Things must be getting a little tricky out on the Newnham campus taking into account that after four years, as they say down at the pub most Fridays,
"sweet bugger all has happened and this lot look as stupid as all get out .... no business case, no foundations laid, no money in the bank, not a bloody sausage". But right now UTas pundits are squealing like
'stuck pigs'!
It's a standing joke and one that no longer stops a conversation at a barbecue. It turns out that
'the punters' are not as dumb as some university money-managers, who are, speculatively, mostly interested in topping up their salaries on a promise –
it seems. And, all this while looking to their superannuation a little further down the track.
However, it must be said that in the midst of all this, there is an inquiry looming. It should be a
Royal Commission but let's not discount a
Judicial Inquiry or even a
Citizen's Assembly/Jury [LINK]
Social media is already on the case and a battle ground is opening up on the left flank, or so it seems. However, a city's integrity and people's well being is what's at stake. Here we have a university asset stripping without a
'social licence'.
It appears, these days, that this is the way of the world at universities
– well some – where
'business' gets to trump scholarship time after time. At least, in the ones that have abandoned the concept of being
"a community of scholars and teachers" it is very much so.
That old adage that goes '
the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits' seems to be imbedded in the woodwork at UTas. The monumentally stupidity of the idea to move a university campus
just four kilometres and onto a
'tidal flat' to increase student numbers beggars belief.
In fact nobody has forwarded a
'dot of evidence' that would give any credibility whatsoever to the notion that even one more student
'will come' because the UTas campus might move a bit closer to the CBD. Internationally, the
'Great Universities' –
Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, et al – are not rebuilding their campuses in central London, New York or anywhere else.
Interestingly, there has been about four years for UTas to make the case that it has patently been unable to make –
or even seriously make an attempt to do so.
.
Students do go to universities because they offer great programs. They are attracted to the
'social cum cultural dynamics' not to urban geographies; not to spanking new building; not to buildings that are built on the cheap as a fashion statement; not to dumbed down experimental
'more accessible' courses.
Now if all this is not enough, and does not represent a special kind of dumbness and intellectual deficiency; it now looks as if
'UTas's movers and shakers'; the people who endorsed the concept of moving; it now appears as if that they either didn't do their research or just do not care. That is, do the research that would have told them that what they were proposing is clearly
PROHIBITED under the current Planning Scheme. Or, are they just filled with hubris?
But, they are not alone. For four years the UTas proponents have been joined at the hip with the then Aldermen and civic functionaries at Launceston's Town Hall. The Aldermen knew what the rules were/are and if they didn't they should have. Ignorance of the law never excuses you from its provisions.
To claim that
"we didn't know all this" would take a certain amount of inexplicable dumbness for one to confess to such unconscionable incompetence.
In any event the claim of not knowing doesn't usually cut it in law –
and shouldn't.
So, now it is off we go down the unconventional line of modifying a Planning Scheme, and specifically, to have the scheme allow your development in order to gain a Development Approval in
'one single' major application –
tricky and deceptive maybe but nonetheless legal apparently.
.
This strategy assumes that the
'planning provisions' have/had no purpose in the first place and are based upon some cockamamie world view that says if you are
'a university' you know better/best and thus the rules do not apply to you.
Apart from all that, this non-rate-paying cum service hungry corporate citizen's strategy, on the evidence, it seems is to deliberately put
'protest and justice' beyond the reach of fellow citizens' capacity to pay for.
In anyone's book this appalling behaviour.
As
Thomas Sowell tells us,
“Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God”. So it seems that Town Hall, the Minister and 'the university' have colluded to make the gravest of all mistakes concerning their identities.
Indeed, they speak only for themselves not those who they are charged with representing for whatever reason.
The gravest thing being that they are visiting their collective hubris upon hapless ratepayers and taxpayers –
well that seems to have been the intent.
Getting down to '
tin tacks and hitting the nail right on the head' here the Council will need to
'deliver on the deal', otherwise what is known as the
'Memorandum Of Understandings' (MOU), comes into play. They'll be expected to approve every last detail of the proposal –
well so the word goes around and about. If the MOU is delivered upon the proposal can be sent to the
Tasmanian Planning Commission who, apparently, must hear the application.
So, the punters out there in
'punter land' down at the pub on a Friday, well they'll looking on with dismay. The measure of what is invested in a MOU it seems is beyond calculation.
Typically,
'the representors' who oppose a Development Application (DA), can lodge an appeal for each and every application to the
Resource Management And Planning Appeals Tribunal (RMPAT).
However, this is not the case in this case. Given that the proposals are
prohibited under the present planning scheme there are consequences. Ultimately this means that
'every single property' would need to be rezoned effectively.
