 |
| CLICK HERE FOR THE EXAMINER STORY |
Launceston City Council has come to the conclusion that all is not as it should or could be in the Quadrant Mall. So, it is trying to repair the damage its done and is likely to continue to do in the Mall.
Late as it is the council is trying to tell 'the public' that the Mall is still open for business. Isn't it a bit late?
From the get-go Quadrant Mall traders have been frustrated in their attempts to express their concerns about the potentially devastating impact this project may well have upon their trading via its method of implementation.
These concerns were expressed well before works commenced, but it seems to no effect because up went the barricades anyway and now the mayor is walking the Mall trying to placate the traders.
Clearly, this project is being done to the community – traders, shoppers and others – not with the community. It is an exemplar of the flaws in the 'top down' approach.
From the get-go Quadrant Mall traders have been frustrated in their attempts to express their concerns about the potentially devastating impact this project may well have upon their trading via its method of implementation.
These concerns were expressed well before works commenced, but it seems to no effect because up went the barricades anyway and now the mayor is walking the Mall trying to placate the traders.
Clearly, this project is being done to the community – traders, shoppers and others – not with the community. It is an exemplar of the flaws in the 'top down' approach.
Council is spending $1.9 million of ratepayer's money on the redevelopment of the Quadrant Mall. Work started at the end of February, and, surprise, surprise, some businesses are now saying that their trading is suffering.
Interestingly, it seems that the project proceeded against the background that there may well be collateral damage (acceptable damage?) and one has to ask, is this acceptable representational governance? Is such damage acceptable or even inevitable? Where is the accountability?
Interestingly, it seems that the project proceeded against the background that there may well be collateral damage (acceptable damage?) and one has to ask, is this acceptable representational governance? Is such damage acceptable or even inevitable? Where is the accountability?
So what to do? It appears as if the answer is put on a band-aid and hope the bleeding stops. Advertising the Mall to people who already know that it is there might work but then again it might not. What then?
Apparently, mayor Albert van Zetten thinks that it will all be worth it in the end. Now he seems to be recognising that there are "issues that need to be worked through". Is it not, issues that needed to be worked through some time ago?
But why so late and with so little recognition of the issues? What kind of community engagement has there been? If it had been adequate, or even relevant, then why are there unforeseen issues right now? Who didn't the planner listen to or even ask?
Clearly the Quadrant Mall is a valuable shopping precinct and all through this now obviously ill considered, ill conceived even, project it is important that businesses remain open to allow them to keep the city vital. How can it be done?
According to 'The Examiner' Cityprom is holding a ``QM Tuesday Flash Sale'' between 10am and 5pm.
But it seems Cityprom didn't explain what one was to either 'The Examiner' nor the Mall traders. Intrepid shoppers may find out by picking their way through the barricades.
But it seems Cityprom didn't explain what one was to either 'The Examiner' nor the Mall traders. Intrepid shoppers may find out by picking their way through the barricades.
The really worrying thing here is what is being exposed. Has there been any planning? Well yes, but by whom, when, by what method and was is real or effective ?
Who hasn't been listened to? Who hasn't been doing the listening?
These will be questions that are going to plague the council for a long time to come.
Who hasn't been listened to? Who hasn't been doing the listening?
These will be questions that are going to plague the council for a long time to come.
3 comments:
This Council has so very much to answer for. Reportedly some businesses in the mall are experiencing a 60% cut in takings and others are saying 40%. These days 10% would be way too much.
Perhaps the Mayor and City Manager would put their hands up for a 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% salary cut towards compensating the city for the outcomes here. Even, if they did it wouldn’t appease the traders who are losing their investments in their businesses as collateral damage.
The aldermen too should be taking some of the heat as they have been unanimously endorsing this city heart nonsense. Possibly they really should face up to some kind of enquiry.
Let us say a 15% cut to their allowances to encourage them to keep their eyes on the ball.
You can bet that none will take a hit of any kind even if they endorse doing too little too late. If this is not a signal for drastic action what is?
If any of this is true why isn't the examiner reporting it?
The Council has long operated on the basis that spending money=economic boost. While at some (very simple) levels this may hold, the problem is that the Council is spending ratepayers' money, so any 'boost' goes to developers and Council staff/aldermen, while ratepayers cop the costs.
This would be very obvious if the accounts were transparent...but they're simple minded macro-line items, that show no detail and no coherent measurable goals. They've been like that for decades - as long as the financial reporting has been under the control of Mr Tidey, who acts as though if he says it, it must be right...the right of Tidey (ROT).
Council's questionable behaviours have been clunking on for decades and the ROT has been there for decades. Aldermen come and go, but the waste, incompetence, vague accounts and disenchanted ratepayers keep getting bigger. Where better to look than at those who've been managing the accounts all that time.
It's time for a real audit of Council's books and achievements.Find the ROT and root it out, for all of our sakes.
Post a Comment