LAUNCESTON AND THE STATUS QUO

There's no need to say that the  STATUS QUO almost definitely dose not look much like this yet!  Given that with this as a background, we did a survey and the respondents agreed. We then ask them to give us a percentage chance for a number of DIGITALLY PRINTED STRUCTURES to be printed in the City of Launceston Municipality 'precinct' in the 'life of the next Council' IF the status  quo were to persist. SO, here are the results in percentage terms;

• 1 structure in 4 years = 0.001%
• 2 structures in 4 years = 0.001%
• 10 structures in 4 years = 0.00001%
• 100  structures in 4 years = 0.00000%
• NB respondents were forced to provide a number

Given the information randomly selected here via the videos that outcome might well be regarded as indictment of some kind and a judgement on the progressiveness of the community currently voting in a Council election. 

If the outcome resulted from people only watching 1 or 2 videos that would be indicative of a community with its 'minds collectively slammed shut'. If ALL the videos had been watched – and there was no attempt to access that – that would be indicative of a new standard being set for 'status quoism' anywhere on the planet. 

Since most Launcestonians are having great difficulties sifting the candidates into sets they might be able to support and trust for the next 4 years this kind of exercise might be enlightening in term of how committed the electorate is to 'keeping things the same'.

DIGIAL PRINTED HOUSING

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/3d-printed-concrete-home/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-zpnoNLEU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-zpnoNLEU

BUILDING ON DEMAND 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-zpnoNLEU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzmCnzA7hnE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-zpnoNLEU

WHEN IS AN ADVOCATE NOT AN ADVOCATE?

Election time is accountability time, and for incumbent aldermanic representatives its a bit like presenting oneself at the PEARLY GATES after a misspent life. If those who you represent are inclined to look kindly upon you MIGHT let you through. However, if you have not been paying attention while you have been collecting your allowances it is likely that you will be left lingering on the steps watching your replacements leisurely wandering past to take their place at 'the table'.

Ratepayers and residents are extraordinarily powerful at times like this. It is the time when delinquent alderpeople in Launceston look to ratepayers and residents to remember and forget depending how well they have behaved. It is a lot like waiting expectantly for the tooth fairy to turn up or forget your existence.

Some incumbents have hides as thick as a Rino's and you really do have to wonder what they are doing in an election if they have self-assessed. Most, well many at least, who have not had a medical emergency but have friends who have, well might be quizzing themselves right now.

It's not long now before we know just how good Launceston's collective memory is ....  or isn't.

VERY INTERESTING LETTERS

LCC and Election TWO great letters concerning the concerns of ratepayers and difference in councils (The Examiner, October 2) dated by Mr Geoff Smedley and Rob Kenna regarding waste and greed by the LCC. ............. As a ratepayer of Launceston I cannot believe the money that was spent and wasted by the Launceston City Council. ............. If this was a private business, the doors would have shut well and truly by now. Mr Rob McKenna talks about bike lanes up Westbury Rd ($400,000), spare a thought for the supposed great bike lanes in Normanstone Road, a similar amount. I didn't know how to get into my driveway with all the white lines. But after complaints from people, another huge amount was spent grinding the white lines off. If any other council is considering a merger, I suggest be very wary and wait until we have new new councillors, a new Mayor. ............. This council needs renewing, not recycling. The malls - one is as barren as the other is cluttered . Playgrounds - thousands on playgrounds. The over spend on all of their projects makes me suspicious . Have your say people. ............. Steve Rogers, South Launceston. 

Mayor candidates Reading the article in The Examiner about Launceston’s mayoral candidates, I was disappointed but not surprised that not one of them mentioned fixing our city’s ailing infrastructure. ............. As for Alan Harris’s suggestion to meddle with the Gorge, its greatest asset is that it is unspoiled and a natural and delightful part of our city and should not be interfered with. ............. By the way, I liked Basil Fitch’s offer to not claim any remuneration. Perhaps all councillors should do the same. ............. Richard Hill, Newstead. 

