FROM LCC: NEWS ... OPINION: INVERESK AND COUNCIL: Troubling Waters

GO TO: http://lcc63.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/opinion-inveresk-and-council-troubling.html

“There was no fan for that ‘certain substance’ to hit but it floated up into the roadways anyway”… says someone once from ‘the council’ on the spot but who doesn’t want to be named. 

'The flood’ hasn’t hit yet and the “Swampies” are preparing themselves for the eventuality. But what nobody wanted to believe would happen has preceded it. 

The storm water pipes that are in ‘Swampy Territory’ also carry much of the sewerage. So, in the downpours Launceston has had over the years these pipes are known to have backed up and overflowed. 

There are all kinds of dastardly stories of toilet overflows and raw sewerage in the street that nobody wants to talk about. 

Missing in action it seems are the ‘big wigs’ from council. Most missed amongst them are the Mayor and General Manager. 

It seems that the kind of thing that gets you votes can be left to underlings when the elections (accountability time) are about three years away. 

However, how do the overlords get any kind of idea about what the real problems are if they never ever see it for themselves? 

Down there in 'Swampy Territory' the infrastructure is very old and mostly build against the odds. Its not a great vote base for the Mayor either it seems.  

Launceston is Australia’s third oldest settlement and there are good arguments that say none of this area should have been built upon – but it was!. 

Quite a lot of this ‘drainage’ infrastructure is at sea level and sometimes its below it. Therefore, where it can ‘drain to’ is always an issue. 

For example, the duck pond in City Park can only be drained at low tide – our anonymous ex-council person says. It’s a proposition that is easily tested however. 

There are two stories in the Examiner that should be ringing alarm bells in the Mayor’s office at Town Hall. 

One, “Inveresk Tavern ruined in floods”  [LINK], that talks about how “on Thursday and Friday, Inveresk Tavern owner Charlie Rayner watched on helplessly as stormwater and sewage filled his beloved new pub…. We tried sandbags, but there was nothing we could do," he said. "It just kept coming - through the drains, under the door. The infrastructure couldn't cope." And the financial stress of it all The funny thing is this story doesn’t appear until Sunday and only then it would seem because “someone had rattled The Examiner’s cage”. The circumstantial evidence is evident. 

The other, an Examiner Editorial, “Health alert for floodwaters, ''particularly'' Invermay”, [LINK] tells us that “TASMANIANS have been warned that floodwaters across the north and east are potentially contaminated with sewage, particularly in the Invermay area. .... Acting Director of Public Health Kelly Shaw said dirty water, mud and silt that floods create, can cause a range of conditions, including gastroenteritis and skin and soft-tissue infections....``Public Health Services advise that where possible people avoid contact with flood surface waters,'' he said…….. 

All this together raises important questions to do with, upon what advice was the State Government, UTas and Launceston Council acting upon in imagining a future for UTas at Inveresk?

Indeed, what advice was Launceston’s general manager offering Aldermen?  What was its source?

Also, what independent advice did the good Aldermen seek in order to lend their unanimous support for the now infamous MoU?

The questions go on relentlessly from here and the 'Swampies' are now saying "we told you so ... but we know nuffingk!

Bowen & Vale

FROM LCC: NEWS – Letter and Editorial

GO TO SOURCE: http://lcc63.blogspot.com.au/

PROPOSED UNIVERSITY MOVE FROM NEWNHAM TO INVERESK

I listened to our Launceston Mayor recently speaking on local community radio reporting on progress of projects for 2016. He mentioned the university move – saying that he has not personally heard any negative feedback and that he thinks it has mostly been accepted by the public. Referring back to the only public presentation of the proposal at the Albert Hall last year there is yet to be anything more tangible put forward other than an artistic 3D video presentation, some thought bubbles and a PowerPoint presentation.

Despite the enthusiasm from the MoU signatory group, who very well may have agendas that are not contained in the proposal, I personally am not at all convinced that enough serious thought has gone into the ‘proposal’. There is too much about it that is very short term and despite the stated claims that it will ‘change the face of Launceston for 100 years in a positive way’ the downside to moving to Inveresk has many detractions. For example gifting of land to the University by Launceston City Council when they already own land at the Newnham campus, lack of space at Inveresk to expand unless one of the plans is to bulldoze for extra space. The siting and appearance of the student accommodation units at the river edge at Inveresk seems very inappropriate.

