LOCAL GOVT TOSH

The "Column inches" stories like this win is an indictment on local governance's ability to actually be useful and serve its constituents. 

For the most part council managements have taken any real decision making away from the elected representatives. Given the way so many councillors/aldermen behave it is possible to see some wisdom in that.

However, on the evidence, far too many 'officers', mainly those in the upper ranks, are about as ill equipped for their responsibilities as the elected reps. The education requirements and domain knowledge required, it seems, is such that local government is all too often left with the dross.

All too often we get a mix of 'past-use-by-date' , 'never-wasers' , 'chancers' ,'intellectually ill equipped' and 'wanabes' grappling with little problems and turning them into monumental issues that finish up costing 'ratepayers' zillions and with nowhere to go.

And the plethora of councils in Tasmania, that situation only exacerbates the folly of conducting the charade that is local government in Tasmania in 2021.

The sooner it is recognised the local government in Tasmania is more than broken and acknowledge that it is dysfunctional, non-performing and way too expensive, the better.

G B Shaw told us long, long ago that "progress is impossible without change; and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." 

Dr Luther Blissett               t

President Neoism Tasmania

Bullying’ claims as stoush over Richmond’s Pooseum signage heats up 

The owner of Richmond’s Pooseum has levelled accusations of “bullying and discriminating behaviour” at the council, amid a stunning escalation in the battle over the business’s sign. 

Cameron Whiteley, Mercury Subscriber only | May 23, 2021 

Stink over Richmond’s Pooseum signage set to linger Driving force behind first dementia village moves on THE owner of a Richmond museum dedicated to dung has made a formal complaint to the Tasmanian Integrity Commission in the latest chapter of an ongoing saga with the council over a sign in front of her business. 

 Pooseum owner Karin Koch has claimed she is the victim of “bullying and discriminating behaviour” in a drawn-out disagreement with Clarence City Council. The stoush has been ongoing since 2019, which was brought about after Ms Koch did not secure the required planning permit for the sign. Ms Koch opened the Pooseum science museum on Bridge St in 2018 and in December 2019 the council enforced the sign’s removal on grounds relating to streetscape and cultural heritage of the town. Ms Koch was facing a bill of about $1100 to lodge a retrospective application, but more than 1600 people have signed an online petition calling for the original sign to be approved by council and reinstated. ............................... In her letter to the Integrity Commission, Ms Koch said she believed the matter could have been solved quickly and without public attention. “Instead, the council ... has engaged in ongoing bullying and discriminating behaviour to enforce the removal of the sign, because, as a council member told me in a face-to-face meeting, they ‘don’t like it’,’’ she wrote. Ms Koch wrote that there were two aspects to the disagreement — the size of the sign, and the payment of the fee. Following a long period of unsuccessful negotiation, council has issued a notice of intention to enforce, requiring Ms Koch to either obtain a permit for the signage or remove it. ...............................   Council general manager Ian Nelson said the subject of the signage was not the problem, but rather the lack of a completed development application being submitted to council. ............................... “Richmond is a vital heritage and tourist destination for the City of Clarence, and it is important that the heritage significance of the area is conserved,” he said. “We’re obligated by law to enforce the planning scheme, we can’t pick and choose how and when to do it, and it is there to protect this important historical precinct for future generations.” ............................... Alderman Luke Emunds, who moved a motion at a council meeting in March to waive discretionary fees for the application and instead charge the regular price, said the latest developments were concerning. ............................... “This could have been avoided had the council passed my motion, which would have satisfied all parties,” he said. “Instead, this saga continues to drag on.” ............................... Mr Nelson said he hoped the latest developments would lead to an “amicable resolution”.

CAN DILETTANTISM AND PHILISTINES DELIVER THE GOODS IN LAUNCESTON ?

The Ratepayers' Association took the time and effort to make a submission to Council on this agenda item and listening to the cursory regard the item received around the table, the association's concerns and aspirations were summarily dismissed. The association's concern is to ensure that when Council seeks advice, it is 'expert advice' and those providing it should in fact be 'experts' – not sycophantic dilettantes.

Under the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) a general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation 'given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation'. 

The PURPOSE of this provision is to protect ratepayers from flawed advice provided by sycophantic dilettantes and other conflicted advisers.

With this in mind, and in the cut and thrust of things, the age old contention to do with the 'value of culture' is ever likely pop up and expose every machination of purified ignorance, unadulterated philistinism and simple unenlightenment. There is no surprises at all when this is witnessed as self deemed expertise just doesn't cut it.

