WASTE-TO-ENERGY-TO-BIOCHAR : The solution Launceston rejects out of hand!

Lismore considers biochar project

Javier Encalada

 

 30th Aug 2012 3:09 PM ... click here to go to source

Lismore City Council [in NSW] is considering becoming a business partner in a new Biochar and Waste-to- Energy project developed by Ballina Council.

The project involves the construction of a slow-pyrolysis processing plant to convert organic waste into biochar and electricity.

The plant will be located at the Ballina Waste Management Centre and has secured $4.25 million in funding from the Regional Development Australia Fund - 50% of the money required for the project.

Phillip Klepzig, manager of commercial services at Lismore City Council, confirmed that both councils are currently trying to agree on a way to work together to provide the best value for money in waste management.

"We can sign a supply agreement or we can become a full business partner in this project and we are trying to decide what will work better for everyone," Mr Klepzig said.

Rod Dawson, manager of water, sewer and waste at Ballina Council, explained that slow-pyrolysis is "heating organic waste in an oxygen-starved environment, so it is 'cooked' instead of burned".

The process produces gas, which is used to generate electricity on-site. The second product of the process is biochar, a charcoal-like solid, high in carbon that is used to improve soil quality in agriculture.

This means that greenhouse gases would be offset and carbon will be sequestered on a large scale at the Ballina Waste Management Centre.

Ballina Council will require other council's green waste, as garden waste contains up to 50% water, meaning that only half the material can be considered a "dry tonne" to be converted into biochar.

The plant would be able to process up to 16, 000 dry tonnes a year, generating 1-1.3 megawatts of renewable electricity and 5000 tonnes of biochar.

Mr Dawson confirmed that similar discussions are underway with Byron and Richmond Valley councils to ensure most of the green waste in the Northern Rivers is processed by the plant, which is to be completed by the end of June 2015.

ENDNOTE:

• In the 2006 Census of Population and Housing, there were 38,461 usual residents living in Ballina Shire. Of this count, 18,463 (or 49%) were males and 19,998 (or 52%) were females
• In the 2006 Census, held on 8 August 2006, there were 28,766 persons usually resident in Byron Shire: 14,146 residents (49.2%) were males and 14,620 (50.8%) were females
• In the 2006 Census of Population and Housing there were 42,210 usual residents living in Lismore City Council. Of this count, 20,543 (or 48%) were males and 21,667 (or 51%) were females
• In the 2006 Census of Population and Housing there were 24,579 usual residents living in Richmond Valley Council. Of this count, 10,507 (or 49%) were males and 10,806 (or 51%) were females.

ALSO

• Click here for the Minister's letter in support  ... "Through RDAF, the Australian Government will provide Ballina Shire Council with $4.3 million to get the $8.5 million plant powering ahead, matching the commitment already made by the Council to the project.It's expected that 94 full time-equivalent jobs will be created during construction, along with 10 full time-equivalent ongoing jobs."

• Pacific Pyrolysis Pty Ltd have developed, and are commercialising, slow-pyrolysis technology to deliver waste to energy and biochar solutions. The technology converts non-food biomass into renewable energy and a proprietary biochar called Agrichar™, that has been proven by independent trials to increase food production and sequester carbon over long periods of time. Pacific Pyrolysis is developing projects which utilise the technology to solve a number of the sustainability issues facing businesses. Please see PacPyro flyer for more information .... click here to read more

• FARMERS in north western New South Wales have seen first hand technology that turns invasive native scrub (INS, also known as woody weeds) into an agricultural resource at a Central West Catchment Management Authority field day ... click here to read more and watch the video

• F. Strie Submission to LCC: Waste Management & Pyrolysis ... click here

• Gerald Dunst introducing his work on fertile soils at Sonnenerde, Austria "Creating humus-rich fertile soils from waste products is Sonnenerde's expertise. The green wastes that communities and households deliver to the composting facility of Gerald Dunst in Austria for disposal are used here as feedstock for making highly fertile humus-rich soils. In 2012, the SME began working with a PYREG plant that converst papermill sludge into Biochar which is then combined with composting of nutrient-rich soils. This mixture is the most promising approach in state-of-the-art Biochar research. Mr Dunst explains his work in this exciting video." ... click her to make the link ... click here for a map of biochar projects in Europe