Of course such developments become problematic and on a case by case basis. The up-side of this approach means that the
'advertising period' at the first stage is longer.
Moreover, it is encouraging to note that the submissions that can be made to the TPC are not subject to cost claims should they be unsuccessful.
This is totally unlike RMPAT appeal hearings. However, in this case with it being such a large, relatively ill defined and somewhat messy application, opponents will require a huge resource to even be in the hunt. Hearings are ever likely to be protracted thus always expensive.
And oh yes, PM Morrison now tells us that UTas has ample funds in its
'piggy bank' to have funded the purchase of the
'Inveresk land' that UTas persuaded the good Aldermen to hand over as a
gift.
So, all the bleating and carry on over money is no longer likely
'pull a buck from Canberra' leaving
'Lonnie ratepayers' picking up infrastructure costs
'willy nilly'. If this wasn't serious enough it would be quite funny but it is ...
serious that is! Some
transparency an accountability would be really nice.
So the upshot to all this is that UTas is starting to look like a
'hairy chested neighbours from hell' and one that's liable to pull every last sneaky legal stunt along with the most despicable weasel tricks to be found in the book of legal horrors.
The university
pays no rates and nor does it deliver on its promises. A university is supposed to deliver a '
social dividend' and thus deserving a '
social license' to operate. It remains to be seen if the City of Launceston Council as it now is, will turn over, give up and be satisfied with a
'tummytickle' at the ratepayers' expense. They just might not have 'the bottle' for anything else.
Elvis Mitchell, the American film scholar, tells us that "
man is an endangered species,' [and] announces one of the titles at the beginning of the sci-fi lump 'Battlefield Earth. And [as he says] after about 20 minutes of this amateurish picture, extinction doesn't seem like such a bad idea."
If this silly UTas
'development proposal' was to be lined up beside this cinematic sci-fi atrocity Mitchell calls out, we could well be excused for sharing his aspirations for
'extinction, oblivion, whatever '.
What is so, so puzzling is the fact that the Vice Chancellor, Prof Rufus Back, who is reportedly an
"ethicist", is seemingly unable to see how all this
'low-life bunkum' looks. Neither does he seem to be able to see just how angry Launceston ratepayers feel –
nor how many.
In his defence when Prof. Black took up his post as VC, his predecessor handed him the biggest
'poo-sandwich' this side of the black stump as he scurried off to a better world with greener grass.
UTAS is working with City of Launceston Council to discuss a suitable amendment of the planning scheme . Caitlin Jarvis ...............
The Inveresk precinct is located across seven sites, on several different parts of land. The land was transferred to UTAS by the City of Launceston council over the past two years to allow it to proceed with the development.
...............
"Each parcel of land has its own concerns, whether that's with parking, flood mitigation, access and others," pro-vice chancellor David Adams said.
...............
UTAS announced on Friday that the campus would be delivered under a staged construction, rather than one construction project. This comes after the DA for the site missed its deadline. The DA was expected to be lodged with the council by the end of 2018.
...............
However, Professor Adams said in order for the campus to be a success, a staged construction was necessary, to support Tasmania's construction industry.
...............
"We are working out how we can simultaneously stay within these timelines [we've set] and do things on multiple sites," he said.
...............
One of the main reasons for the staged construction is to allow UTAS to support the construction industry, which is already under pressure due to a large number of infrastructure projects slated for Launceston.
...............
The most recent being upgrades to Launceston College, with construction tenders for the $750,000 upgrades to the science building advertised on Sunday................
Vice Chancellor Rufus Black at the announcement of the campus' architects.
...............Professor Adams said UTAS was in discussion with the Launceston council about how to address the planning scheme amendment, which would then, in turn, go to the Tasmanian Planning Commission.
...............
"Planning legislation in Tasmania allows for an applicant to seek a planning scheme amendment, and such applications are initially assessed by local councils," City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton said.
...............
"If a council supports an amendment it will be publicly advertised to seek representations and the council will then report to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which will conduct its own assessment process."
...............
The Tasmanian Planning Commission would then decide whether or not to approve the amendment, a decision that is also subject to the appeal process.
...............
UTAS is already embroiled in a planning scheme amendment appeal process, with a hearing held in the Hobart Supreme Court on February 21.
...............
The hearing, in front of Justice Stephen Estcourt, heard UTAS wanted to appeal the decision made by the Tasmanian Planning Commission in regard to an amendment that would allow a rezoning of some parts of the Sandy Bay campus.
...............
The amendment would allow UTAS to divest of "surplus resources" which was denied by the planning commission last year.