We do need to consider living in a city without a 'cultural landscape' and we need to do so very carefully.

The Australia Council for the Arts reports regularly on incomes in that 'euphemistic cultural sector' and their reporting shows that artists – cultural producers – earned a gross income in the order of $48K PA on average. That is well below the average income of $77K PA but above the poverty line of $22K – roughly the aged pension. So any notion that people in the 'cultural sector' are on easy street and can afford to give freely of their time, resources and expertise is little more than 'arrogant tosh' and can easy be put to one side. Clearly, when they are expected to give freely of their 'professional all' way too much is expected.    CLICK HERE FOR A REFERENCE ... AND FOR ANOTHER CLICK HERE

Typically, people in the cultural sector need to supplement their income from other jobs – sometime multiple jobs. For instance, the story of a 29-year-old being forced to take a full-time receptionist job to make ends meet and at the same time maintain their 'practice' is all too common. Its not because she is a 'bad artist', it is actually because of the 'state of the market' in the cultural sector, that is, 

• the very one that is populated with people that Council assumes has the wherewithal to donate their time, their resources and their expertise to bureaucrats who are in receipt of exceptional salaries in order that the GM can satisfy SECTION 65 of the Act.

Cr. Dawkins when speaking to the agenda item lauded the initiative albeit basically dismissing the concept that 'sport' might in reality be a component of the city's 'cultural reality'. It is a contribution to the 'public discourse' that is worth listening to.

Cr. Dawkins even footnoted her comment by alerting people to the attention sport gets in the press and presumably she was making the point that sport gets enough. Also, somewhat curiously she  ignored:

• Aboriginal cultural cultural realities; and 
• The possibility of religion being a components; 

of the city's cultural reality. Likewise, she, and other speakers, totally ignored the ratepayers' submission and presumably because no 'real value' is attributed to it and the potential contribution every component, multi-dimensional components, of the city's current cultural realities.

However, C. McKenzie when he spoke to the motion was a little more elastic in what might be considered as a component of the city's cultural landscape. Interestingly he did so without naming any component maybe in case he made a mistake of some kind.

The fact that the ratepayers submission was advocating that 'committee members' drawn from the community be compensated for their time, expertise, experience and more still, is was not a concept they wish to consider. Setting a standard of that kind might be the thin edge of the wedge and ultimately unwelcome comparisons might get to be made. 

Having a 'cultural strategy' at all reeks of totalitarianism of the kind that came to be in Europe in the mid 20th Century. Assuming that 'culture' is mono-dimensional and/or that there is any such thing as a 'cultural oneness' runs counter to people's experience of their reality. Dumbing 'culture' down comes with all kinds of complexity and warnings and there should be no room whatsoever for dilettantism.

Manfred Rommel prominent German and influential municipal politician speaking of Adolf Hitler said "of course, Hitler was a dilettante, but he was a completely amoral person. Yes, he had no morals at all" In his words, these words, there is something to ponder upon even the 21st Century  – even in Launceston.

Dr Tandra Vale

MONEY LINK – http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2021/04/how-much-do-tasmanian-councils-spend-on.html

City of Launceston council ... The City of Launceston council has spent $2,743,946 on consultants in the past five financial years. It spent: In 2015-16: $484,051 In 2016-17: $496,813 In 2017-18: $768,316 In 2018-19: $315,066 In 2019-20: $679,700 The information was released at the council's March 11 meeting after The Examiner had asked repeatedly for the information.  ............................ The council's chief executive officer Michael Stretton said it developed the consultancy register due to increasing public interest.  ............................ "The council has decided to report the consultancy register to the public in the interests of achieving greater transparency and clarity in respect to the level of expenditure on consultants each year," he said. ............................ "The register identified that the council spent between 0.28 per cent and 0.71 per cent of its total annual expenditure on consultancies in the last five years."

THE PATERSON STREET CARPARK WEST ISSUE

 

ABC News posted on 4 Nov 2020 that the “Foundry school at centre of $90M Launceston Creative precinct evicted for unpaid rent”.

Information obtained by ABC shows Foundry is $83,614 behind on its rental payments for its Cameron Street facility – and has not made any payments for more than seven months.

• Foundry director Chris Billing also sole director of Creative Property Holdings, the company behind the precinct. The project also includes a bus exchange.