NOTES:

According to correspondence received from Mr H. Galea,Director Infrastructure Services, Launceston City Council has made, or is committed to, the following expenditures in relation to Waste Management:

• $60,000  for two consultancies in past three years relating to the Launceston's Waste Management
• $2.4 million expended on the Waste Transfer Station at the Launceston Waste Centre
• $5.8 million to be expended upon the construction of the landfill cell at the Launceston Waste Centre
• $24.5 million is the anticipated capital expenditure at the Launceston Waste Centre over the next 10 years;
• $2.6 million per annum is the current annual operating cost of the the Launceston Waste Centre

URGENT LETTER TO LAUNCESTON'S ALDERMEN

Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc. 

P.O. Box 1035, 

LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 

03 6331 6144 

23rd. November 2012, 

Alderman Albert van Zettan 
Mayor City of Launceston 
Town Hall St John Street 
LAUNCESTON Tas 7250 

Dear  Mayor, 
Re: Launceston City Council Meeting 26 November 2012 Item 19.2 -UTAS Student Accommodation at the Inveresk Precinct (Consolidation UTAS Campus Buildings and Land to Freehold). 

We refer to the Agenda item, and express our opposition to the proposal to transfer the land to freehold, particularly unless it is transferred at full market value. 

There are many reasons for TRA to oppose this proposal, not the least of which is that this proposal wrongfully deals with these very valuable ratepayer's assets. It would appear that UTAS is taking advantage of timing here, not only to attempt to force the hand of Launceston City Council to give over the land for the proposed student accommodation, but at the same time compelling the hand over of the freehold of the other substantial building and land assets that UTAS presently occupies on a long term leasehold. This "bushranger" action is remarkable and not becoming of a venerable institution like UTAS. 

We question why this matter has only just now been revealed to the public under the guise of concealment being headed as UTAS Student Accommodation at Inveresk, and that there has been no time given to the ratepaying public to give any meaningful consideration to the merits of such a proposal, if any in fact exist. The value of these ratepayer assets is not given, but is clearly in the $millions of dollars. 

We cannot but surmise that the critically short timing for a decision regarding the transfer of such major assets to freehold, is not accidental, but an intentional plan to deny the public any time to consider the demands of UTAS. Council has been aware of this manoeuvre for a while, sufficient time to engage a Devonport solicitor to advise it on suitable conditions, but yet there has been no publicity or media statement issued. 

It is stated in the Agenda, that this proposal for student accommodation is more expensive than any other area suitable for such development as identified by UTAS. The decision to develop student accommodation at Inveresk can only be viewed as an opportunistic demand for freehold ownership of other property as the essential motivator. 

The buildings and development land at Inveresk are valuable ratepayer assets, and presently the Launceston City Council's Flood Protection Authority is spending $millions constructing flood levees to protect the area. Along the North Esk River, having previously put sheet piling in place to protect the development site, the Authority has recently announced it will now spend considerable additional funds to construct a concrete wall levee, over and above the cost of the previously-planned earth levee, so as to facilitate space for this UTAS development for student housing. 

UTAS doesn't pay municipal rates, land tax or the State Fire Levy. All of these statutory charges for Launceston are spread over the charges that other ratepayers are levied, resulting in UTAS facilities at both campuses being heavily subsidised in the Region by Launceston ratepayers alone. There are undeniable benefits to the Region and Tasmania generally from UTAS and the Australian Maritime College, however it is unfair and inequitable for this burden to be borne only by the 28,000 Launceston ratepayers. 

The proposed new student accommodation units won't pay rates and these other statutory charges either, but they will take business away from private rental landlords presently satisfying the needs of student accommodation for UTAS and landlords who do pay rates/land tax and fire levy. 

LCC ratepayers significantly subsidise the Inveresk Precinct with capital expenditure and operational losses amounting to $millions/year, and of course UTAS will still expect LCC to provide and maintain carparking facilities and subsidised bus services for their Inveresk facilities. 

