Millions of Dollars, 11 Questions and a Court Case

CLICK HERE FOR THE SOURCE STORY

The Examiner reported on the case between Creative Property Holdings and Car Parks Super was heard on Friday, and such was the convoluted nature of the submissions the presiding Justice remarked it would be "unthinkable" for him to have made a determination before being led through the circumstances.

Well 'His Honour' was right on the money as so, so, many questions hang in the air, the answers to which are bound to impact upon Launceston's ratepayer – and potentially rather heavily.

Always remembering that Justice David O'Callaghan has extended five times since June 8, 2021 the time for the applicant (CPH) to file and serve its written submissions. The last extension was for Friday. CPH director Chris Billing did not provide an update. 

So, to the questions and only some of which have been complied here. They, and the context notes, have been compiled from various sources.

QUESTIONS

1  Looking back, and now ahead, what real 21st C need has this project been devised to serve?

• Under pressure from St John Street property owners because of significant anti-social behaviour by bus patrons at the present on-street bus interchange there and severe impacts on retailers, Council investigated alternatives. The Consultant's Report investigated a number of alternatives, initially excluding the Paterson Street Car Park area and Dechaineaux Way. 

• The preferred on-street locations outside Paterson Pilgrim Church and Creche and in the next block outside the State Public Buildings, drew criticism from the Church and State Government, due to the transfer of Anti-social behaviour. 

• Metro published its opposition to Paterson Street relocations and in doing so said "Metro believes that relocating Launceston's CBD bus interchange away from their current positions in St John Street would be detrimental to bus patrons and may hurt city businesses." 

• Undeterred, Council directed its consultants to review its report and include the privately-owned Paterson Central Carpark site with Dechaineax Way as their preferred Bus Interchange location. The owner of the car park site was not consulted, and learned of the selection and a development of a private developer's Creative Precinct to be also on its land, from the media.

2 How will ratepayers benefit from this project and at what cost to them? Indeed, is it a cost effective use of ratepayers' monies at any level?

• Metro is a Government Business Enterprise and not a local Government responsibility to fund or give financial support to. Already Council funds the under-whelming Tiger Bus Service, that fails to deliver the transit benefits trumpeted. 

• If Metro doesn't want it, then why is it happening? 

• Other cities keep busses along major roadways.

3 How does this project compare with comparable streetscapeing for like purposes elsewhere?

• That is something that is yet to be explained if there is anyone available to elucidate.

4 Why did Council purchase the defunct Birchalls and Katies shops, alleging this would transform the sadly ailing Brisbane Street Mall if used as a pedestrian way to-and-from the bus interchange?

• At a purchase cost of several millions of dollars above the then market value, why did Council seek a $10M funding grant from the Commonwealth Government's Building Better Regions Fund, a funding pool designated for drought-affected communities, to support the development of a creative precinct and bus interchange in the CBD

• Labor and the Greens accused the Commonwealth Government of blatant pork-barreling over this funding allocation, given Launceston was NOT drought affected, and communities that were, received nothing. 

• Council's invitation to Developers and prospective tenants to undertake the Birchall's project, drew NO REPORTED INTEREST, and the former rate-paying shops continue to generate NIL INCOME to Council. 

• Council has reportedly spent $M's of funding on preparation of plans and concepts and published NO RESULTS to its ratepayers.

5 Is it really necessary to acquire this land for a 'Bus Station' anyway?

• Council has not articulated a rationale for the purchase and by-and-large all discussion on the subject has been behind closed doors.

6 Who was it that developed the initial proposal to acquire the Paterson Central Carpark site, anyway? 

• Following media publicity about the project and assertions that Council had already purchased the car park, the private owner was approached by Director Christopher Billing of a company called "Ebenezer", as his proposed purchaser of the car park. 

• The private owner of the car park indicated a refusal to sell the carpark, but told Council it may consider a proposal that in return transferred some equivalent Council-owned car parks to the owner's car parking portfolio. 