Other negatives for the move are that there will be downsizing or minimising of uni courses and major disruption to Newnham and Inveresk that will even in the short term be very expensive for Launceston ratepayers who are already paying for some costly ill conceived past projects. Understandably there is a rush to complete the proposal to apply for funding in the coming Federal election year but that is not enough reason for the move either.

I live and work in Invermay/Inveresk; have attended both Newnham and Inveresk campuses so my observations of the areas come from a pragmatic community viewpoint. I suspect that none of the enthusiastic proponents of the proposal live or drive anywhere near either site.

Dr. Edna Broad ... Invermay 

Editors Note: It is interesting to note that early on in November (the 12th?) members of the 'concerned citizens network' attended a Council Strategic Planning meeting and made a presentation to the Mayor and Aldermen. A copy of the petition now circulating in the Launceston community was handed to the Mayor and the aldermen in attendance. In fact the Mayor was amongst the first people to see and receive the petition and the case for it.

So if Dr. Broad's memory serves her well, the Mayor's memory seems to be either poor or perhaps selective.

Also, today Launcestonians are witness to the fragility of Invermay's and Inveresk's sewerage and storm water infrastructure. 

It is well known that in that area's storm water and sewerage shares the same infrastructure and that the area in large part is below sea level.

Right now this is  showing itself to be a problem with raw sewerage overflowing along with the storm water and the health risks come from that. Given Launceston's history all this should be understood as an obvious risk.

The question that needs to be asked is, has this and the cost of upgrading the infrastructure been factored into the MoU that has been struck for the purpose of moving UTas to Inveresk? 

Likewise, has anyone at Council crunched the numbers in regard to the infrastructure implications of a development at Inveresk designed to bring an additional 10,000 people on site?

AND there are more questions flowing from these.

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR: When is a letter to the editor actually a letter to the editor?

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

Launceston City Council

THE Launceston City Council’s recent meeting to present its annual report was a complete farce. 

The Thursday prior to the meeting at the Town Hall had run out of annual general meeting reports. 

The meeting was scheduled to start at 5.30pm ``tea time” and many ratepayers had not even left work. 

This is an old ``trick”, call meetings at meal times if you don’t want many to attend. 

Only seven out of 12 alderman attended, just enough for a quorum and about six ratepayers ``what a crowd”. 

The rules of meetings only allow two minutes for questions and two minutes to speak on an issue, totally inadequate. 

Where has transparency gone in local government? — BASIL FITCH, Launceston.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This letter is interesting as it seems that The Examiner has 'edited' it without Mr. Fitch's approval. Mr. Fitch's original letter contained a paragraph quoting the General Manager Robert Dobrzynski, from The Examiner (Dec10 2015) ... "we do not answer questions at public meetings because people do not come out to public meetings" ... this paragraph has been removed. Why?

Apparently, Robert Dobrzynski does not accept the quote attributed to him but the Examiner has it seems. Anyway, the paper has not printed a retraction nor an explanation. If Mr Dobrzynski contacted the Examiner to complain it might have been reasonable for the paper to publish something as a consequence but it seems it has not. 

How would Mr Fitch know unless the Examiner had told him that they'd made a mistake? It remains an open question as to wether or not they did make a mistake it seems.

To 'correct, alter or remove' an important component of a letter submitted to the editor, would that represent a breach of the writer's moral rights under Australian copyright law?  Would it change its meaning? To do so without contacting the author, would not that be discourteous at the very least? Would doing so be a breach of his moral rights as an author? Is any of this anything to do with "industry standard"?

There's a notion that newspaper editors can change peoples letters to them. Well yes they can, and yes they do, BUT it seems that while editors, collectively weren't looking, perhaps things changed back in Y2000.

Copyright law changed in Y2000 to protect the 'Moral Rights Of The Author".  What are these rights?

1 The right to be identified as the author of their work – that is, the right of attribution;
2 The right not to have a person falsely assert or imply that they are the author of a work – the right not to have authorship falsely attributed;
3 The right not to have their work subjected to derogatory treatment which is prejudicial to their honour or reputation – the right of integrity of authorship.