Launceston council elections............. WHY should I vote for a name and face on a sign or handout? ............. I don’t know you. You haven’t knocked on my door to listen to my concerns. ............. All I hear is city, city, city. What about the Suburbs? ............. What about the decades ago proposed eastern bypass to replace the council approved defacto eastern bypass using suburban roads and streets? ............. What about tackling the fast food packaging that litterers throw from their cars? What about the trip hazard ridden suburban footpaths? What about the microscopic dust that covers our cars, residences and which we breathe? ............. Dennis Camplin, Ravenswood.

EDITOR'S NOTE: There is growing evidence that Launcestonians are getting the message that this Council is like a blocked toilet that needs a bloody good flush. There is one in the mix who has been trying to be accountable but is swimming against the tide with this council, with all the crap in it!  It's analogous to swimming in the Tamar. 

He can be excused for choosing the sidelines against such odds. However, hold the Mayor accountable now! Heaven forbid that we might suggest to you who to vote for but we can implore you to use social media and do some research and be very very critical.  think about it, we're likely to have the next lot for 4 years UNLESS someone sees the light and the State Govt has an inquiry into Local Govt. in Tasmania. Vote carefully!

A CAREFUL VOTE IS A BETTER VOTE

Notice how on the candidate's promotion only one candidate even goes close to committing to accountability and transparency! The subliminal message seems to be 'vote for me and I'll do what I like, take the stipend, and quietly do all kinds of deals with all kinds of people and go away those who do not like it'. All of that and no commitment to talk to those who gave them their vote. it gets worse but let's not talk about that here. 

ASK THOSE YOU VOTE FOR TO COMMIT TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. If they wont, or don't, give them the flick and if you cannot find 12 to do this you are better off not voting at all as you can expect to be screwed over in just about every way imaginable.

LETTER TO THE TREASURER

Dear Mr Gutwein,

Treasurer, as a consequence of today's council meeting in Launceston the proposition that the City of Launceston has borrowed something in the order of $20Million from the State Government, interest free for five years was contested. By the end of question time the matter was not resolved and:

• The level of debt the next Council will be required to manage was left unclear and ambiguous;
• The circumstances of any debt – and it is clear that Council is in fact indebted to the State Govt. – that too was left unhelpfully unclear and ambiguous.

When ratepayers and residents are being asked to vote for representatives who will manage the city's fiscal position this circumstance is absolutely untenable. The very notion that the discussion that led to this circumstance, something that was negotiated behind closed doors, and seemingly under the provisions of SECTION 62, is far from satisfactory or anything representing accountability. 

Likewise, the lack of transparency ratepayers and residents are able to rely upon appears to be unacceptably low.

Treasurer, I draw your attention to my previous correspondence on this matter and I am now seeking your prompt advice in order that Launceston's residents, ratepayers and other voters can be well and appropriately informed when they vote.

Yours sincerely,

Basil Fitch

Candidate for Mayor & Alderman

City of Launceston Council

Basil Fitch, 5 Waveney Street South Launceston

Basil Fitch fitchbasil2@gmail.com

ELECTION SIGNAGE PLUS HUBRIS AND ARROGANCE EQUALS MAYHEM IN SUBURBIA

Click here for story link with image album

This is one of those occasions when what is being wondered about is what you can get away with whilst chasing your prize. Potter Stewart says "ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do." And, then there is William E. Gladstone who tells us that "justice delayed is justice denied." And then the Bible tells us “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive"... 1 Corinthians 10:23

Very quickly we discover that 'the law is an ass' as Dickens is oft quoted saying so. Election signs  – the coreflutes – are popping up all over as if there is no reason as to why they should not and that it is some kind of 'free-for-all'..

Of course there are  constraints and all it takes is a phone call to Town Hall and you can have it all explained to you in vivid detail. If you are 'an incumbent' the word apparently is 'put them up and by the time anybody complains they will have done their work' – that is how this thing works apparently!

On the other hand if you are a 'new player', well you are going to have to play by the rules because you will be told that you must. If the credibility gap is 'ginormous' do not worry that's just the way of the world.

By now those in Launceston who are curious about who are the 'serious players' in the council game –those seeking the income in the main – will know who they are and mostly it'll be the incumbents relying on 'the regulations police' looking the other way if they want an easy/easier life 'going forward'. 