• Although initially considered a possibility by Council's CEO, the proposal was turned down. 

• Mr Billing continued to chase the owner, by this stage using another of his companies, and telling the owner that if a sale to his company did not occur, that Council would move to compulsorily acquire the carpark. 

• At a meeting and communications between the Council ( Mayor, CEO) and the private owner, the prospect of compulsory acquisition was indicated. 

• For a period of more than 6 months, Mr Billing continued to chase the owner on virtually a daily basis, offering multiple proposals on price and conditions and eventuating in failed settlement terms, both with and without Council acting as the guarantor to the proposal, finally ending in legal action by Mr Billing's company in the Australian Federal Court.

7  Who is Christopher Billing, and what businesses does he operate? 

• Over a protracted period, and at the same time as floating the Creative Precinct project, Mr Billing's Foundry Company has attracted media attention against claims of non-payment of staff entitlements, alleged eviction by landlords for non-payment of rents, vacant premises and non-completion of educational contracts for students. 

• Foundry no longer appears to offer face to face educational and vocational training in Launceston, and Mr Billing has most-recently been confirmed as residing in Sydney, presumably from where he directs his businesses in an on-line format.

8  Why does the City of Launceston continue to persist with this project given that it arguably poses risks to future ratepayers as a consequence of an arguably flawed planning and business proposition? 

•  UTAS academic and transportation expert Bob Cotgrove (Urban Geographer and Transport Economist) has written extensively on this matter, and says "Planners must face cold, hard reality - (in a Launceston context) cars are irreplaceable". He is quoted as saying "The effect of restricting car parking in the CBD... would simply strangle the CBD." For "the viability of Launceston's CBD [should] encourage more to attract customers and ensure that such parking is unobtrusive and as attractive as possible." 

• Launceston's CEO, to the contrary, has said "Carparks do not attract people to visit and/or work in the city, will not generate additional employment or activation." 

• Paterson Central Carpark provides 125 car parking spaces and they are in high demand. 

• The private owner believes the carpark is an essential asset to the Brisbane St Mall traders and if it ceases, it would render severe impacts on the retailing and commercial activities of the Central Area. This view is backed up by expert evidence that Paterson Central Carpark is "the most popular carpark in Tasmania and surpasses the best in Hobart". 

• It has always been the stated intention of the owner to retain Paterson Central Carpark and as economic circumstances allow, further expand its capacity to as much as 429 parking spaces (see DA 0647/2007) previously approved for a (then) $20M Car Park and Retail Development. 

• None of the adjoining property owners have expressed support for a Bus Interchange or loss of the carpark on this site, in fact to the contrary.

9 Are the funds applied for by Launceston Council for 'Drought Relief' for the drought Launceston did not actually experienced still destined for this project?

• Council has not indicated any further advice that it has received from the Federal Government in regard to this matter and as time passes it becomes more and more unclear.

10 Why should ratepayers 'gift a development opportunity' to a speculative developer who is highly unlikely to provide an ongoing dividend via rates? Indeed, given the 'State Govt Loan Funds' can their use be truly justified in terms of the level of debt ratepayers will be required to service going forward.

• Council has not indicated to ratepayers why this should be so in the current political and fiscal environment..

11 Why does the City of Launceston continue to persist with this project given that it arguably poses risks to future ratepayers as a consequence of a now arguably flawed planning proposition?

• Council has committed itself somewhat heavily to this 'development' and by all accounts it has already expended significant monies on developing plans plus a significant sum to acquire the defunct Birchalls and Katies shops, It seems that the situation will not be any clearer until early 2022 when and if Australian Federal Court. the hands down a determination in regard to the current case before it and that surely will impact upon Council decision making ... hopefully before the 2022 Local Government Elections.

MORE AND MORE QUESTIONS FOR LAUNCESTON'S TOWN HALL

An ongoing saga about the purchase of the Launceston Myer carpark is likely to drag into 2022 following the Federal Court of Australia hearing a near-five-hour case detailing prolonged and "curious" interactions. 