It's an interesting issue to ponder on 'Australia Day' with the new Australian Of The Year being a champion of 'standards', inclusiveness and not to mention 'change' too.

Are we about to see some standard setting that might make the odd decision maker blush a little or even a lot?

Council Accountability ... Where might it be found?

Letters like this pose serious questions. UTAS say they have consulted students in the planning around the proposed move to Inveresk. However, at the meeting UTAS itself held in the Albert Hall current students had a different view.

Actually it turned out that the university had consulted the president of the student union which is not quite the same thing as "consulting the students."

At that meeting the Deputy Mayor, Rob Soward, (for some reason the Mayor was indisposed and not at the meeting) talked about the meeting being the "beginning of the consultation process" but if any 'consultation' had gone on after the meeting and when Council decided to 'GIFT' the land to UTAS there is no evidence for it.

Perhaps the Mayor and General Manager had a chat with a suitably compliant 'constituent' in a carpark, or at a ribbon cutting, or envelope opening, somewhere, and that was the consultation process.

The growing disquiet about the 'land gift' is not too surprising but the link between it and the revitalisation of Launceston's CBD "beggars belief". 

The Aldermen seem to have placed their trust in the hands of some mystical guru living in La La Land.

AND as for other planning in the CBD, fiddling with traffic flows against the wishes of a majority of people consulted is quite simply bewildering.

If the cargo cult money does arrive for "City Heart" all ratepayers will paying more and quite probably for a poor outcome. 

Already Launceston's rates are above the odds, well above, and it seems that the general manager thinks its alright since there is a museum, overblown swimming centre and football ground etc  etc.

If there was a plot this lot seems to have lost it and they are not even embarrassed it seems as they collect their salaries and allowances, some ... most ... are over generous given the outcomes. 

Think about it ... 50% of Launcestonians survive on Centrelink payments and it appears that this Council is allergic to accountability.

COUNCIL IN TURMIOL AND VERY HOT WATER APPARENTLY

GO TO SOURCE HERE

"THE City of Perth council has terminated the contract of its chief executive Gary Stevenson effective immediately.... The decision was taken at a behind-closed-doors meeting of the council on Wednesday morning.... Perth Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi fronted a media pack on the front lawn of Council House on Wednesday, stressing that the decision to sack Mr Stevenson was “unanimously endorsed” by all nine councillors, which includes her.... It’s believed Mr Stevenson was less than three and a half years through a five-year contract.... Ms Scaffidi said the decision was “completely mutually exclusive” to the controversy hitting the City of Perth in the past 12 months over the Corruption and Crime Commission’s investigations into the Lord Mayor."

However, there is much more going on here and the WA Dept. of Local Govt. is deeply involved in investigating breaches of the Act. In fact it seems that the scope of investigation is expanding.

Interestingly PERTH NOW and THE SUNDAY TIMES seem to publish full transcripts of interviews and the one published here makes for interesting reading for those people interested in 'accountability' and Local Govt... Click here to read more and the transcript

It is interesting to see how thing pan out elsewhere to add to the layers of options to think about closer to home.

Letters To The Editor: UTAS and WOOLWORTHS

UTAS
CLARK Cooley’s letter (The Examiner, January 13) seems to be a rehash of UTAS hype with no detail and very little substance. 

My understanding is that the position of president he occupies is an appointment made by the study body. 

Clarke stated we must look at new ways to attract students, but doesn’t expand on that statement. 

Pigs that fly must be bringing in the mooted 10,000 new students who allegedly will arrive here in droves, however even they may not be happy with associate degrees rather than bachelor degrees. 

 — RON BAINES, Kings Meadows.

EDITOR'S NOTE: It is understood that the letter here is not presented as written by the author and as presented to the newspaper.

Woolworths Hardware stores
NB: Submitted to but not yet published in The Examiner

Re . Alexandra Humphries article Wednesday the 20th.January and the comments of the Mayors of Dorset , Georgetown ,Meander and Launceston municipalities and their concerns of the sale or likely closure of Becks Hardware Stores a division of Woolworths. 

My observation is their General Managers must have been a sleep at the wheel , because under section 62 of the Tasmanian Local Government Act they have wide powers and must ensure Mayors and Aldermen are briefed on important business situations in their respective municipalities.? 

