With reference to Agenda Item 20.4 CityProm Review.
We request any decision on this matter be deferred until the council has adequately and meaningfully consulted with those that will be forced to bear the economic burden of this initiative.
We note that the report commissioned from NOA Group headed CONFIDENTIAL (?) is dated 2/9/2020, 8 months ago!
.
Given that council and its consultants has taken from late 2019 to carry out its consultation with CityProm and its members, it should at a minimum take the same time and equivalent resources to consult the other ratepayers that would be required to bear the burden of funding CityProm, as is now proposed.
At the very least, the matter of the proposed residential ratepayer support of the organisation should be subject to a referendum at the forthcoming local government elections.
In the meantime, we ask that all elected councillors make clear their position on what is effectively a proposed massive shift in wealth from the residential ratepayers to the CBD businesses and property owners. Their position on the matter should be known before the next local government elections.
The consultants admit that since 1998, there have been 32 years of “unwilling conscripts” and there has been a complete lack of accountability over this period for the actions and decisions by CityProm. This has been tolerated in spite of a customary requirement for 5-yearly reviews.
We note that as a promotional organisation within Local Government jurisdictions, CityProm is unique, and in Victoria similar and successful organisations have to have members ‘opt in’. There is little wonder therefore to read of the high level of disengagement with CityProm in Launceston, pointing to the need to only have participation from willing and enthusiastic members, to overcome this. Experience showing where professional service providers have difficulty seeing the benefit of CityProm activities to them will only be magnified and increase this level of disenchantment, should the ratepayer base at large be forced to fund CityProm.
The Victorian model where the vehicle is their Section 86 committees under their Local Government Act, appears interesting and somewhat equitable compared to the present CityProm vehicle and certainly compared to anything proposed for general ratepayer based funding.
The consultants admit there are tensions about the absence of public good and the arguments of public good of the proposed new measures, are, in our considered opinion, facile. There are many successful retailers and other businesses operating beyond the current CityProm boundaries, that have done very well, despite there often having been a lack of capital expenditure on placemaking by council.
CityProm at inception, may have had a valid role, but that role is no longer necessary, the world has moved on from 1988 and the access to information of that time.
Council’s faith on placemaking as a strategy for development fails to acknowledge that no matter how attractive the footpath, if there is no reason to use or access a quality retailer/restaurant/coffee shop or other business, ratepayers will not avail themselves of shiny placemaking baubles. The fact that in recent times even the offices of local politicians have moved out of the CBD, demonstrates they are receptive to their ‘customers’ geographic location and easier access in outer areas.
The proposed funding model for CityProm will force those who, as a matter of principle and convenience, no longer visit the CBD, to fund activities designed to attract them to the CBD, where is the public good in this approach?
The few days since the publication of the agenda does not allow the community to be adequately informed.
The most reasonable decision would be to wind up CityProm as per the Officers’ Recommendation OPTION 4: Cease funding and do not replace with any structure - put responsibility for action and accountability for performance back onto the private sector.”
Alternately, we note that the consultants in their report make 3 recommendation models for funding, in order, C, B, & A. Both C & B removes funding from Rates and A (the least recommended option) is status quo, as existing.
The perceived CityProm role is clearly one that should be undertaken by the private sector either as an independent group of city businesses or a committee of the Chamber of Commerce, as is normally the practice in most cities like Launceston, that see a need for such activity.
It is not the cynical or the unequivocal that know CityProm to be a waste of ratepayer funds. Over the years the writer has asked the question of all the retailers and businesses where our family makes its discretionary and other expenditure and none of those have ever had a good thing to say about CityProm or its activities. A good reason to avoid the CBD is a CityProm promotion like Crazy Day and other artificial ‘activities’ that CityProm would claim as performance indicators or outcomes.
.
The fact that CityProm members themselves are no longer willing to fund it is all the proof necessary to demonstrate it is no longer needed or wanted.
“While marketing the City can be left to the private sector, this model tends to fall down because marketing expenditure by a business has an internal focus and does not necessarily promote the public domain.”
.
This statement fails to acknowledge the real world. There is no need to market the city. In all great cities it is the effort, creativity and investment of individuals that generates traffic to the individual businesses, often starting with one business and others congregating around it to capitalise on the generated traffic. Witness from example the revival of Campbell Town with the establishment of Zepps well over 20 years ago. Zepps did not arise from any placemaking or marketing by council. The placemaking followed Zepps.
.
In contrast to Campbell Town, witness what can only be perceived to be a monumental failure of the newly paved MallS and Quadrant. Is there any evidence that change has lead to even a minor increase in foot traffic or business turnover. The anecdotal evidence is that foot traffic has decreased and Covid is not the convenient excuse for it. It is because there are very few uniquely different retailers left worth visiting.
Blaming Covid in this report (dated 2 September 2020!) demonstrates how out-of-date the report already is in June 2021, as since then at least anecdotal information says that even businesses that received JobKeeper supports, didn’t actually require support and some ended up with increased business activities.
There are many businesses that have thrived in the last year, an excellent example is Harvest Market and another is Bread and Butter. These business activities generate significant foot traffic through hard work and creativity, where else in the central area can you buy fresh bread at 07:00 throughout the week? It does this without any “placemaking” or CityProm marketing.
In conclusion, we again repeat our request that decisions on this initiative, be deferred, and furthermore that at no stage should a broader rate-based funding strategy be implemented.
Yours faithfully
Public Officer
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