The most interesting thing about these signs, and where they are placed, is the underlying subliminal messaging that is going on. They are typically placed on property where the owner wants, or may want in future, to curry favour with Council and/or a candidate. More to the point the positioning of signs, how many and how they look, send out all kinds of messages about 'who has the pull' and yet it tells you very little, in most cases, about 'who you will be able to trust to represent you'– for that you are going to have to look elsewhere and very hard. 

There is no doubt that the signage is repulsive and little more than 'visual pollution' albeit that this signage is destined to disappear – but not quickly enough.Yet the perpetrators will pull the political rabbit out of their hat as they do in the 'NO JUNK MAIL' plea on letter boxes ... 'its not junk/pollution ... its important information'. 

However, you'd think that the Mayor would not only know the rules and likewise be alert to, and be respectful of the regulations, and the values they apparently seek to engender... but it seems no!

Anyway, in a 21st Century context these 'coreflutes' are a rather dumb 'yesterday strategy' belonging to 'yesterday people'– people bereft of an idea. As for embracing 'new paradigms' and being able to see ahead, and taking those they claim they want to lead along a different road, forget that idea.

Interestingly, two candidates have chosen to go without these 'coreflutes' and to get with the 21st Century program this election. Next time there is a strong possibility that this strategy will be seen as dumb and'old hat'.

By comparison and contrast this election will tell us something as a consequence of all this and especially so as the 21st Century finally kicks in with its disruptive technologies etc.

So, let us see what happens between now and when the electors' voting papers arrive in the post and the results are broadcast on people's 'devices'. In the meantime it seems that some candidates might well be scurrying around taking down signage given that the regulations were made 'crystal clear' at today's meeting at Town Hall.

AGENDA ALERT OCT 8 2018 CITY OF LAUNCESTON

8 October 2018 Council Meeting

• Meeting Date08 October 2018
• Meeting TypeOrdinary Meeting

Agenda, Attachments and Minutes for the Council Meeting of 8 October 2018

https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Agendas-Minutes/8-October-2018-Council-Meeting

OPEN LETTER: Money & Launceston

https://moneyandlaunceston.blogspot.com/

Dear, Treasurer Peter Gutwein et al,

At the public meeting organised by Launceston's Chamber of Commerce and the Examiner held in Inveresk's Tram Sheds Oct 3 I alerted the audience to Launceston's 'debt level'. Because I've attend most Council meetings in the last four years I have been able to glean that to the best of my knowledge, Council is currently in debt and that the 'functional debt' is in the order of $20Million.

I have been projecting this $20Million figure in my campaigning material for Mayor & Alderman for some weeks now and my estimate has gone unchallenged by anyone at Council until the 'Tram Sheds Forum'. At the end of the presentation Mayor van Zetten announced:

1. That my $20Million claim/assertion was wrong; and
2. That the actual Council debt was something in the order of $9Million.

How did I arrive at $20Million?

• Firstly, as I understand it Council was offered $9Million to realise the C H Smith development. from your pool of development funds ($60Million); and that
• GM Dobrynsky accepted a further $11Million from those funds, monies that you were managing to enable Tasmanian Councils to bring forward 'already planned projects' that lacked the funds to  enable them to proceed expediently; so, consequently
• It was/is public knowledge that Council had borrowed $20Million interest free from the State Govt to be repaid after 5 years, 
• Consequently, it can be extrapolated from this scenario that the city is carrying a 'functional debt' of $20Million.

The $11Million was taken up by GM Robert Dobrynszki under SECTION 62 of the Local Government Act as I understand it. Mr Dobrynszki did so before Council had an opportunity to consider the loan or its conditions in ether open or closed Council. When questioned in an open council meeting GM Dobrynszki confirmed that he had secured the $11Million under the provisions of SECTION 62.

Moreover, it is my clear understanding that currently $10.5Million rests in the 'council financials', and that these monies have not been activated, and in a timely context, this situation is noted in the appropriate agenda item. Furthermore, the circumstance and its general implications have been substantiated by a senior council officer.