A search will reveal that Becks Home Hardware is part of the “Danks“ operation and had the managers been reading the financial review in 2015 this division was trading in a profitable manner, unlike the “Masters“ division. 

Macquarie Group states Metcash – owned Mitre 10 hardware chain could buy Home Timber and Hardware stores as well as cherry pick some Masters sites Macquarie analyst said. 

Barry Prismall states in his article 20th January “Anyone can fight city hall with their ideas “, he further concludes be organised, be consistent and never give up, reform of the local government Act and most importantly section 62,

Mayors along with{ Aldermen must be given the powers to hold these highly paid General Managers more accountable similar to private companies and their boards.{Minister Gutwein and shadow Minister Bacon} time to act in an apolitical manner. 

Undue angst has been caused by this article to employees and to customers of Becks Home Hardware who have had a long association with Becks and the high service provided which is a continuation of the Becks and Jarvis families.

Brian P Khan 

Bridport

BARRY PRISMALL SAYS GET ANGRY AND GET GOING!

CLICK HERE TO GO TO BARRY'S STORY

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

STOLEN FROM LCC: NEWS ... "Presumably Barry Prismall no longer uses a typewriter, so when he ‘clicked-out’ this piece he had his tongue half planted in his cheek and just maybe he was thinking to himself “time to stir the possum and liven things up around here”.

You'd have to wonder if Barry had ever seen the Justin Chadwick and Ann Peacock movie, ‘The First Grader’ – LINK. It’s set in Kenya and based on a true story. It’s the story of an ageing Mau Mau fighter, still fighting, and fighting this time for his right to go to school and learn to read. Barry might well have seen it!

Anyway he tells us about how Qantas was taken on and beaten and that in fact their front man, Alan Joyce, even flew in to Launceston for a dose of humility.

Barry even recounts how Christine Milne stopped the Wesley Vale pulp mill and the way ‘The Greens’ saved the Franklin and invented the Tarkine.

Barry reminds us that they did all that ”with rubber rafts and passive, peaceful police arrests … [and that]… It got the desired world media attention”.

Barry also reminds all the ageing hippies out there in newspaper reader land about the downfall of Marcos in the Philippines and how ‘public opinion’ finished the Vietnam War.

Barry, somewhat Ghandi like, implores us not to “fight with abuse, fists and stones” but to do so with ideas. He reckons “if you're right and have common sense in your corner, it's only a matter of time.”

However, at up there,or is it down there, whatever, in St John’s St and Town Hall they might not be cheering him on despite the fact that a good political scrap sells newspapers and especially so to ‘old-farts’.

There is as they say, "an outside chance" that the local government cum amalgamation cum accountability protests that are seemingly gaining ground might just be encouraging the Examiner to say …. yes we’ll have some of that!

GO Barry! ... GO! GO! GO!"

EDITOR'S NOTE: We could hope on the basis of this story that things might changing at The Examiner an that there might be some hope for robust debate and incisive reporting 'on Council' from a more inclusive regional newspaper. It may be too much to hope for but let's see the proof as they say will be in the eating BUT good on you Treva ... CLICK HERE TO GO TO LCC NEWS

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Charter Hall nabs university rights

http://www.afr.com/real-estate/charter-hall-nabs-western-sydney-university-rights-20160115-gm6vij

Mercedes Ruehl writes in The Financial Review Monday 18th. January 2016 Charter Hall has acquired the development rights for the new Western Sydney University at Parramatta from Leighton Properties. 

When finished next year it will have an end value of $220 million, be 100 per cent pre-leased to Western Sydney University for 15 years and home to more than 10,000 students. 

One must question why the federal, state governments and Launceston City Council are being required to part fund the Inveresk project for the Tasmanian University when they have the same objective of 10,000 students as Parramatta. 

Launceston ratepayers and Tasmanian electors should be asking their elected representatives why an approach has not been made to the Charter Hall Group? 

Surely when they approach the Commonwealth government, they will be questioned why they have not explored the issue of private capital funding, little wonder federal Treasurer Scott Morrison has concerns over the way state and municipal councils run begging to the federal ministers before testing what the market can offer. 

