provide a truly authoritative background for such decision making;
  2. Proactively engaging with a broad spectrum of ratepayers and residents in regard to cultural landscaping priorities and placemaking policy determinations. More specifically, doing so by initiating a ‘citizen’s assembly’ and/or ‘citizens referenda’ to provide a truly authoritative background for such significant decision making;
  3. Restructuring local governance in Tasmania to reflect 21st Century imperatives and opportunities that allow for more direct opportunities for ‘direct democracy’ and ‘participatory governance’ in order to bring decision making as close as possible to the people being impacted upon.

If you do not wish to respond to this communication, by say April 3rd ,it will be understood that on these issues you do not wish to articulate your position at this time.

Please respond to LAUNCESTONprojects
launcestonprojects@bigpond.com

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SEE
https://lcc63.blogspot.com/2020/03/proposition-tlg2020-local-gernment.html


How Launceston Council plans to 
spend its 2020/21 budget
PATRICK GEE, The Launceston News

A RATES increase, a focus on Launceston City Deal commitments and a $35.4 million spend on capital projects are all part of City of Launceston Council’s draft budget and plan for 2020/21.

Councillors will vote to release the documents for community feedback at Thursday’s ordinary meeting.
Mayor Albert van Zetten said council was proposing a 3.9 per cent increase in rates, which was just above the council cost index of 3.38 per cent.

He said council would focus on delivering City Deal commitments, including the River Health Action Plan, City Heart, My Place My Future, stormwater management and the traffic signal upgrade.
Capital projects listed in the budget include $7 million for an upgrade and refurbishment of the Albert Hall, $6 million for a new Launceston Waste Centre cell liner, $3.13 million for the urban road renewal program, $2.4 million for a road resealing program and $1.5 million for a UTAS Stadium upgrade and sports facility feasibility study.

“Our organisation is moving towards becoming more agile and we have the ability to mobilise resources to deal with emerging issues, which potentially could include the Council’s response to managing the coronavirus pandemic,” Ald van Zetten said.
Ald van Zetten said council had implemented measures to mitigate a number of rising costs to council.

“Launceston continues to be impacted by the reduction in the TasWater distribution – some $1.36 million for our Council alone and a reduction in interest revenue due to historically low interest rates – a loss of more than $1.2 million.
“That’s on top of a $1.5 million TasWater charge for our combined system, $500,000 in maintenance and depreciation costs for Riverbend Park and wearing the cost of $322,000 a year for the free FOGO service.
Garbage collection costs have also risen 11.3 per cent to $5.38 million.

Ald van Zetten said mitigation would be through a review of council assets and depreciation and a review of the governance arrangements for major regional assets like UTAS Stadium and QVMAG.
Council is expecting to save $400,000 in the first year after converting the Launceston Aquatic Centre’s gas system over to a heat pump/solar system.

“Overall, the Council continues to be in a strong financial position and has budgeted for a comprehensive surplus of $9.8 million in 2020/21, with an underlying operating budget deficit of $1.88 million.”

Burnie City Council will consider 
whether rates should be waived
HELEN KEMPTON, The Launceston News March 23, 2020 9:00am

THE Burnie City Council is being asked to put all major developments – including its $18 million new art centre – on hold and instead provide rate relief to the city’s residents.

Councillor Ken Dorsey has put up a motion to be debated at the council’s next meeting that all capital works projects be put on hold and the $5 million the council money set aside to progress the proposed Burnie Museum and Art Galley be used for rate relief.

Cr Dorsey also wants the first hour of parking in the city’s multistorey carpark to be waived to help retail businesses weather the coronavirus storm.

“With the reduced workload, those with excessive annual leave and long service leave should be required to use this time to reduce the council’s entitlements while protecting them as individuals,” his motion says.

“Included in this package of relief would be to withhold any funds owing to external semi-government bodies.

“With the current restrictions placed on travel, visitation, gatherings and events it is imperative that we as a community work together to reduce the strain that this is putting on individuals and businesses.