Alderman McKendrick has publicly stated that the North Esk development site is valued by YPIPA at a sum in excess of $5million, capital that could be returned to LCC ratepayers, perhaps by a reduction in rates. 

The development of this North Esk Site for student accommodation will deny Launceston's road users the only vacant corridor for an East-West Connector Road incorporating the Lindsay Street corridor and linking the Northern Outlet and Kings Wharf development areas to Invermay Road and then onto Henry Street/Ravenswood and the future Eastern Bypass corridor. This would relieve pressure on Elphin Road and Vermont Road, and when completed, on Wellington/Bathurst Streets. 

If this "deal" is approved by Council, the City will forfeit any income by way of capital-raising and rates investment from an alternative development and use of the Inveresk Precinct land and buildings by private sector developments. The City will also lose a rent-paying tenant worth $30,000 because UTAS are demanding that the Powerhouse Cafe also be handed over to them. This is not a UTAS facility or part of the UTAS Campus. Where will these demands end? 

In conclusion, we ask that, at the very least, Council defer any decision regarding this proposal at its meeting on Monday 26 November, so as to allow for community input and for ratepayers to be consulted properly & openly about this matter. 

Yours faithfully, 

Lionel J. Morrell Lionel 

President for and on behalf of Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

Launceston Ratepayers AGM Report & Valuation and Local Government Rating Review

The Association held it's Annual General Meeting on Monday last and the presidents report is now attached to this site ... click here access the report

Also on Monday the Association presented its Final Draft Report - Valuation and Local Government Rating Review to the Department of Premier and Cabinet. In summarary the reports conclusions are as follows:

"As we have been finalising this submission, news has arrived that Launceston City Council has dismissed the adoption of the Draft Final Report in its entirety, opting at its Council Meeting held a week ago to simply note the Final Draft Report titled Valuation and Local Government Rating Review, and instead undertook to conduct its own major public review of the ratings system as per Council decision of June 27 2011, prior to determining a final position on any new valuation and local government rating system.

MOTION: (27 June 2011)

That Council;

1. Presents modelling undertaken on the implementation of a rating system based on Unimproved Capital Value (Land) and the impacts, positive and negative that this would have on ratepayers;
2. Provides written advice on the advantages and disadvantages of the implementation of such a system and presents the advice to the public;
3. That, more importantly, Council undertakes a major public review of the current rating system and determines, in consultation with the community, the fairest, most progressive and simplest rating system available in Australia; and
4. Implements the system agreed upon, for the rating period beginning 2012-13 

This unanimous decision of LCC, which has been made public since June 2011, has put the Draft Final Report into question, not only because it does not support the findings of the Steering Committee, but highlights how the Steering Committee has failed to take the previous resolution of LCC into account, and furthermore sees the need for a more thorough and public review to be conducted.

TRA Inc. Response to Final Draft Report Valuation and Local Government Rating Review Accordingly, the Tasmanian Ratepayers Association advises it does not support the recommendations of the Steering Committee to the State Government, as presented in the Draft Final Report dated October 2012, and calls upon the State Government to review the 

Terms of Reference of the Steering Committee to align with public expectations and reconstitutes the composition of the Steering Committee to include for a balance of members to independently represent the public interest, not being drawn from the Local Government Association membership, before returning the reconstituted Steering Committee to the task of reviewing the Local Government Valuation and Local Government Rating systems.

To access a full copy of the report as a PFF please eMAIL TRA_Editor@7250.net

Questions for Launceston Council's AGM

Annual General Meeting Questions on Notice

We refer to the Public Notice.

1. Please provide full accounting details (for both operating and capital works) displayed against the detailed budget provisions for y/e 30 June 2012 and 2013 for the following items:

• Launceston Aquatic
• York Park and Inveresk Precinct Authority/Aurora Stadium
• Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (each campus)
• Tourist Information Centre
• Launceston Flood Levee Authority and Levee Redevelopment Project
• Albert Hall
• Tasmanian Design Centre
• Princess Theatre
• Earl Arts Centre
• Remount Road Waste Management Centre
• Ben Lomond Water Authority investments and returns

CLICK HERE TO READ ALL 15 QUESTIONS

LAUNCESTON'S AGM A BIT OF A SECRET

If you are not quite sure when Launceston's AGM meeting will be, and you don't read the classifieds in the Examiner, it is not all that easy to find out. The LCC website has been classified by one member as being somewhere between opaque and translucent. Whatever, the date is not easy to find on the website. Perhaps that is deliberate! 