The situation set out above is my clear understanding of events as they have revealed themselves. Nonetheless, the Mayor challenges my understandings and seeks to undermine my credibility and experience. Furthermore, all too conveniently, the Mayor challenges the veracity of my assessment of Council's somewhat impecunious fiscal position at the end of its term.

At election time this kind of ambiguity is 'absolutely untenable' and especially so given the questions that arise as a consequence of such a difficult debt level that will impact upon ratepayers and that will need to be managed very carefully – possibly beyond the Council's next term.

The first question arising being, does this situation, as it's set out here, represent sound fiscal stewardship? After that there are the questions to do with Council holding 'borrowed monies' in what appears to be some kind of 'slush fund' in waiting for a 'political rainy day'.

Plus, there are a  myriad of questions that might well come into play – questions to do with integrity for the most part.

Mayor van Zetten's position becomes more and more problematic the more closely it is scrutinised. The matter is non-trivial and it should be clarified speedily in the context of the election currently being contested in the City of Launceston.

Treasurer, I am now seeking your prompt advice in order that Launceston's residents, ratepayers and other voters can be well and appropriately informed when they vote.

Yours sincerely,

Basil Fitch
Candidate for Mayor & Alderman
City of Launceston Council
Basil Fitch, 5 Waveney Street South Launceston

Basil Fitch fitchbasil2@gmail.com

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Ian Routley

State of CBD

The redevelopment of both the Brisbane Street Mall and Civic Square, which was funded through the City Deal, has highlighted the meaningless form of consultation that has occurred in this city over recent years.

I requested that a forensic audit be undertaken and the Launceston City Council has indicated that a review process of Major Projects Delivery Processes will include reviews of Civic Square, Brisbane Street Mall with Riverbend Park. The Major Projects Directorate has now been disbanded.

The Examiner’s editorial (September 26) appears to have been highly influenced by the Town Hall and yet at the same time the Chamber of Commerce executive officer has said the Mall is “underwhelming” and with another letter (September 27) saying “kindergarten children could do better”.

Over a year ago the former General Manager brushed aside concerns as to the inappropriateness of the Tasmanian tiger due to high risk – what action did the council’s risk officer take?

The fact is I am continually told by business operators that the council will not listen when an opportunity for consultation may prevail; instead it is referred to perceived experts from elsewhere.

As a former state delegate on the leading national retail body in the 1980s and sowed the seeds for the establishment of Cityprom, thus with some knowledge on retail trends, I must say that Launceston is no longer a regional leader.

The pulse of the town centre is weak and visible cracks are obvious.

The council’s permissive approach to planning, with its unwillingness to undertake quality research to monitor business activity in the inner city has been indefensible.

Too many businesses in the central business district feel helpless and for some 70 people to attend a meeting to express their concerns should send a clear message to the aldermen that they have failed to show any understanding.

Superficial responses from Town Hall are wearing very thin.

Ian J. N. Routley, West Launceston.

ELECTION INFORMATION 2018 : Launceston Facts And Questions

Launceston City Council as a ‘civic operation’ is designed as a ‘cost centre’, without the slightest hint of an imperative ‘to turn a buck’, it is nonetheless expected to deliver a suite of services. 

Here is a range of overlooked facts and considerations that are in need of articulation:

1.  The council’s annual conscripted recurrent income is the order of $100Million plus;
2. The Council in its current term has conscripted something in the order of $500Million plus from the city’s ratepayers and residents;.
3. The city’s rate demand is reportedly well over $500 per property, on average, more than any other local government jurisdiction in Tasmania;
4. The city’s debt is in the order $20Million with most being taken on in the last 2 years and all to be repaid via the city’s rate demand rather than from income generated;
5. The council employs something in the order of 580 people to run the operation and deliver services;
6. While council employees have a broad set of skills there is no incentive to deliver more for less and especially so as you go down the hierarchical corporate structure; 
7. There are approximately 580 employees and that is approximately ONE employee for every 50 rateable properties being serviced by ‘the city’;
8. There are reportedly 45 committees of one kind or another providing advice and context to council planning and operational determinations – some apparently meeting infrequently, rarely even;
9. There are three ’cost centres’ that together cost individual ratepayers on average $350 per year in their rates for each property they own.