“While I am a firm believer and proponent of the premise that we must persevere regardless of the circumstances, this has become a situation where jobs will be lost, business will close and our way of living altered for years to come.

“We have funds allocated to capital works that can be postponed and redirected towards providing rate relief for families and businesses adversely affected by current events.

Posted by at No comments:

PROPOSITION TLG/2020: Local Gernment Model in Tasmania Redundant & Failing


If the current Local Govt Act 1993 isn’t broken yet it is however well and truly past its USEbyDATE 

Given current technologies that by now are: 
  • Well proven and truly functional;
  • Very accessible; and generally 
  • Well understood in the wider community. 

They're increasingly ubiquitous and not the property of bureaucracies to fiddle with and 'keep away' from the citizenry. These technologies are in fact exemplary examples of 'democracy' in their in-built ‘democracy’ albeit that they embody a disruptiveness that persistently changes the status quo!

TO READ MORE CLICK HERE

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TASMANIA 
RETHINKING LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN TASMANIA


When the current legislation for local governance in Tasmania was framed it was 1993, Internet communications was only just at a beginning point. Where we have come to today was absolutely unanticipatable. The 21st Century world is quite a different place yet the legislation essentially remains as if the world hasn’t changed one jot.

To think of the legislation as being redundant and Neanderthal would not be an exaggeration. Moreover, in terms of current understandings it is well past its use-by-date and it fails to deliver in so many ways.

The first problem facing local governance in Tasmania is the wastefulness of having 29 local jurisdictions for a population that hovers around half a million people. 

That is:
•  29 mayors and however many councillors state wide;
•  29 general managers state wide; and
•  Unnecessary and wasteful capital expenditure and infrastructure expenditure state wide.

Even a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ will tell you that is something like two BILLION dollars is being expended without delivering the kinds of fiscal, social and cultural dividends commensurate with that expenditure.

To quote Rosemary Armitage, Independent Legislative Council Member for Launceston and a once Alderperson, she has invoked that famous quote that says "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". So, there is some residual wisdom out there and given half a chance it can be engaged with.

So, where to from here?
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, 21 March 2020

City of Launceston with UTAS: Who wins?


City of Launceston's unhealthy and 
unsustainable relationship with UTAS

Date: Saturday, 21 March 2020 at 11:14 am

To: Mayor <Mayor@launceston.tas.gov.au>, 

Councillor Danny Gibson <Danny.Gibson@launceston.tas.gov.au>

Cc: Contact Us <contactus@launceston.tas.gov.au>, 
Michael Stretton <Michael.Stretton@launceston.tas.gov.au>, 
"Shelton, Minister (DPaC)" <Minister.Shelton@dpac.tas.gov.au>, 
Premier Gutwein <peter.gutwein@parliament.tas.gov.au>


Dear Mayor and Councillors,

Members of the Concerned Citizen’s Network, and others, have raised a range of concerns relative to UTAS’s “sweet heart deals” that have apparently reached a point that yet again needs to be called-out. Even before the current crisis there were calls of alarm from ratepayers in regard to the flow-on expenses that will be reflected in the city’s general rate demand much of which comes out of Council’s confidential dealings with UTAS and what is being called-out as ‘inept planning decisions’.

Indeed, it is also being argued that at a time when proposed budgetary measures have been consigned to ‘further review’, this bears the evidence of such flow-on consequences. It is time for the city to seriously review its relationships with UTAS in order to find a more balanced way forward.

The concerns being presented relative to the arrangements between Council and UTAS in respect to the proposed Inveresk Car Park now are as follows:

  • Typically, commercial tenants are required to pay all maintenance costs and other expenses relevant to the property and their tenancy. Here it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities and without paying any kind of fees or charges relative to the ‘proposed Inveresk Car Park’ and its infrastructure. Given that this is indeed the case it is not an appropriate arrangement and especially so now.