ANYWAY the meeting is on DEC 3 @ 6:30 pm and it will be held at Town Hall 

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THIS PAGE 

Like last year, the Examiner was able to report that only 40 people turned up and if the aldermen say "nobody is really interested" you can see why. This way the officers get off the hook for all kinds of questioning. You do have to be on the ball to know that you can even ask questions at the AGM, and how, and when, and of whom.

By now you would expect to find the AGM's draft agenda on the Council's website, but NO! By now you would think that there would be a media release encouraging ratepayers to attend the AGM and telling us what the hot issues are, but NO! This is the meeting where ratepayers can ask questions of Council, aldermen and officers, so it is not too surprising that the event is downplayed. Perhaps it is why it is  held as late in the year as possible, and as near to Christmas as possible, to discourage attendance.

Also, by now you might expect that the AGM could be attended online like the fortnightly Council meeting but we do not think so. 

Anyway click here to see the questions the association has put to the AGM

[Tasmanian Sustainable Communities Network] MICHAEL MOBBS: Sustainable Food

MICHAEL MOBBS ON THE ABC:   Broadcast:Monday 12 November 2012 3:05AM 

Michael Mobbs is a former environmental lawyer who spent nineteen years working on aluminium smelters, coal mines, water and infrastructure programs. During this time his interest in sustainability grew. Today his area of expertise lays in being a sustainability coach and speaker, sustainable urban farm designer, residential sustainability consultant and a consultant for major sustainability projects. He is an associate lecturer in the School of Engineering at the University of Technology in Sydney. 

Michael is also the principal of Michael Mobbs Sustainable Projects and Design. His latest book is called Sustainable Food – CSIRO Publishing. He has also authored Sustainable House [LINK], which was updated in 201 ... click here to listen on the ABC

After renovating his inner-city Sydney terrace and making it almost entirely self-sufficient in energy, water and waste disposal, Michael Mobbs realised his house was sustainable, but he wasn't. While his house saves 100,000 litres of dam water a year, the same amount of water is used to produce ten days' worth of food for the average Australian. 

In this companion book to the bestselling Sustainable House, Mobbs turns his attention to reducing the carbon emissions associated with growing, processing, transporting, selling and disposing food. With his own experiences anchoring the book, Sustainable Food contains practical advice on establishing community and backyard vegetable gardens, keeping chooks and bees, and reducing water usage, along with insights into dealing with councils, sidelining supermarkets and what we eat and why.

This book should be compulsory reading for every Local Govt. functionary and elected representative. They have much to learn and Michael Mobbs has worked hard trying to get them to see reason for a very long time now. The chances are that none will and probably because they imagine Michael Mobbs as something like an "ageing hippy". If that's how they imagine him they will have missed  point the of the evidence and experience he has to present.

--
Posted By The Coordinator to Tasmanian Sustainable Communities Network at 11/18/2012 08:38:00 PM

The QVMAG starts to tell it like it is!

Click here to read the examiner story

It is very pleasing to see that an Annual Report for QVMAG has been publicly presented to LCC and prior to the Annual General Meeting as was requested last year. 

It would have been more in the public interest, however, if the annual loss for QVMAG was openly declared. 

We can only fear that the losses are escalating in the same way as Launceston Aquatic, York Park/Aurora Stadium and Princess Theatre.

LCC have continued to show what poor managers they are of public facilities, and the logical call for a Public Administrator as previously occurred in Launceston, is very timely.

Tas Ratepayers Assoc.

Scenic Destruction on Trevallyn

So bits of Trevallyn are over the hill and out of sight of Town Hall and out of mind. It seems they are now in the 'Scenic Destruction Zone' under Launceston's new planning scheme.  But you would think that if the General Manager lives on Trevallyn (so he says)he would have taken some sort of interest but it does not seem he is paying attention. 