Brian P. Khan 

Bridport 7262

THE UTAS INVERESK MOVE: The Central Issue

Inveresk

THE University move to Inveresk has again received comment from Malcolm Scott and Geoff Mclean but they miss the central issue.
The university has promised 10000 additional students from their proposal.

If that’s the promise, make it part of their contractual obligation to council with financial penalties for non-performance.
This is the ‘social dividend’ that ratepayers expect for giving valuable free land to the university; this is the economic and social benefit that is proper ‘payment’.

Of course the university is terrified of such a commitment because no one really believes the hyperbole. Other than university spruikers not one informed senior staff believes it.

They have stripped courses, staff and functions from the north and downgraded the campus.

As it is said, ‘by their fruits shall you know them’ and their actions tell it all.

Put in writing the promise to build a campus of 10000 extra students over ten years and I will give my total support to the university’s plan.

Without it, it is a sham.

— DR MICHAEL POWELL, Launceston.

THE EXAMINER SAYS HIGH INCOMES JUST DO NOT ADD UP _ WHY?

CLICK HERE FOR THE EDITORIAL

As the Examiner Editorial says there is lot wrong when Tasmanian public servants' incomes rival or exceed those of some of the larger nations like China, Russia and India.

When some Tasmanian  public servants' salary packages exceed $500,000 and President Obama gets $443,000 and David Cameron gets a mere $256,000 something is wrong ... very, very, very wrong.

When some local government general managers get up to $300,000 a year there is really something very wrong. After all, these operations are micro operations by any measure.

It's especially concerning when there is a public servant for every 20 Tasmanians – while in Victoria it's one for every 210 Victorians. One might well ask, are Tasmanians any better serviced than their Victorian counterparts?

Supposedly Tasmania pays more to attract the best. But, is that what Tasmania gets? Are Tasmanian public servants delivering on promise that they will deliver more if they are paid more? Do they in fact meet their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)? Indeed how often are their performances measured against a set of relevant KPIs?

As The Examiner editorial says, "your average bureaucrat should not be so expensive".  And, a great many are rather average, and as they say, are simply "big fish in small ponds" at best. 

Somewhat poignantly The Examiner editorial asks, "how is it possible, that a senior public servant in the nation's smallest state, earns as much as the nation's prime minister, and much more than the leaders of the world's super powers?"

Not only is Tasmania over governed, Tasmanians are generally paying way too much for far too little. How did this come about and especially so in Local Govt.?

Indeed it seems that public servants' salary packages are not matched by qualifications and many times these qualifications, academic and/or experiential, or the lack of same, are kept a close secret along with the 'actual' salary packages received. Why should this be the case? If there is nothing to hide why hide it?

It's all in stark contrast to the prevailing circumstances in the case of university executive salaries for instance. University academics who move into operational roles draw their salaries from the public purse and they are widely reported in the press.

In this arena performances are measured against goals kicked ... its the culture. Generally non-performers quietly fade into the background as an outcome of internal critical review. Apparently not so in public service in Tasmania!

What seems to be missing in public service are the rigorous mechanisms by which the evident excesses in top end public servant's remuneration packages can be rationalised, addressed and reassessed. 

It appears as if senior public servants in Tasmania are 'Teflon Coated' and that they have placed themselves beyond the reach of criticism or critical review.

Indeed, this excessive largess must be challenged well away from the self-serving  sycophantic administrations that, essentially, have visited this fiscal burden upon a largely helpless, hapless and an increasingly impoverished constituency.

Where there is the will there will be ways to hold these apparently armour-plated high-fliers to account.

The political class who are themselves held to account by their constituency seem far too reluctant to hold the public servants they appoint accountable – in local government in particular. Why?

When the political leadership doesn't, or wont, face up to this issue perhaps this might be a task that could be passed to mechanisms like 'citizens' assemblies' and 'citizens juries' in a process of Participatory Action Research.

Interestingly, these mechanisms are gaining significant public support with the arguments against them typically coming from the top end of public service regimes. BUT, it would wouldn't it?