  • Typically, tenants pay for their use of electricity for lighting and infrastructure maintenance. Here it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities and it should be obvious that this lacks credibility and indeed it fails any ‘pub test’. That this situation is being entertained it beggars belief. In addition, there appears to be no plan to generate solar power on the site either on UTAS’s part or council. In a time when a ‘climate emergency has been declared’ this is sloppy planning on both party’s part. It is also an opportunity where yet again it appears that the ball is being deliberately dropped. Or, is this a case of incompetence?

  • Typically, tenants as responsible tenants are required to maintain the property they occupy and in particular the landscaping, Again, here it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities and that only compounds the problems being passed on to ratepayers and residents who will pay one way or another via their rate demands and other fees and charges – all of which are being flagged to increase and unsustainably.

  • Typically, tenants are required to keep their property as a clean, tidy and healthy place and to ensure that rubbish is managed by themselves or via Council via a fee/charge. Here again it appears that UTAS is being excused such an obligation and again well beyond credible explanation. Indeed, this sets a very poor example for the city’s ratepayers and residents. In fact, if Council can see its way clear to ‘look away’ in this way, it is beyond belief.

  • Typically, the revenue from parking metres is either collected by Council and directed towards covering the costs identified above OR they are collected by the tenant and directed to that purpose. Moreover, if a tenant is collecting parking revenue they carry the cost in maintaining the metres and ensuring that they remain in good working order. Here again it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities which only serves to compound the incredulity being expressed by concerned citizens. Others it seems are inclined to keep a low profile in fear of some unexpected consequence of their speaking up.

  • Typically, a tenant is required to meet all water charges. Here again it appears that UTAS, as a non-ratepayer, is being excused such liabilities and it is an untenable arrangement that must be called into question and especially so when Council has declared a ‘Climate Emergency’. Moreover, UTAS is not being required to appropriately manage stormwater ‘on site’ and this too is a circumstance that needs to be called-out in the context of 21st C civic planning and ‘placemaking’.

  • Typically, a tenant is required to carry all the appropriate insurances and given that there is a deafening silence in regard to this issue concerns are being raised. It seems safe to assume that Council will be required to meet that obligation on the tenant’s behalf unless it is assured that this obligation is being met by UTAS. This apparent assumption of some lopsided version of the status quo – and here it is untenable!

  • Typically, a tenant, one way or another, would be required to pay for the upkeep of curbing and guttering and roadway surfacing on the property they occupy in some way. Likewise, ‘boom gate’ repair and maintenance would fall to the tenant. Here again it appears that UTAS is being excused all such liabilities and again this is an untenable arrangement that places an unfair burden upon ratepayers and residents – not to mention the poor example it sets within the community.

  • Typically, the cost of any outcome due to vandalism would fall to the tenant and not to Council albeit that Council has role to play in mitigating against such anti-social behaviour. That this and the matters above are unclear, undiscussed and apparently unacknowledged, raise serious alarm among residents and ratepayers.

The Auto Museum

Reports coming to the community from multiple sources suggest that the property title to the building is currently resting with UTAS while it is supposed to have been transferred to the City of Launceston long before now. Presumably maintenance of the site falls to the city and not UTAS. It is obvious that the title to the property must rest with the city.

That the transfer has been on, and apparently remains on, the ‘gunnado list’ is both astounding and alarming.

Moreover, it is yet another example of the city’s unhealthy and unproductive, indeed expensive, relationship with this corporate citizen cum developer.

Continually looking away in the hope of a productive outcome has proven to be both pointless and way too expensive from ratepayers’ and residents’ perspective. Up to now criticism has been serially and somewhat surreally rejected. The time for change is now, not next month or sometime out, but right now.

Equitable fiscal arrangement with corporate citizens and developers

Launceston’s ratepayers’ and residents have a right to expect that the city’s corporate citizenry meet their obligations as are all ratepayers and residents. To be seen as giving UTAS serial ‘free kicks’ in the end is not only untenable, it is unsustainable – not to mention unethical.