The infill going on, and approved by Launceston Council, seems to have little to do with planning for sustainable living. MacMansions at the expense of trees!?

The Greater Launceston Planning Process

Australian universities on borrowed time
Posted Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:43pm AEDT

An independent review of Australia's university sector has found that no Australian University will survive to 2025 on its current business model. Business advisory group Ernst and Young spent six months interviewing vice-chancellors, the private sector and policy makers in the higher education sector and declared that the sector is on 'borrowed time' ...  Click here to go to the ABC site http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-24/australian-universities-on-borrowed-time/4331648

In the Greater Launceston Planning process  – http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/greater-launceston-plan#widget_name_6 – currently in train there is the assumption that in 2030 the University of Tasmania in its current form will be in Launceston doing much the same as it is now ... and attracting overseas students(?) etc. Interestingly, looking back in a shorter timeframe the university was not operating in Launceston in its current model. Why might we, for planning purposes, assume with any kind of safety, that the status quo or anything like it be evident in any substantial way in 2030?

Currently UTAS is shedding staff positions (approaching 200 currently) and its being speculated that the ultimate number of positions to be lost will be in the order of 500. That does not look a lot like the premise that the Greater Launceston Plan is apparently being founded upon.

If the current tertiary education model is operating on “borrowed time” there are many other corporate, institutional and enterprise models currently in operation that are likewise approaching their use-by dates. That goes for Councils as we now know them as well. Also it is increasingly evident that newspapers are undergoing identity changes that will, as likely as not, change what they will look like by 2020 and goodness knows what’s in store for 2030. And it goes on, and on, and on for better and for worse.

So much for picking winners a long way out with redundant information on your desktop.

Hapless Academic

LGH Parking

Council times in on LGH parking – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/411524/council-times-in-on-lgh-parking/?cs=385
By PATRICK BILLINGS  Oct. 22, 2012, 7:17 a.m. ·        LAUNCESTON aldermen will decide today whether to adopt timed parking restrictions on streets surrounding the Launceston General Hospital.
It comes in response to a lack of parking for residents in South Launceston, which the Launceston City Council has attributed to the hospital and nearby allied health centres.

The council has proposed two or three-hour parking restrictions in parts of French, Galvin, Pedder, Gee, Garfield, Mulgrave, Charles Street South, West, Lord and Hampden streets.

The existing parking rules in Frankland Street, which runs parallel to the hospital, will not be changed.
Before implementing the plan the council will write to every resident in the proposed ``parking precinct'' seeking their views on week-day parking restrictions.

At least half the residents will have to back the parking measures for the council to implement them.
The council identified about 120 out of 420 properties in the area that would probably qualify for a parking permit if the scheme went ahead.
A council audit in August found the hospital's new $15 million car park had only slightly improved parking availability in the surrounding area.

On the day of the audit the car park's public parking areas were half occupied while the staff parking floors were ``well over'' 75 per cent full. 

A report to aldermen said it would cost about $20,000 to install the necessary parking signs and there was a risk the problem may just shift to other streets.


44 comments – click here to read them all – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/411524/council-times-in-on-lgh-parking/?cs=385

Year after Year LCC allowed developments at and around the hospital without carparking being provided. Now they want to further annoy the residents of South Launceston with a residential parking permit scheme and add to the visual pollution with $20,000 worth of signage. This is a waste of ratepayers money. The hospital carpark should be free of charge and only then will it be fully used and the surrounding streets be left in peace.
Frank 2 comments – the hospital car park isnt owned by lcc. obviously the curretnt parking aarrangeements arent working, so i dont see how the proposed solution is a waste of ratepayers money. if it frees up parking spaces regularly thru the day, thats a good thing
Ex-ratepayer 1 comment – Frank its clear you are the mouthpiece for LCC Not really becoming with your position
Rob 4 comments – What I don't understand is how CarePark can be allowed to hold the overwhelming monopoly they have over parking spaces in this city. I wonder if anyone has ever referred CarePark to the ACCC and if not what their thoughts would be on their hold of this city?
Seriously? 1 comment – I think you'll find that the new car park at the hospital was either tendered or offered to multiple agencies including the LCC and they were not interested in running it. I don't like the current organization but if you want the service , pay the price!
Pb 1 comment – Rob its called corporate greed, and as far as the ACCC is concerned they are a toothless tiger, they cant even control collusion with the petrol prices, and Aurora energy also has a monopoly even though there is cheaper electricity available from Victoria that the government cretins use, but its not available to just anyone, how convenient LOL