Right here two quotes spring almost immediately to mind:

• “When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else.”  ― David Brin

• “The right thing to do and the hard thing to do are usually the same.”  ― Steve Maraboli ... Life, the Truth, and Being Free

SOCIAL MEDIA AND YOUR COUNCIL

CLICK HERE – Hobart City Council discussion

The 'social media' phenomena is beginning to cut through quite a lot of the prejudice surrounding it. We've been here before, many of us, with computer competency when it was claimed that “people over say 50 were generally not computer literate” but it quickly turned out not to be the case. 

In fact back when this myth was promulgated it turned out that people in this demographic tended to use computers in their workplaces more than younger people ... thus quite literate. 

It was just the case that people used computers for different things. Young people used computers, so it was said, for entertainment and older people for more pragmatic purposes – surprise, surprise. However it was never that simple nor true in any way. It was an understanding that very quickly evolved into a misunderstanding. 

The early predictions that said the Internet was going to change lives have been a prediction fulfilled in spades. Yet how that is happening has not been adequately predicted, as neither have the machinations of change. And, it’s all being replayed in technicolour in social media. 

We are getting used to the myriad of ways we get our news and information albeit with much of it coming from spurious and purportedly unreliable sources. What’s new? It was also the case with the print press with its malleability, and its biases, and the Machiavellian shenanigans, its corruptibility even. 

Social media has no ‘media barons’, just media savvy exponents fewer of whom can be bought it seems. In reality, politicians cannot hire media savvy underlings to do their social media bidding for them. That is unless they themselves are savvy enough to repress unauthorised, massaged or devious messaging. "Trust me I'm media savvy" just does not seem to work.

Gone are the days when “I don’t do social media” is ever likely to cut the mustard. Actually its not a question of mastering the technology, largely an impossibility for most, its more to do with the organic nature of 'the culture’ that needs to be studied. 

Yet there are politician and bureaucrats with strong opinions about what can and cannot be achieved with social media albeit they personally lack the wherewithal. 

Local govt. is putting its toes in the waters of social media in an attempt to keep up with their constituency. Nonetheless, most are so far behind the game that they’re becoming staunched advocates of the status quo and hiding out behind outmoded thinking and antiquated technologies in order to protect their faltering authority … authority being stolen being back by those who once were subservient underlings.

Watch this space for the advances of the armies of 'citizen activists', 'citizen journalists' and a  citizenry that's increasingly 'street savvy' beyond the comprehension of those who assume to lord it over them. 

Count on it, social media is coming to a council near you quite soon!

SOME LINKS

• Hobart City Council Facebook parody page causes headache for Lord Mayor
• Hobart City Council ... Just For Fun
• Philip Cocker Alderman Hobart City Council
• City of Launceston Official
• City Of Launceston

HICKEY TO MONA: KEEP UP OR GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM!

Amid criticism that MONA FOMA moved virtually all of their 2016 event out of Hobart, due to Hobart City Council’s complicated bureaucracy and red tape - Hobart Lord Mayor, Sue Hickey has struck back.

Talking from Ireland (apparently phones do work there), Hickey stated that clearly MONA just can’t keep up with the ingenuity and creativity of HCC and they have simply been scared off, as they can’t compete.

“Let’s be realistic about this”, said Hickey. “The Christmas Tree, our new toilets and The Taste etc have set the benchmark too high so they have scurried off back to Berriedale. Walshy could learn a lot form us you know. We even offered them the use of our Albert but they weren’t ‘modern’ enough to take up that offer”, said Hickey.

When challenged on if council had simply become too hard and too expensive to work with due to overcomplicated processes and “idiots in charge” Hickey stated “we are forming a series of committees to establish that now. We should have a report in early 2018 but until then I can’t speculate”.

In a statement, MOFO media department said “Oh FFS. Just do your best to keep Christie away. PLEASE! Can someone send them tickets to Cirque du Soleil? I am sure they think we run that. They think all arty stuff is the same anyway. They won’t know the difference”.

It is understood that MONA did look at using council’s Albert cashless system but even David Walsh can’t afford to lose that much money or wait that long for the reconciliation.

DO YOU HEAR THE ALARM??