In the instance of the arrangements being countenanced by Council in regard to the Inveresk UTAS Car Park this is more than astounding. The burden it places on ratepayers and residents is unacceptable and that Council is entertaining and condoning all this, well it beggars belief.

As it is being put to me, relative to the UTAS Inveresk Car Park, Council is forgoing a potential income of $600 per day in this instance alone. This comes on top of the city’s planned loss of amenity, and income, in respect to the Willis Street Car Park.

This is not a trifling concern but more to the point it is symptomatic of a relationship that has turned toxic, and something that is showing no signs of this being acknowledged and addressed. And all this at the cost of ratepayers and residents, who unknowingly for the most part are being left to ‘carry the can’. – as hapless ‘suckers’ it seems.

Moreover, UTAS seems to be claiming that it operates with ‘high moral authority’ but that myth is being debunked state-wide day by day. Once ‘universities’ defined themselves, and understood themselves, as “communities of teachers and scholars”. It is more than evident that UTAS has not understood itself in that way for quite some time. Clearly, the city’s relationship with UTAS needs to be reviewed and rejigged.

In conclusion

On behalf of the concerned citizens, ratepayers and residents, facing unknown financial threats I ask that Council review its unhealthy, lopsided and unsustainable relationship with UTAS across the board. I look forward to Council openly addressing this issue in the press in the very near future as a component of its current ’budgetary realignment’ process.

Yours sincerely

Ray Norman
For and on behalf of a network of concerned citizens

Ray Norman
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody 
ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison


https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/


WHAT IS SAID IN THE EXAMINER

The car park is expected to be completed by 2021, subject to permit approval, and will create more than 850 spaces for students, staff and the public.
The Launceston Show Society will cease its lease on the Forster Street car park and UTAS will take it over to meet the demands of its $360-million campus relocation.
Council's chief executive officer Michael Stretton said the lease would be for a period of 20 years with an option to extend.
"[UTAS] will be responsible for funding and constructing the private and public car parks on the land," he said.
"The council will receive all revenue from the public car park at all times and from the private car park during events, with the exception of UTAS staff/students that have a valid parking permit."
The show society approached UTAS in August 2019 to discuss a car park expansion. It owed the council $151,736.55 and it will be paid back as part of the lease surrender.
Launceston Chamber of Commerce chief executive Neil Grose said surrendering the lease allowed the show society to develop a new vision for their future.
"It's a strong signal to the north that the university transformation is continuing as normal," he said.
"It's a strong signal we are looking forward, that [the relocation] will go ahead, that those local jobs will stay and that local money will stay in our economy."
The car park development will still need to attain a planning permit from the council, with construction planned to begin after this year's Launceston Show.
Councillor Paul Spencer voted against the decision as he said he wanted more information about the council being responsible for "reasonable maintenance" of the car parks.
"It's a great outcome for the show society, but I don't think it's fair on the ratepayers to be paying for all the maintenance," he said.

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, 15 March 2020

LAUNCESTON'S TOWN HALL DRAGS THE CHAIN ON THE COVID-19 ISSUE







\
YES, YES, it is the weekend an the city's overworked bureaucrats need their rest and recreation time out. Well do they? The senior 'staffers' given the salaries they are on, need to be on the ball 24/7. If they are not what is this telling us? Likewise, the ELECTED12 might well be on the case too but but they are missing in action.  Someone somewhere should be asking these questions given the evolving civic emergency now being played out!

 Here is another COVID-19 (Coronavirus) update collated from reliable sources (medical professionals - both clinical and public health) and from official public health advice (13/03/2020):

Disclaimer: I am a clinical General Practitioner (FRACGP) with a Masters of International Public Health. I am not a public health physician nor employed by the public health department, however I am disseminating information consistent with public health guidelines. I am based in Tasmania, and currently there appears to be no community transmission in Tasmania (although this is difficult to ascertain anywhere).