The case between Creative Property Holdings and Car Parks Super was heard on Friday, and such was the convoluted nature of the submissions the presiding Justice remarked it would be "unthinkable" for him to have made a determination before being led through the circumstances. ..................... The court heard of a contract disagreement that first started in June 2020 that was still not resolved when legal proceedings commenced almost a year later, and that those legal proceedings now hinged on the objective interpretation of one "critical document". ..................... That "critical document" was an email between conveyancing lawyers for CPH and CPS on November 20 last year detailing the requirements for a contract, the third contract about the sale, was finalised. ..................... Legal representative for CPH, the group purchasing the car park, Chris Gunson SC told Justice David O'Callaghan his client was confident a contract regarding the sale had initially been entered into, and that contract had never been broken despite ongoing grievances and concerns being worked through. ..................... The court heard that contract was for the sale of 41-43 Paterson Street, the Myer car park, for $12 million with a deposit of $1.2 million set to be paid. ..................... The deposit became a point of contention through the course of the Friday hearing, with Mr Gunson telling the court it was proof of a continual contract throughout the back-and-forth between the two parties. ..................... He told the court that the deposit had then been withheld and released in "bad faith", before being released once legal proceedings had commenced "for no reason other than to bolster an assertion the deposit had never been paid". ..................... Legal representative for CPS, the group selling the car park, Shaun McElwaine SC was adamant the deposit had been forfeited to his client due to a contract breach by CPS. ..................... "Your Honour should find there was a material breach of their [Creative Property Holdings'] contract in the failure to pay the deposit [in the timeframe]," Mr McElwaine said. ..................... He said the failure came as a result of "completion [not being] achieved on a stipulated date". ..................... "That amounts to a fundamental breach, it justifies termination ... the deposit in that event is forfeited to the vendor," he said. ..................... Mr McElwaine told the court that forfeiture related to a June contract that "was never signed by the vendor", but was signed by CPS and the council. ..................... The court heard two other contracts were at least floated in October and November. ..................... The court heard the $1.2 million deposit was initially paid by the City of Launceston Council, acting as guarantor for Creative Property Holdings, but the council started to "lose its enthusiasm for settlement or its ongoing involvement" and "demanded the return of the deposit". ..................... Despite the deposit debate, the main point of contention put forward by Mr Gunson and Mr McElwaine was a dispute between whether or not a formal contract had ben maintained throughout the continued squabble. ..................... Mr Gunson told the court when legal representatives for the council sent through a contract by the close of business on November 24 through which council acted as guarantor for the car park's purchase, as detailed by the "critical document", "everything that had been sought ... had been done in the terms proposed". ..................... "We say at that point a binding contract came into existence," Mr Gunson said. Mr Gunson detailed to the court a relatively cavalier approach to contract negotiations that resulted in the November 20 email marking a finalisation of an agreement to purchase, which otherwise would have to have been subject to a "ceremonial exchange of contracts". ..................... He told the court that a formal exchange was merely "an administrative formality". ..................... Mr McElwaine detailed how language used in contract negotiations had not been cavalier, and instead had been typical of conveyancing law. ..................... He told the court without the formal exchange of specific contractual documents, there had been no contract. ..................... He told the court, as a result, the November 20 email should not have been misrepresented by CPH as constituting a legitimate exchange of contract. ..................... Justice O'Callaghan said he would preside over what he had heard through the court sitting, but that it was unlikely he would reach a decision before early next year.