FROM THE EXAMINER: “Alderman McKendrick cited information provided to him by traffic engineers that one-way streets were safer for cyclists and pedestrians .... He said that as 47.3 per cent of public responses to the project in the community consultation phase had been in opposition to the changes he did not feel they had community support ... ‘‘I don’t believe the people of Launceston want that change,’’ he said ...‘‘If we’re going to consult let’s take notice of it.’’... Council general manager Robert Dobryznski said the decision made by the council at Monday’s meeting would be fundamental to the City Heart project .... ‘‘We’re proposing to put a $15 million project to round three (of National Stronger Regions federal funding) which fundamentally reflects what the council decides here today,’’ he said. ‘‘If the council doesn’t decide anything I fear for our prospects of getting any funding in round three, which is any funding in the lead-up to the federal election.’’Sections of CBD streets to become two-way By ALEXANDRA HUMPHRIES ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3566545/sections-of-cbd-streets-to-become-two-way/?cs=95 .... Moving on into 2016 and it seems that there is quite a bit of fumbling going on and not too much movement for the project. Business people in the city need to remember that the proposed changes are entirely dependent upon securing funding for the City Heart project and 2016 being an election year and Bass having a parish pump worth pumping ... So there is some relief in this just so long as the Council functionaries do not get too excited and start spend the money anyway... It could happen! ... But if this were to happen not only would Launceston’s CBD more than likely would be ‘buying a pup’ .... result being rates taking a hike ... again. ... Even if the money does drop from the sky, as is the hope, long after the hurrahs and ribbon cutting is done with there’ll be bills to pay ... lots of them ... Maintenance and depreciation for starters ... It is time to stop this nonsense and engage with the communities that this Council will be extracting those ever higher levels of rates from and whom they, the functionaries and representatives, are supposed to be 'servicing'... There seems to be a shortage of ideas and if the Aldermen have any they are being put down ... or just plain shy ... Yet it might just be the case that neither the functionaries nor the representatives have an idea  to bless themselves with ... It’s no time for visions and dreams of a future linked to memories of 'better times' .... Neither are projected futures built upon aspirations for a return to a lost past of any use whatsoever ... Time to call ‘time out’, reassess and call the purveyors of false hope to account ... The alarm bells are ringing!!

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: UTAS INVERSK MOVE

Geoff McLean’s letter (Jan 9) points to a fundamental failings of local government in Tasmania ... the lack of enterprise.

It’s true that there will be no ground floor ‘teaching facilities’ as a part of the proposal in accord with Council’s planning requirements.

Therefore, it seems, there might be parking and retail spaces there which should ‘turn a dollar’ for UTAS if they are to get the site FREE and unencumbered as it seems is the plan.

Yet again, the losers here will be the ratepayers. They will lose both income from the sale and the ongoing income opportunities. That’s the income needed to offset the consequent development costs.

If only the Council and UTAS together had the wit and enterprise to form a consortium for the mutual benefit of ratepayers and the university, plus the students of course, the objections to the “Council Gift” might well have melted away.

Similarly, if Council were to require UTAS to be 21st C savvy and environmentally responsible (sustainable?) this development might well be ‘World’s Best Practice’ and planned to:
• Generate substantial amounts of its own energy;
• Be built using 21st C sustainable technologies; and
• Managing all its water on site ... similar to London’s development requirements.

The ball has been in their hands and clearly both parties have dropped it!

Ray Norman
Trevallyn

___________________________________________________________________________________

Letters for Saturday, January 09, 2016 Jan. 9, 2016

UTAS
IF Malcolm Scott (The Examiner, January  6) was trying to make a pointed objection to the proposed university campus at Inveresk then his point was sorely lacking in knowledge.

There will be no teaching spaces on the ground floor level as that is a Launceston City Council stipulation.

The ground floor will all be parking and possibly some retail spaces.

It is notable that those who are objecting to the proposed campus, on the grounds it is on a ‘flood plain’, were silent when the Queen Victoria Museum developed its now magnificent site, which is on the ground floor.

There was no objections when the University’s schools of architecture, fine arts and performing arts moved to Inveresk; all with ground floor space.

And certainly no-one objected to the development of York Park into arguably the best boutique multi-purpose sports stadium in Australia; and it is not on stilts.

It would seem the objections are based on a dislike of the university and nothing more as I’m yet to see one that has any logical substance to it.

—  GEOFF MCLEAN, Launceston.

___________________________________________________________________________________