COVID-19 is now a global pandemic, as defined by WHO. Frustratingly, there seems to be some public confusion due to mixed messages from federal and state governments. From the medical reports and live data we’re reading from other countries, it seems to be causing more destruction the later the country waits to shut everything down and enforce social isolation - the countries who have managed successfully are the ones who have ordered home isolation and social distancing early on, and the citizens have obeyed (such as Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Japan).

It’s good to stay informed and up-to-date, as well as vigilant in hygiene and other precautionary measures, for the sake of our vulnerable population. However panic and hysteria don't help anyone. I've written this based on Australian public health advice I've heard and researched, in response to many questions I've been asked.

Once a case has been identified and confirmed by public health, they are put into isolation for a period that they will advise, and checked up on every day. If they are very unwell, they are isolated in hospital. Any close contacts of a confirmed case are also contacted and given advice.

What we know:
1. It is more contagious than usual influenza (twice as contagious, doubling time of >2 days), so it will spread fast.

2. It can present with mild symptoms and even be asymptomatic in some (particularly young) people, but they can still spread it.


3. The virus seems to be able to survive on surfaces, particularly metal and plastic for 3 to 9 days (link in comments).


4. Symptoms are: fever, dry cough, shortness of breath, fatigue (mild in the 1st week, worse in the 2nd week); also general malaise, loss of appetite, and occasionally diarrhea.


5. Only minimally associated with runny nose or sneezing (but sneezing can spread contagious droplets).


6. We need to slow the spread in order to slow the patient load on overwhelmed hospitals and healthcare systems (even if that means COVID-19 hangs around longer within the wider community).


7. From early data emerging, approximately 80% have a mild course of this disease and will not need to attend hospital, 14% are sick enough to require hospitalisation, and 5% are critically ill requiring ICU --> this will place enormous pressure on our already-struggling hospital system.


8. Limited data on children – it seems they do catch it, but are only mildly/not symptomatic. No mortality data for children <10yo.


9. Pregnant women appear to be at same risk as non-pregnant women.



10. People can be infectious from about 3 days after exposure and about 1-2 days prior to symptoms, and up to 10 days after diagnosis.


11. Unfortunately, if hospitals are overwhelmed, those who would ordinarily need care or ICU for non-COVID-related disease will not get necessary care.


12. Those who will likely be more critically ill will probably be older, immunosuppressed and/or have comorbidities (respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension and cancer).


13. We are heading into influenza season here in Australia, which will add to the healthcare burden.

What can we do now?

1. The aim now is not to stop it, but rather slow the rate to minimise the rate at which vulnerable populations will be exposed and become unwell. This is to reduce the burden on hospitals and healthcare systems, and to allow those who need medical attention to survive access to necessary resources.

2. Apply common sense such as virus-minimising measures: regular hand-washing, avoiding public gatherings (gatherings >500ppl have been advised against by our Australian Prime Minister this afternoon), cleaning surfaces & food, not sharing food & drinks, not going to work when unwell, coughing into tissues or sleeves. Call 000 and seek urgent medical attention if severe symptoms (chest pain, breathing difficulties, etc)


3. It’s not entirely clear whether children are a risk to grandparents, so best to make an individual choice about isolation within families.


4. If you have mild symptoms, stay home and rest, and try to avoid other people as much as you can.


5. If you have fever and/or cough and have travelled overseas recently, or have had close contact with a COVID-confirmed case (and have been contacted by public health), then CALL your GP, the COVID hotline (1800 020 080) or the state public health hotline to find out what to do next (including getting swabbed). If you're positive, you need to isolate at home for a period that will be advised by public health; if high-risk (close contact of confirmed case or recent travel to a high-risk country), you might be told to quarantine yourself for 14 days (there can also be false negative swab results).


6. If you have been swabbed to determine whether you are positive, PLEASE QUARANTINE YOURSELF AT HOME UNTIL YOUR RESULT IS BACK.