ADD YOUR COMMENTS BELOW

Site Performance

click above to enlarge

A Critique: Launceston Interim Planning Scheme

A critique from a senior planner that has been provided to the Ratepayers Association

CLICK TO ACCES THE COUNCIL WEBSITE

......... the Launceston Interim Planning Scheme belongs to the Launceston City Council and it is their responsibility to make it accessible to the public. In response to a complaint from an ex-Alderman and my own exploration of the Council’s website, the following points should be communicated to the Council (and the Commission, since the Commission may be publicly seen as sharing responsibility):

1.     The link to the Interim Scheme introduction is not prominent or easy to find; it is buried at the bottom of the page after going through the Home>Services>Development>Planning links;

2.     Once there,  we find another 8 links for the scheme text (totalling some 10MB) and a choice of links for the maps – two via a ‘dropbox’ website for the zones or overlays, two for other viewing platforms These are also problematic.

a.    The zone maps from https://www.dropbox.com/s/dgwk63lws1iymy8/Zoning_A1L_linked.pdf  imply that you have to set up a Dropbox account. (Some people might be wary of that, even though it looks to be free for the first 500MB. The ex-Alderman didn’t even want to contemplate downloading large files.)

b.   You don’t actually have to set up a Dropbox account, you can hit the ‘Download’ button/Direct download but the zone file (pdf) is nearly 18 MB and contains 44 pages which are organised sequentially by map number. There is a point and click selection of detailed maps from the first (index) page, but no  ‘search for this address’ capacity. 

c.    Once in a detailed map there is no scroll wheel zoom or pan function. The clunky alternative is to use the + and – buttons to magnify the image and then the side bar and bottom bar slides. Generally you need to magnify to 200% to see smaller residential titles (such as strata) clearly.  The bottom slide bar takes you smoothly across the page, but the side slide bar quickly takes you to the preceding or subsequent maps (in numerical order, not north or south) and you can easily lose your place. The only way I found to overcome that was to use the top and bottom arrows on the side bar which enables slightly finer tuning of vertical position. In other words the map displays are not ‘seamless’ as you might expect.

d.   Displaying at 50% shows the whole map sheet but not all the legend or the index – you have to go to 43.2% to get those. At that magnification many of the street names are barely legible, depending on background colour

e.    Zooming to 100% displays about one quarter of the full sheet, but you cannot simultaneously see the legend or index, unless you are looking at a small part of the south west corner. Street names and lot boundaries are now generally clear BUT THERE ARE NO STREET NUMBERS or Property ID numbers !!

3.     The overlay maps at https://www.dropbox.com/s/22q4ra8jkdwztcv/Overlays_A1L_linked.pdf are on an even larger file (54.8MB) but with the same organisational and navigational problems as the zoning file, noted above.

4.     The smartphone app at http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=574 gives quite a good seamless city map (‘Launceston City Council Map Data) with zoom and pan functions and the ability to add a number of layers, including zones and overlays. This also provides street numbers at high magnification (Hooray) and maintains the legend in a side box at all magnifications. This is probably the most accessible digital version of the planning scheme, although the search function doesn’t seem to work. (Entering my home address gave the LCC home page and response ‘Your search for (my address) has returned 1 result’  but did not take me to a map showing where it was! Searching for many street names gave a null result.

5.      The GIS webpage at http://launceston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=b7904081b140436fbe1a55c362a91599 <http://launceston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=b7904081b140436fbe1a55c362a91599> is laughably inaccurate and scours the world for places with Launceston place names. Examples- Normanstone Road started a search for Normanstone Park, Washington DC; Denison Road returned ‘Denison Rock, shoals, Canada’, Wellington returned ‘Wellington New Zealand’, ‘Road’ started to search for ‘Raz, Zanjan, Iran !!! (No maps were displayed for any of these searches, but hours of fun or frustration can be had looking for places in Launceston.)