The car park at the centre of a Federal Court battle was not the target of compulsory acquisition by the state government, owners were assured last year. ... The advice that "the Crown is not seeking to compulsorily acquire this property" came in correspondence to Car Park Super directors Don and Janet Allen dated November 25, 2020. ..................... The Examiner has sighted the correspondence. ..................... Car Parks Super own the Paterson Street Central car park which is the proposed site for a Creative Precinct. ..................... Creative Property Holdings, the company which proposed the precinct, is taking legal action against Car Parks Super in the Federal Court. ..................... Despite extensive ongoing negotiations between the parties since June last year, no sale was ever finalised. ..................... In recent correspondence sighted by The Examiner, CPH said: "CPH is doing all it can in an effort to rearrange its financing proposals, but as of this time has not been able to arrange its finances in such a way as to place it in a position where an unconditional offer can be put". ..................... The company said that an offer on terms more favourable than previously proposed by CPH was creating "significant difficulty". Federal Court documents reveal contracts were proposed at a price of $12 million last year. ..................... The state government has provided a $6 million interest free loan to the council for use in the proposed development and federal government funds of about $17.5 million are available. ..................... State Growth Minister Roger Jaensch said: "I understand the property remains the subject to a contract for sale and that there is currently a legal process underway between the vendor and private developer". ..................... "Any acquisition of land by the Crown is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1993." Under the act, compulsory acquisition is possible for public purposes including transport and education. ..................... When asked about compulsory acquisition, Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten said the council was eager to see a strategic, higher order use for the site as soon as possible. ..................... "However, the acquisition of the site is currently before the federal court and we expect a resolution in the near future," he said. "Until that time it would be inappropriate to provide further comment or engage in hypotheticals." ..................... Justice David O'Callaghan has extended five times since June 8, 2021 the time for the applicant (CPH) to file and serve its written submissions. The last extension was to 4pm yesterday. CPH director Chris Billing did not provide an update.

TIME IN LAUNCESTON

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO

2014 Press Release

Metro believes that relocating Launceston’s CBD bus interchange away from their current position in St Johns St would be detrimental to bus patrons and may hurt city businesses.

The vast majority of Metro’s service runs for routes from the city to the surrounding suburbs currently commence or terminate at the St John St interchange.

Each year we have more than 470,000 boardings on services from the CBD interchange by commuters, students, shoppers, people coming to the city to access health and other services and visitors.

Our concern is that proposals to relocate the bus interchange away from the CBD, as floated by the Launceston City Council at the CityProm Members event last week, could make bus travel less convenient and may deter people from travelling into the city on buses.

Among the options floated include retaining the current bus stop and interchange with some relatively minor changes, relocating those services to the Cimitiere Street Transit Centre, making St John Street one-way and locating bus stops and shelters in the centre of the street to remove congestion from footpaths or moving services to some other transit centre location.

Crucial to any decision will be to understand what bus patrons, businesses and the Launceston community actually want, so we agree that broad consultation should be a key element of the City Heart Project and encourage bus passengers and others to make their views known to the Council.

Mass public transport provides many social, economic and environmental benefits. Public transport helps address social exclusion by making transport to services more accessible. 

It reduces traffic congestion and pollution and businesses benefit from the number of people who start or finish their journeys in the city.

One of Metro’s key goals is to increase bus patronage. We aim to achieve that by making bus travel more convenient and a better experience through initiatives like the introduction of Greencard, and Journey Planner, the progressive replacement of old buses with modern, low emission and wheelchair accessible buses and security cameras to improve passenger safety.

We’re also reviewing routes across the state with the aim of speeding up travelling times and improving the reliability of published bus service times. 

Metro knows from its own surveys of bus patrons that as well as bus fares, convenience and regularity of services are also major factors in people’s choices of whether to use a car or take a bus.

Imagine the traffic and parking problems that would arise if many people, instead of travelling on buses, chose to come into the city by car.

Or, instead of going into the city at all, decided to go elsewhere to shop.

We are currently working with Launceston City Council and CityProm on a Bus Interchange Review group and are more than happy to continue to work with them and the Department if Infrastructure, Energy and Resources to find ways to improve facilities and services in Launceston’s CBD.

However, Metro’s strong preference is to retain the current interchange but to improve the service for passengers and the amenity for adjacent businesses and pedestrians.