In the context of all this, some of the question’s that ratepayers might well be asking. so too might the Mayor, his Deputy and all the individual alderpeople be asking them.

These are questions that all the incumbent alderpeople might well be asking themselves in front of their household mirrors and just before they seek reelection:

1.  Has the Mayor and all the aldermen delivered on Council’s declared values – integrity, stewardship, inclusion, initiative, teamwork and accountability  – https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Our-Vision-Mission-and-Values ?
2. Specifically, has the Mayor in his leadership role maintained a record of accountability and transparency in all council decision making and policy determination?.
3. Has the Mayor and the incumbent alderpeople ensured that due diligence has been maintained and that all the ‘expert advice’ council has relied upon was provided was indeed provided by the most relevant and appropriate experts?
4. What policy and/or planning initiatives did the Mayor, or indeed the incumbent alderpeople individually, initiate during his/their time in office – how when and where?
5. In what ways did the Mayor, or indeed the incumbent alderpeople individually, consult with and engage with the broad spectrum of their constituency during his/their time in office – how when and where?.
6. What business acumen, professional experience and/or expertise in any field did the Mayor, or indeed the incumbent alderpeople individually, bring to what policy initiatives and planning decisions and to what success?
7. To what extent did the Mayor in concert with the incumbent alderpeople hold the operational wing of council truly to account – how when and where? 
8. What policy initiatives did the Mayor and the incumbent alderpeople individually bring to the Council operation and champion – what, when and how? 
9. In the context of the shifts in, and the realignment of, social dynamics relative to civic planning, what has the Mayor, and the incumbent alderpeople, contributed to that discourse within the community and beyond? 

QVMAG Accountability and value in the Tamar/Esk region's cultural landscape.

Launceston's most undervalued assets is the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) and especially so in a tourism context. The institution has been evolving in the city for well over 125 years and is by and large funded by the City of Launceston with some State Govt support.

What is poorly understood by ratepayers and residents is just how the institution works and how it is governed. Over recent decades all this has become increasingly mystifying to a point where ratepayers and others have become virtually excluded from decision making and planning processes.  And it is so to a point where such decisions take place in 'confidential in house processes' despite Council conscripting $4Million annually from ratepayers via the imposition of 'secrete levies'. 

Who is doing this? City of Launceston Aldermen of course. Why are they doing this? That's anybody's guess but mostly because Tasmania's Local Govt. Act 1993 (TLGA) allows Council's 'operational wing' to construct a paradigm that allows it to happen. Worryingly, the GVMAG has a recurrent budget in the order of $6Million without being functionally accountable – Click here for annual report link for 2017. .. Click here for the Mayor's response to a critique 

The Aldermen collectively are the QVMAG's 'default Trustees' and they have conspired for mysterying reasons to keep QVMAG policy making and strategic directions secrete. Likewise, the money provided to operate the QVMAG comes from a 'secrete levy within ratepayers' rate demand'. In other words the institution operates on conscripted monies!

The Aldermen are recalcitrant and basically in denial and have serially refused to respond criticism and critiques that challenge the 'status quo'. Click here for a link to Ray Norman's 'LETTER OF CONCERN' Dec 2017. In this instance, aldermanic disinclination to be held accountable is palpable. 

Currently, there is a strategic shift in the QVMAG's 'modus operandi' and for whatever reason apart from the scantiest of details, again all this is going on in secrete, Why? Is it because there is an intention to increase the 'secrete levy' to be imposed upon ratepayers? Already, that stands at something in the order of $130 with Council begging $3Million from the State Govt. to top that up. What is PLAN B given that additional funds can be conscripted from ratepayers without recourse? Is there one?

Rather than this Council's repugnant unaccountability, the City of Launceston's constituency needs to be demanding 'transparency and accountability' in regard to the 'governance and management' of the QVMAG as one of the city's most important cultural assets. How can this be done? 

• Firstly, hold each and every incumbent Alderman accountable and consider their recalcitrance when you vote. 
• Secondly, consider each and every person you vote for's capacity to contribute as a QVMAG Trustee.
• Thirdly, consider each and every person you vote for's inclination to be held accountable and insist upon transparency in all council  decision making set against past performances.