6.     I finally found a map of  Launceston Tasmania but it displayed the zone layer as a collage of coloured triangles that looked like a Picasso painting! See below.

click on the image to enlarge

All this leads to the simple question – ‘How is Jane Public going to identify her property and find out what  zoning and overlay restrictions may apply to her address?’ 
From my recent experience, it’s not going to be easy!

Tasmanian Professional Planner 

Launceston's Foray Into Indonesia

If the Mayor and GM picked up any intelligence in Indonesia it may have been worth the ratepayers' investment. Perhaps regular jaunts to Indonesia and like destinations to acquire "intelligence" should be embarked upon.

Launceston needs more intelligent decision making and ratepayers should be grateful to get it no matter where ever we can find it, so as it has been said before this is where we will find the bonus and get a bang out of our buck.

Stanley Vale

For The Examiner on this story go to http://www.examiner.com.au/story/414559/trios-trip-to-indonesia-questioned/?cs=95

George Town Council approves controversial amendment

FROM THE EXAMINER

By James Brady Oct. 17, 2012, 12:43 p.m.

click here to go to source and read all the comments

MEMBERS of the George Town Council public gallery today left after police were called to the council meeting at which a decision was made to approve an amendment to the council's planning scheme. 

Deputy mayor Bridget Archer and councillor Tim Cory boycotted the meeting after the decision was made. 

The planning amendment will allow a state government funded $6 million child and family centre and link hub to be developed on the town's historic Regent Square. 

More than 40 people were at the meeting, many of whom were in opposition to the agenda item related to the controversial development. 

Councillor Tim Cory and deputy major Bridget Archer boycotted the meeting after the decision was passed to amend the scheme. 

The amendment will first need to be approved by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. 

Councillors Tim Cory and Stephen Geale and deputy mayor Bridget Archer voted against the amendment, which was lost 3-6. 

Regent Square is believed to be discussed at a Tasmanian Heritage Council meeting today regarding its entry to the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

Full story in The Examiner 

OCTOBER 18

 click here to go to source and read all the comments

MERCURY TODAY: Almost 25% near poverty

How many of these were created by excessive government charges and taxes and rates boosted by waste and losses?

Bewildered


Almost 25% near poverty
  BRUCE MOUNSTER   |   October 15, 2012 12.01am

MORE than 70,000 Tasmanians, or almost 14 per cent of the state's
population, are officially classed as living in poverty.

Poverty Report 2012, released yesterday by the Australian Council of
Social Service at the start of National Anti-Poverty Week, also found
Tasmanians are among those at greatest risk of falling into poverty.

Tasmanian Council of Social Service chief executive Tony Reidy said
the latest statistics taken in 2009-10 showed a widening gap between
Tasmania, with a 13.7 per cent poverty rate, and the rest of
Australia, with an average of 12.8 per cent.

Mr Reidy said just as alarming was the 24 per cent of Tasmanians
living below, or only slightly above, the poverty line, set at 50 per
cent of the median income, or $358 a week for single adults, or $752
for a couple with two children.

He said many Tasmanians could have been tipped over the edge by
soaring food, water, energy and transport costs.

Mr Reidy said the Tasmanian situation was exacerbated by a rapidly
ageing population and a high 7 per cent unemployment rate, causing 34
per cent of Tasmanians to depend on Commonwealth benefits compared
with 23 per cent nationally.

"Another major factor is the number of sole parent families. Nearly 25
per cent of Tasmanians under 15 live in a single-parent home. In many
of those households, the parent may have a reasonable income but their
capacity to afford essential items is affected by factors like the
high cost of renting a home ... on one income," he said.

Mr Reidy said it was unacceptable for Tasmanians who found themselves
unemployed through no fault of their own, to be abandoned.

He said welfare organisations were calling on the Federal Government
to raise the Newstart allowance from a sub-poverty $492 a fortnight.

Mr Reidy said TasCOSS applauded the State Government's allocation of
$3 million for emergency bill relief in an effort to keep crisis-hit
families on their feet but more was needed.