COMMENT: 2021

Albeit with the wisdom of hindsight, it turns out that Launceston Town Hall's plan to toy with 'theatre bizarre', social engineering and ‘civic planning' all at once has been among the greatest of follies in the city's history. In fact, if it wasn't actually calamitous it would actually be some weird form of theatre bizarre – black comedy too perhaps. 

Arguably ‘the plan’ – such as it was – had as much relevance and usefulness as that rather old metaphor, the “ashtray on a motor bike”. Useful information badly written is way more valuable than useless, misguided and ill-informed concepts ‘properly written and cleverly drawn’ in bureaucratise without errors of spelling or grammar. 

It turns out that poor research, hubris and blatant cockiness, in the end just does not cut it. 

In the 2021 we need to be reimaging public transport, not tinkering with bus stops. We need to reimagine what were once ‘roads’ as all sorts of different things. We might do so, provided that the ‘think tank’ has the brightest, the most creative, the most educated, the most discriminating ‘thinkers’ in the room. 

As for the others, well Mark Twain (1835-1910) said it best, “it is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” 

Time is a terrifying judge when it comes to foolishness and currently it seems that it is handing down its verdict in a car park just around the corner from Launceston’s Town Hall. The wise judges tell us that the real fault is to have the fault and amendment is both unlikely and evasive. 

Dr. Tandra Vale Sept v2021

LGAT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Calls for Equal Opportunity Tasmania to investigate workplace health and safety for female councillors
Matt Maloney 

Equal Opportunity Tasmania may be asked to do a workplace review of councils following several resignations by female elected members in recent years. The matter will be discussed at the Local Government Association of Tasmania's annual conference in August. ......................... The general meeting agenda, released this week, includes a motion from the City of Hobart which calls on LGAT to commission Equal Opportunity Tasmania for the review. ......................... The motion stated several female councillors had resigned from their positions in 2019 due to online bullying and harassment. ......................... It pointed to a LGAT survey of elected members that showed of the respondents, 60 per cent said they had experienced bullying and harassment and were not clear on legal protections in terms of workplace safety. ......................... More than 40 local government representatives from 16 councils this year signed a joint statement that expressed concern about workplace culture, particularly for women. ......................... The state government in response to the motion said it considered the review would be most appropriately led by the sector. ......................... "This could include a review into the practice and procedure of councils, including the chamber workplace, existing complaints mechanisms, frameworks and any cultural and structural barriers to reporting alleged discrimination or harassment," it said in its response. ......................... The Burnie City Council has submitted a motion for LGAT to investigate the introduction of propositions or referendums for local government and state elections. ......................... It said the Local Government Act at present provided for elector polls, however, these were non-binding. ......................... "It is of course possible, via legislative amendment, to make the outcome of elector polls mandatory, but this would represent a significant change in current legal arrangements," the motion reads. ......................... "At the state level, there is no standing legal mechanism for conducting referenda. ......................... Those conducted in the past have been done through specific legislation." ......................... The state government said it was unclear what this motion sought to implement and why. ......................... "It would be a significant departure from any established Australian legal or democratic framework for issues-based referenda or other forms of public polling to be binding on councils or the Parliament of Tasmania," it said.The Circular Head Council had proposed a motion that calls for stronger penalties for malicious damage and vandalism to public facilities and infrastructure which has not been supported by the government

COMMENT ... It goes almost without saying that questioning the relevance of Tasmania's Local Govt. Association (LGAT) is the equivalent to flatulence at a dinner party. However, it does need to be said that the organisation is all about self preservation. It does not exist to look after the interests and concerns of ratepayers. It does not exist to facilitate fewer local councils. It does not exist to either advocate for or to ensure that councils – plus alderpeople and councillors – are held more accountable.

Let there be no mistake LGAT is the councillors' peak body and in effect it is there for the benefit of councillors not their constituents – their preservation.

Therefore, the news that the agenda for the LGAT AGM is as it is proof positive that ratepayers interests are not on the agenda. That said, there needs to be mechanisms in place whereby councillors are held to account more effectively.

