OH DEARY ME THE LITTLE BIRDIE SQUAWKS

Well if the LITTLEbirdie is on the money and it looks like he is then the hapless ratepayers in Launceston are yet again likely to find themselves at the rough end of the pineapple. The chap who apparently has no money of his very own somehow gets to get a free kick yet again. WHY!

Now that is a mystery that might be unravelled via a FOI but the Ombudsman is under resourced so when something is revealed, and it is unlikely to be all that soon, the bird will have flown off into the yonder with the spoils. Well that might be the plan.

Anyway why the secrecy? On whose imperative is this secrecy being invoked? Who owes what to who and what for? What is actually going on here? Anyway, why keep ratepayers in the dark?

One suspects that the ratepayers' representatives are being BUREAUbullied with the threat of a CODE OF CONDUCT? If this is the case how can those elected to 'represent' actually do what they are there to do?

There is only one way 12 Councillors can keep a secret and that is if 11 die in the night. Nevertheless, a rumour can run round the world many times before the facts are made clear and long after the victims of the secret have lost yet again.

In general secrets turn out to be mistakes and as often as not BIGmistakes!

 

IT IS OFFICIAL: Parking infringements are a nice little earner!!

CLICK ABOVE TO EN;ARGE

If there was ever any doubt that parking fines quickened the pace of Launceston Town Hall's functionaries heart beats here is some more evidence. When more money is required shift the goal posts and pretty soon the whole exercise is up there with a bit of bureaucratic spin.

It is patently clear that the PENALTYregime that thrives at Town Hall and that puts 'fruit on the sideboard' is never going to be challenged by Town Hall functionaries unless they are required to.

There should be purpose in the provision of parking in a city's CBD and much 'banging on' goes on about who gets to park where and for how long. Apparently, the GM(AKA CEO) has expert advice that he can rely upon and he'll presumably sign anything to maintain the status quo so long as the money keeps on flowing in.

Any chance of an 'elected representative' intervening and injecting some common sense into decision making. Not likely when the the bureaucracy has evolved into a tail with a want to 'wag the dog'!

For example, recently Cr, Dawkins backed up by Cr, McKenzie, raised the issue of Launceston's air pollution and put down the foundations for Town Hall functionaries to think up some policing methods and penalties. Refreshingly, Cr. Razay. pointed out that the biggest polluters were vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. Surprised faces all round the table!

So how might parking penalties help here. Well if one invests in an ELECTRIC VEHICLE one might get to PARK FOR FREE in Launceston. What an outrageous concept and nothing that a GM might support given that his herd of 'MILSH COWS' would shrink in number.

However, it gets to be more sinister when 'the punters' are precluded from contributing to the community discourses that should go on around the table. Constituents have no mechanism for making submissions except to dress one up as a question. Then some functionary or other will rule it out of order. 

SO, this advertisement is just more evidence that at Town Hall there is that tail that wags the dog and at each and every opportunity!

FAKE TREES

The European Goldfinch is a widespread species in Europe, central Asia and northern Africa and was introduced to Australia in the 1860s. Originally restricted to urban areas, the European Goldfinch has successfully moved out into country areas of south-eastern Australia, including Tasmania.

If ever there was a need to plant – and decorate them, if we must –more real trees instead of installing fake ones, this is it. Yes, this little bird is an introduced species but it makes a sad point.

It is so saddening that it is the little things that leads some people to misunderstand the world and it is distressing when this class of thinking tends to shape the placemakers' 'placedness'. 

Bureaucratic expediency and its self-importance is a blight on cultural landscapes the world over. Someone somewhere pointed out that when it comes to 'sincerity', if you manage to fake that in business and governance, you've got it made.

It turns out that this little bird is a lot like those caneries that when they keel over in coal mines filled with poison gas, long before more robust types realise that there is any danger is there. Something to think about!

CIVIC MISTAKES IN LAUNCESTON

 .

If we search the world for wisdom about mistake making there is as much wisdom as there is 'mistake making'. Like the Mahatma telling the world that “It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.” Whatever, in Launceston the city has arrived at a point where it is timely to confront the reality that multiple mistakes have been made and they are now compounding upon themselves. If there was ever a a time to FESSup, regroup and move forward now is that time.

Otherwise, we might all die of some sort of self preserving bottle of creeping common sense. Just before we die we might discover, when it is all too late, that the only things that one should never regret are those mistakes that were monumental. We all make them!

If there is a need to be reminded Einstein told us  that “anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”  Bureaucracies are littered with functionaries prone to preserving the status quo and where every imperative has a DOLLARsign attached to it symbolising what they bank upon while investing in the status quo.