The Dilemma Ahead

Council Executives might well benefit from reading what's actually happening for taxpayers and the pressures on their budgets:

1. If Councils, LCC in particular, constantly raises their rates despite everything, their way of balancing the books, what's going to happen when the ratepayers just cannot pay?
2. Do Councils resume ratepayers’ houses and sell them for a song to their mates?
3. Does the Council resume the properties and rent the back to occupants of their choice?
4. Do we reinstate Poor Houses for fallen property owners who cannot pay their taxes and rates?
5. Will citizens refuse to pay rates that include hidden levies?
6. Will ratepayers go on granting permission to grow the pie for the benefit of Council Executives who oversight diminishing services?
7. Will ratepayers continue to endorse salaries to Council Executives that bear little if any relevance to productivity?
8. Can ratepayers expect any empathy at all on the part of Council Executives for their predicament as residents and service takers?
9. What kind of rating system are Council Executives going to advocate now in a falling property market?
10. Can property owners look forward to falling rates in line falling property values?
11. How are Council Executives going to assess ratepayers’ capacity to pay?
12. Will Council Executives continue to receive increasing performance bonuses out of step with diminishing property values and falling Council revenues?
13. When will see anything that resembles a serious critique of the services civic managers deal uyp to ratepayers?
    

And there are more questions still! All this is lot different to before and the rhetoric Council Executives are inclined to deliver.

Bewildered

Tasmania


FROM TODAY’S MERCURY
Housing debt traps buyers
ANNE MATHER   | October 14, 2012 12.01am

INTEREST-rate cuts have dealt an unexpected blow to thousands of Tasmanian homeowners burdened with crippling mortgages.

As struggling borrowers shop around for lower interest rates, thousands are finding their mortgage is higher than the value of their property.

Although the Reserve Bank cut official interest rates 25 basis points this month, the major banks have not passed on the cut in full.

Accountancy firm Ernst & Young says 66 per cent of people think there are better deals available than their present loans.

However, experts warn that shopping around for cheaper loans is an impossible dream for many highly mortgaged battlers.

Valuers have reported that some Tasmanian borrowers now have negative equity in their homes because of the stalled housing market.

Property valuer Matthew Singleton said some Tasmanian homes were being revalued at less than the price paid a few years ago.

Mr Singleton, the state manager for Propell National Valuers, believes people should have their homes revalued when they're looking at refinancing. He said: "If people borrowed at the height of the boom, they could now have negative equity in their property."

The Tasmanian Council of Social Service said mortgage stress was on the rise and the phenomenon was a "priority matter" for agencies.

TasCOSS chief executive Tony Reidy said mortgage pressure had left "many, many hundreds of very stressed families" around the state.

He said Tasmania was already struggling under the impact of job losses, especially since the collapse of timber giant Gunns and had the nation's highest unemployment figure, at 6.8 per cent.

Families were also reeling from rising power prices and it was the poorest who were the least able to invest in power-saving efficiencies, he said. Mr Reidy said many of these struggling families often had the largest mortgages.

They now faced the added financial pain of being unable to shop around for a better bank deal.

"Because of the different movements in the way the banks are passing on or not passing on the rate cuts, people are looking around at banks down the road," he said.

"But when they have their homes revalued, they are finding that the market price is not the value the home was mortgaged at."

Mr Reidy said this meant borrowers were "absolutely stuck" with their lenders as they did not want to reveal their mortgages were higher than the property's value.

NMD Data, a national database that lists mortgagee foreclosures, has listed 216 Tasmanian residential properties as mortgagee sales in the past financial year.

Managing director John Kovacs said that figure was only the tip of the iceberg.

The company only lists properties that are explicitly indicated as "mortgagee sales" but Mr Kovacs said banks preferred not to advertise them, to avoid fire sales.

He said first home-buyers were suffering most. Many entered the market at the height of the boom, mainly the result of the first-home buyers' grant. But TasCOSS said people struggling with payments should always speak to the bank.

Mr Reidy said banks were keen to make new arrangements, much preferring to see people stay in their homes rather than having to sell.