At the extreme end, councils' constituents need to be able express their lack of confidence in their representatives. If that is by referenda so be it.

Ratepayer need to have the ways and means to effectively, and expediently, hold their representatives to account. If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it is that allowing a circumstance to develop and then act is sheer folly. Going hard, as fast as possible and in the most practical ways possible is what is required.

Tasmania needs fewer councils in order to get better value for their investment in local government. Expecting LGAT to facilitate that objective and realistically is the equivalent to using a faulty handbrake as you career downhill towards a cliff. We need brakes all round and always in good repair.

The bogus equivalences put up by the self interested start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim. Nonetheless, in the end they say that it is the victim of the violence and oppression who is really inciting it and that resolution is beyond control.

If COVID-19 has alerted us to anything it is that the status quo in any guise is not the way forward. Change is no longer optional.

Tandra Vale

FLAG HUMBUG AT THE COUNCIL

The Aboriginal flag will not fly above Launceston town hall or Albert Hall this NAIDOC Week, but the council will vote on a flags policy at next week's council meeting that would allow its addition in the future.

 

The City of Launceston intended to vote on the policy at the July 1 council meeting, but this was delayed due to there being "additional information to clarify with councillors", according to an email from a council officer. ........................ A council spokesperson claimed this vote was not originally intended to align with NAIDOC Week however, which runs from July 4 to 11. ........................ Instead, the policy will be voted on at the July 15 meeting. ........................ The lack of an Aboriginal flag on town hall was again brought to the council's attention via a public question without notice in November, and a commitment was made to develop a flags policy. ........................ Rocelyn Ives, of the Amnesty International Launceston action group, said it was "disappointing" that the issue had not been resolved for eight months. ........................ "It's essential. It's more than just words, it's an action," she said. ........................ "The voice of council is the civic voice for all of Launceston's people. ........................ "And if we're an inclusive community, it's essential we recognise the past history by having the flag there, alongside the national flag." ........................ At the moment, only the national Australian flag and the flag of Launceston flies above town hall. ........................ The flag of Launceston is based on the city's Coat of Arms of 1957, depicting the North and South Esk rivers, kanamaluka/Tamar, tin ingots and Waratah flowers. Picture: Adam Holmes ........................ The council has been carrying out engagement with Heritage Tasmania and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, with heritage approval required for additional flag poles to be placed on town hall and Albert Hall. ........................ Mayor Albert van Zetten said once the flags policy was approved, there would then be a council planning process to go through. ........................ "As the project needs to progress through both a public planning and engineering process after approval by the council, it would not have been possible for it to coincide with NAIDOC week," he said. ........................ "The Aboriginal flag continues to fly at the city's premier cultural institution, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, as well as at Home Point on the banks of the kanamaluka/Tamar estuary. The Torres Strait Islander flag is also flown during NAIDOC Week." ........................ In recent years, Break O'Day and Northern Midlands councils have approved the permanent flying of the Aboriginal flag at their offices, while George Town Council has been lobbying nearby councils to place a sculpture and plaque at Batman Bridge commemorating the region's Aboriginal people.

IF there was ever such a blatant case of administrative humbug at the council this is a classic. If this were not serious it would be extraordinarily funny if we think about how big this stuff up is. Excuses, excuses, excuses, anyone would think that the dog has eaten someones homework.

Well here we have a Mayor, Deputy Mayor and a General Manager masquerading as a Chief Executive Officer caught out and sort of claiming that this is trivial in NADOC WEEK.

The apologies on the part of this council needs to be LOUD AND CLEAR and SHE/HE WHO DROPED THE BALL needs to be called out. This has happened before!