Imaging that building a bus interchange on land that Council just did not own, that was not for sale and then imagine that the 'real estate' over it could be gifted to a developer, well that was a significant mistake. ALSO:

• To imagine that the fiscal folly could be funded in part by a grant to compensate the city for a drought that it did not experience, that too was a mistake. 
• To deny a property owner the opportunity to develop his property in a sensitive and sustainable way, that has turned out to have been a big mistake. 
• To have put all this into effect without meaningful community engagement that too was a significant mistake.
• To treat ratepayers' funds as some kind of slush fund that might be gambled with that is a mistake.
• To go on and repeat all this by proposing to give away a community asset, York Park, that too is a concept riddled with mistakes.
• Moreover, to do all this without contrition that too is a significant mistake.

Whenever we look around us and find that an opportunity has gone up in puff of smoke another is there for the taking. But we all too often look too long and too regretfully at the lost chance. All too often we do not see the new one that is right there in font of us. The answer to adversity can be found in courageously moving forward with faith and informed by experience.

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN AND MORE SPIN

 

THE MERCURY ... LABOR has drawn criticism from the Premier for being “very negative” about a new Hobart stadium, after the opposition highlighted the project’s cost-benefit of 50 cents per dollar.

A redacted version of the Macquarie Point stadium cost benefit analysis has been published on the Department of State Growth website, along with the project’s business case.

The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) estimated by report authors MI Global Partners was 50 cents per dollar spent.

However the report noted stadiums rarely achieved a positive benefit cost ratio - thus the Hobart project was comparable to others.

Opposition leader Rebecca White said the cost benefit analysis proved once and for all the stadium at Macquarie Point was “a dud”.

Tasmanian Labor Leader, Rebecca White. Picture: Linda Higginson

“The stadium will in fact cost the state money. Not only is the stadium equivalent to spending $1bn, not just with the capital costs and the maintenance costs and but also the financing of debt costs. It’s the wrong priority for our state at a time we’ve got a health, housing and a cost of living crisis,” Ms White said.

“The interest payments on the debt alone are about $20m a year. That’s the same as employing 200 nurses to staff our health system.

“Taxpayers of Australia and Tasmania shouldn’t be investing in a project like this where the return on the investment is negative.”

Premier Jeremy Rockliff speaks to the media at Parliament Square in Hobart on Thursday, November 24, 2022.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff said Labor should justify why it did not support the 4200 jobs and other economic benefits the stadium would provide.

“What the Labor party are doing is cherry picking a figure that suits their very negative, anti-jobs argument. The figures I’m seeing in the business case are very clear. $2.2bn in economic activity generated. 4200 jobs in construction, $300m in economic return, if you like, in the economy during construction and the opportunity to bring events to Tasmania.

“This project is an enabling project. It’s far more than just a stadium. It’s turning a wasteland at Macquarie Point into a whole urban renewable project.”

The state government business case released in December revised the cost of the stadium - now linked to Tasmania’s chances of getting an AFL team - from $750m to $715m.

The Tasmanian government’s commitment remains at $375m with the AFL to commit $15m, and $85m to be funded through private ­equity or borrowings against land sale or lease for commercial uses.

The federal government has been asked to commit $240m and is considering the business case.

The business case said the venue “could break even or generate a small profit annually based on 44 events and other assumptions”.

LOCAL GOVERNANCE IN THE SPOTLIGHT

..

EDITORIAL ||

Dorset mayor shows need for mergers

Updated January 19 2023 - 9:06am, first published 8:00am

Dorset mayor Greg Howard exemplifies the dysfunction of Tasmania's small rural councils and the public perception of these councils as privately run little fiefdoms in which ratepayers are well down the list of priorities.

In yesterday's Examiner he waved away the prospect of merging with any of his neighbouring councils because "bigger doesn't necessarily mean better" and "larger councils are the least efficient we've got".

He was more specific with the notion of a merger with George Town council next door, describing this as "ridiculous" because "..to join up with a left-wing industrial town like George Town would just create issues". If there weren't any issues before with George Town, Dorset certainly will have them now, once George Town's mayor Greg Kieser reads his Examiner.

Howard may dislike the thought of merging Dorset - population 6,600 - with one or more councils, but he fancies adding to his little empire a slice of Launceston City Council's area, specifically the Lilydale-Karoola-Nunamara triangle.

Howard's fractured and contradictory logic is symptomatic of the problems facing the State Government in dealing with the State's cash-strapped, inefficient, local government sector. Not that the government is in any rush to do anything given the drawn-out 18-month review into the future of local government has been extended another three months and isn't expected to be out 'til June.