• Earlier this year the ABC REVEALED Foundry staff had not paid staff, and had not properly paid superannuation for several years….”

•  Foundry no longer operates from staffed premises in Launceston. 

Question – Caveat ? 

In February 2021, a caveat was placed on the Title to 41-43 Paterson Street Launceston (Paterson Central Carpark, owned by Car Parks Super Pty Ltd) by solicitors for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd. The placement of this caveat, was not notified to Carparks Super Pty Ltd; and the caveat remains “unregistered” according to Tasmanian Lands Titles Office, because of an ‘administrative matter’, meaning it presently has no jurisdiction in dealings concerning the Title (vol. 147031 fol. 1). 

Question – Legal battle ? – No Contract ! 

There is dispute as to whether the parties actually entered into a contract. Tasmanian law prescribes that all agreements for the sale of real estate (vacant land or developed land) must be in writing and signed by all parties. None of this happened. 

There is no agreement in writing signed by all parties. No contract was exchanged. No contract was settled. 

On 19 February 2021 solicitors for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 637 144 542 as trustee for the Creative Property Holdings Unit Trust (Sole Director Christopher Billing and Applicant) filed a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court of Australia. 

First Respondent, Carparks Super Pty Ltd ACN 607 566 094 as trustee for the Allen Family Superannuation Fund (owner of the property); And Second Respondent City of Launceston Council. 

The Applicant claims that on 20 November 2020, the First Respondent offered to sell the property to the Applicant. It has been revealed that the City of Launceston Council had apparently agreed to be guarantor for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd to purchase the property, and had advanced a significant sum as a deposit for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd. Solicitors for Council withdrew from the contract and ceased to be guarantor, demanding the return of the deposit it had advanced. 

The legal proceeding is being vigorously defended by solicitors for Carparks Super Pty Ltd. 

Minister Fergusson says the State is not party to this contract, but Question – Where is the money coming from so far ? 

City of Launceston Council controversially sought $10M from the Commonwealth’s Drought Relief Fund. 

Tasmanian Government has advanced $6M to City of Launceston Council on an interest free basis, and then apparently a further $6M on the same basis, all to be forwarded on by CoL Council to the developer (Chris Billing’s Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd) to purchase the Paterson Street Central Carpark property. 

The development site includes the former 2 Birchall’s retail properties fronting Brisbane Street Mall, currently owned by CoL Council. 

Question – So what has been the involvement of State Government, and why is City of Launceston Council actively working to prejudice the proper rights of Carparks Super Pty Ltd to conduct its much-valued car park business at 41-43 Paterson Street ? 

Minister Fergusson says through the office of the State Co-ordinator-General [John Perry] The State “has been engaging with Launceston City Council, Creative Property Holdings and their financiers in relation to the Creative Precinct Proposal, including a planned bus terminal”. Interestingly, State Co-ordinator General John Perry has not engaged with the owners of the carpark property, Carparks Super Pty Ltd., but seems to have been a pivotal party in all other regards.(Interestingly, Metro, for whom the proposed bus interchange is to benefit, is a Government Business Enterprise, albeit independent and able to act independently). 

There is no responsibility by the CoL Council to provide or expend ratepayers funds on providing bus facilities for a State Government Business Enterprise. 

Initially, The SC-G proposed that the State be a partner in the development proposal, however in due course, the Government decided not to be directly involved Once this information was conveyed to CoL Council, the SC-G then apparently acted to approach a Sydney-based financier, BrickTop to finance the development for Chris Billing’s “group”, who was at that point yet to form Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd. 

The Creative Precinct proposal has been publicly-stated to be estimated at $90M, a very large sum to be borrowed for a Launceston development. For a $90M development to prosper, a current property investment return of around 6% (rent $5.4M) is a big ask in Launceston when the vacancy level in the Central Area is already very high.

Almost 2 years ago now, City of Launceston Council purchased the Birchall’s retail properties for $8.8M. The shops remain boarded up although occupying a prime Mall frontage and next door to Myer. 

Council’s Expression of Interest process has spectacularly failed, and NOTHING has been forthcoming. 

Launceston ratepayers are funding this expense, notwithstanding the significant loss of rates income previously received from this valuable retail property. 

There is no evidence that the relocation of buses from St John Street to off-street in Paterson Street, will have any advantage for the rescue of the financial viability of the City, or that the loss of the present car park will not be detrimental.