Tandra Vale  

Big changes ahead for Tasmanian councils

Graphics by GRAFfix

The government is due to soon release substantially altered laws around the local government sector after a review of the governing act began in 2018. ..................... The review of the Local Government Act produced about 50 proposed changes to laws in 2019. ..................... Voluntary council amalgamations requested by two or more councils will no longer need to be reviewed and approved by the Local Government Board under one proposed change. ..................... The directions paper for the review raised the subject of alternative voting methods and suggested electronic voting should be explored. ..................... The review did not consider council amalgamations or changes to municipal boundaries, or the much maligned code of conduct framework. ..................... The review also did not consider council planning arrangements. ..................... The directions paper suggested scrapping a popular vote for the mayor and deputy mayor positions and having those decisions made around the table by elected representatives of a council. ..................... This was abandoned due to strong opposition to the idea. ..................... The introduction of a candidate nomination fee for local government elections was also abandoned as was a proposal to establish regional councils. ..................... An option to have the candidate elected first in a popularly elected ballot automatically elected as mayor is among the approved proposals. ..................... The review has proposed only Australian citizens should be allowed to vote in council elections and that a person can only vote once in an election. ..................... At the moment, a person that owns both a business and property in a particular municipal area can vote twice. ..................... A draft bill is expected to soon be released for consultation after some months of delay due to COVID-19. 

THE BIG ISSUES DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED .... OR should/could that be YET?.... Tandra

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

How many businesses have chosen to bypass Launceston? Letters to the editor Local News . ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WHILE there would have been many who felt comments from Alastair Blount highlighting the general state of Launceston's CBD, hoons and graffiti (The Examiner, June 24) to be overly critical, I would argue rightly or wrongly, his comments are correct on every point. ..................... Having lived in Launceston for over 30 years and it is my view various areas of the CBD and surrounding areas are starting to look tired, dirty, and lacking any vibrancy. ..................... It is incredibly disappointing that there seems to be a minority of individuals that have nothing better to do than vandalise or deface the property of others. ..................... In an economical climate that has business margins on a knife's edge, I cannot help but wonder how many prospective business owners bypass Launceston's CBD due to potential antisocial behaviour? \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ..................... .................... Anthony Camino, Youngtown.

WELCOME COUNCILLOR KRISTA PREECE

Krista Preece joined the City of Launceston in June 2021, winning a countback to fill the vacancy left by outgoing Councillor and former Mayor Janie Finlay.

Krista was born in Launceston, the eldest of three children. Her father worked at the local radio station and she spent time working alongside his team. She has also worked in retail before completing her apprenticeship as a hairdresser, working at several well-known businesses across the city during that time. She currently works at the Launceston General Hospital as a ward clerk in the Department of Emergency Medicine and Specialist clinic - a positions she finds extremely rewarding.

Krista is a former Rotary president and current assistant governor. She is also a carer for her elderly aunt. Krista and her husband live in Newstead and they have four children. She is excited at the opportunity to represent the people of Launceston and wants to give back to her "amazing" community.

Krista believes that promoting a positive health message to those in our community is paramount. She is also passionate about providing residents with a reliable and well-connected public transport system, particularly for people who rely on catching a bus for work and medical appointments.

Krista is an avid supporter of the maker movement and the many incredible markets that operate across Launceston. She is looking forward to helping shape the city's future post-COVID and believes she will bring accessibility and relatability to the Council table.

Email: krista.preece@launceston.tas.gov.au

Mobile: 0409 519 429

WHAT IS THE LIKELY TOWN HALL RIP-OFF? As much as ratepayers will tolerate in their estimation!

 

RATEPAYERS NEED TO SPEAK UP 

OF course these current traders within the Cityprom area are delighted because their rates will be reduced at the expense of hapless residential ratepayers and traders outside the Cityprom area who will pay extra rates and have no benefit at all.

No-one seems to want to talk about who pays and who benefits. Other similar places in Australia establish separate promotional bodies funded directly by members in the specific area. In Launceston, this should be undertaken by the Chamber of Commerce, who incidentally are in favour of this current proposal because they are not contributing anything but still expecting to have a seat on the management committee. In a period of record mortgage stress, Launceston's hapless ratepayers need to speak up against this proposal very loudly before it's too late.