7. Social distancing is the key – from now. This is what has been shown to be the key determinant for better management in certain countries (as I’ve listed above). Please avoid large public events if you can, especially if you are in a high-risk group. For advice regarding school closures, please refer to local public health guidelines. Cancelling school excursions (particularly interstate) should be seriously considered given things are escalating by the day. Work places that can should be starting to transition temporarily to working from home, even for just a few days/week; change face-to-face meetings to teleconferences, postpone workshops. Stay off public transport if possible, minimise any interstate travel, and as of this afternoon, our Australian PM has advised non-essential international travel should be cancelled.


8. Those in high-risk groups should probably start practicing social distancing from now.


9. Get your fluvax when it becomes available.


10. The decisions about how to change your social activities will be personal, but we all have a social responsibility to try and reduce spread and exposure of vulnerable populations.


Politicians, Community Leaders and Business Leaders: What Should You Do and When? ... CLICK HERE


Aus Government Department of Health: https://www.health.gov.au/healt…/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 12 March 2020

THE UTAS CITY OF LAUNCESTON CON JOB

CON JOB?
Well, it has taken approximately six years for the real agenda of the proposed relocation of the UTAS campus from Newnham to Inveresk to be revealed and as part of that expose, one can only view the Launceston City Council as now having as much egg on its face as the survivors of an explosion in a hatchery.

 Virtually nothing of the original, so called “plan” that was so easily “sold” to the LCC now exists. All the wonderful artists impressions, lovely brochures and talk of thousands of extra students swarming through the Launceston business district, spending their cash and re-invigorating the City was always just so much spin and has now been proven to be exactly that. Not only will there now be a trickle of students, there will also be a large number of ex UTAS employees who will also not be spending or staying in Launceston. Morale amongst academic staff at UTAS was extremely low prior to this latest act of bastardry.

 The Council’s dumb complicity in handing over $5 million dollars of land now highlights the fact that they did not do any due diligence on the true viability of the scheme. And they weren’t alone with that failure because the Libs, Labor and the Greens all swallowed the same drivel without once raising any questions about any real need to move the campus, let alone siting it on a tidal flood zone which was perhaps the ultimate act of stupidity to emerge from amongst all the secretive meetings and verbal diarrhoea that supported the idea.

 UTAS, the once cashed-up big spender (in Hobart at least), buying property and hotels like they were going out of style, is suddenly broke? 

 Hard to believe unless you view it as a corporate act that focuses on dollars rather than humans and quality education. Ripping the guts out of both courses and staff numbers to bolster the bottom line should perhaps be viewed under a McKinsey model microscope to fully appreciate the ruthless style of this hatchet job.

 The problems and non-viability of the relocation were raised time and again with Council and politicians however they simply, in their Dunning-Kruger states of mind, refused to listen or were too stupid or compromised to grasp the real issues. They continually acted (and still do) with supreme arrogance born out of their inability to properly question and investigate such important issues and have almost to a person become nothing more than a bunch of “nodding Zombies”.

 So what “plan” do you have now our stunningly cunning council? 

 Do you really believe that you can “work” with UTAS to develop courses suitable to Launceston’s needs? They must snigger at such a stupid idea from an entity that to date they have played like a worm on a hook. They may pretend that the LCC is included in their plans and discussions but the UTAS corporate entity in reality has little more need of input from the LCC than to be as compliant as they have been from the beginning of this cynical caper.

 The announcement by UTAS to send both staff and courses to the abattoir must become the catalyst that finally forces the whole dodgy relocation agenda to be fully investigated and questioned to within an inch of its life, as it should have been from the start if those in positions of power had done the job they are supposed to do for the people of Tasmania. 

 This whole Grimm’s Fairy Tale must stop whilst the opportunity presents itself. With the purported current economic stress being experienced by UTAS on top of the ever increasing fragility of our national economic situation, now is not the time to obscenely waste money on an unnecessary relocation project when the Newnham campus is both safe and totally viable.


The Watchdog.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)