Lionel Morrell, Tasmanian Ratepayers Association president. 

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

Facilitated by Tandra Vale

SUBMISSION TO CITY OF LAUNCESTON – CityProm

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.

THE CITYPROM MONEY GRAB

 

The debate continues within ratepayers correspondents. The front line distress is that “ it will come from the general rate pool!,” 

It costs approximately $543,366 to operate Cityprom which is currently borne by the 452 businesses that operate in the Launceston CBD. 

It is proposed to transition this cost to the general rate base. It is considered that it would cause too great a financial shock to ratepayers if the Council sought to re-structure the funding of Cityprom in one financial year. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the re-structure be staged over four financial years, commencing in 2022/2023. 

This would see the CBD businesses receiving a rate REDUCTION over the three year period until the amount is evenly distributed amongst the rate-base. 

Financial modelling has demonstrated that this financial re-structure can be accommodated largely in accordance with the Council's Long Term Financial Plan projected rate increases over the period.

It is disgusting.  There should be a referendum on the matter at the next year's elections.

Ratepayers should ring or email the councillors they voted for and tell them in plain English what they think about this outrageous money grab and then tell them what they think of them.

LAUNCESTON'S RATEPAYER BEING TARGETED FOR A MONEY GRAB

YES, This is nothing more than a massive additional rates grab. 

They are proposing to extend the City Prom boundaries thus:

"While the official boundaries would be decided by a working group, Cityprom's response to the review suggest the boundaries incorporate the Launceston General Hospital, Kings Park and Penny Royal and the Seaport, and out to the Kmart plaza and Racecourse Crescent area." 

The businesses along Charles St have developed and thrived without any City Prom involvement and I doubt any of them want to pay more to have their money spent by someone else, elsewhere . More costs to be added to the bureaucracy as well with a new LCC manager in there somewhere to oversee CityProm. 

• Will CityProm make KMart any more busy? 
• Do they need to pay more rates to get more custom? 

In our opinion, what the businesses should be arguing for is disbanding CityProm altogether. 

Their track record of success in promoting even the current limited boundaries has been an impressive failure, 

What Council should do is hold a plebicite at the next local government elections OR if this council is up for ACCOUNTABILITY let us have a Citizen's Assembly.

IN THE EXAMINER ...  A review of Cityprom could happen in the next six months, after a notice of motion was put forward to the City of Launceston council. ........................ Councillor Rob Soward has put the motion forward asking the general manager to engage with stakeholders, including Cityprom, to review the body and assess whether the needs of the Central Business District are being effectively addressed. ........................ The motion also asks the council to engage with a suitably qualified independent consultant to complete the review, and that it happens within the next six months. ........................ Cr Soward said he believes that it is the council's responsibility to ensure Cityprom is meeting the needs of the CBD. ........................ "According to Cityprom, its purpose is to ensure central Launceston is a vibrant hub for people to live, work, learn, invest, engage, enjoy and experience, through developing and implementing strategies that encourage creativity, entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable economic growth, establishing Launceston as a great regional city," Cr Soward said. ........................ "Given the dramatic changes, which we have, and continue to experience throughout the Launceston CBD, it is difficult for any such organisations to stay contemporary and relevant." ........................ Cr Soward said it was vital that such organisations engage in periodic review to ensure the best interest for the CBD were being addressed, and said an independent review is what is needed. He said it is not best practise for any organisation to review themselves. ........................ Businesses in the CBD pay a levee, which is collected by the council, to be part of Cityprom. The levee is worth more than half a million dollars. ........................ General manager Michael Stretton said Cr Soward's motion is clear and the justifications all make sense. ........................ The proposed review would cost between $20,000 to $25,000 and budget amendments would have to be made if the council vote to approve the motion. ........................ The meeting will be held on Thursday at 1pm at the Town Hall.

A New Councillor for Launceston

TO READ MORE GO TO

https://ktf7250.blogspot.com/2021/06/new-blood-on-launcestons-council.html

 

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”.