With a population of 570,000, Tasmania has 29 councils. By comparison, Sydney with a population of six million has about the same number, 31.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better, but larger councils with populations of, say, 50,000-plus, tend to have more money and resources to deal with problems like road infrastructure, water and sewerage, planning, parks and waste collection.

The Examiner is concerned mainly about the ability of small councils like Dorset to properly maintain roads in their municipalities. Dorset has some of the worst roads in the State. The council clearly is incapable of maintaining and repairing them. The repairs to the Sideling have dragged on for three months now and this important road connection for the north east, the Tasman "highway", isn't expected to be finished before March. It is a fiasco.

The council review in a report on "stage one" of its protracted examination suggested three pathways forward - forcing significant sharing and consolidation of services between councils; cutting council numbers; and a mixture of these options. The Examiner expects the review will eventually come up with the obvious: a process of sharing and consolidation of services between neighbouring councils, followed by mergers.

Tasmania needs a maximum of 10 councils, but ideally fewer, eight would enable an average population of about 70,000. Again, if the review is an indication, the government will probably be in no hurry to implement this, maybe sometime after the next election due in 2025. It seems to be terrified of any electoral fall-out from these rural mayors and is reluctant to show some leadership on a reform that would provide clear benefits to ratepayers (like getting their roads repaired and made safer for a start). 

................................

Dorset mayor Greg Howard says he suspects "preconceived ideas" to reduce the number of Tasmanian councils are already in place as a review into local government continues. 

 The state's three-stage, 18-month review into the future of local government is set to be wrapped up in June, however, a lack of community responses has seen the review's second stage extended by three months to March. 

 After the first stage of the review, the Local Government Board suggested three pathways forward - forcing significant sharing and consolidation of services between councils; cutting council numbers; and a mixture of the other two options. Cr Howard said while he believed fewer councils could be on the cards, "bigger councils are not necessarily better". 

 "The larger councils in the state are the least efficient councils we've got - with large councils comes another level of bureaucracy and bureaucracy is what's costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars," he said.

 "Nearly everywhere where they have amalgamated councils in the past, it's never saved anyone any money." 

 Cr Howard said he could see little benefit for his ratepayers in a broader North-East council, but could understand the logic in 

 "To join up with Break O'Day would be ridiculous because the travel distance is too far and we've got that massive mountain range between us," Cr Howard said. 

 To join up with someone like George Town would also be ridiculous because [for] a conservative district like Dorset to join up with a left-wing industrial town like George Town would just create issues. 

 "My personal view is we should take in Lilydale, Karoola, all through Nunamara - the rural area of Launceston." 

 West Tamar mayor Christina Holmdahl said she was happy with her council's existing boundaries, and was eagerly awaiting the results of community feedback and the board's consequent recommendations. 

 Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:

THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL TASMANIA A BLOODY PUP

PLEASE CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

 EXAMINER ... Cost-benefit analysis for proposed waterfront stadium in Hobart released

By Matt Maloney Updated January 18 2023 - 7:40pm, first published 3:30pm

A cost-benefit analysis on the proposed new stadium for Hobart has confirmed it will generate a net loss of $132.3 million to the state under a best-case scenario.

The detailed analysis, released by State Growth and produced by MI Global Partners, has also confirmed that under a worst-case scenario, $480.2 million will be lost.

The cost-benefit report noted that for social infrastructure like stadia, economic costs most likely always outweighed the economic benefits.

It said the stadium is estimated to have an overall economic cost $1 billion.

This includes $676.4 million in construction costs between 2023 and 2028.

This projected construction cost along with $49.5 million in ongoing lifecycle capital costs means the cost to develop and maintain the Hobart stadium from 2023 to 2048 will be $726 million.

Post-construction, the analysis predicts annual capital costs of $2.1 million, operational costs of $8.3 million and event acquisition costs of $16 million.

It has forecast an annual tourism benefit of $16.2 million, incremental revenues of $16.2 million and a consumer and community benefit of $4.7 million.

The revenues are to be sourced primarily through $10.6 million in food and beverage, $2.5 million in venue hire fees, $1.3 million in sponsorship, and $1.8 million in ticketing.

The overall annual economic benefit has worked out to be $21.2 million.

It is projected the new stadium would cost just under $5.8 million per year to operate an anticipated 44 events, with 28 of these to be new events.

The costs include turf maintenance and replacement ($1 million) and facilities maintenance ($2.3 million).

It is estimated that the total event day costs for events at the stadium will be $5.3 million, which is expected to increase $185,000 each year.

Labor's finance spokesman Shane Broad at the baseline, the stadium would generate a loss of more than $300 million.

"And that's in the unlikely case the Premier's assumptions about the stadium hosting a major event every eight days come true," he said.

"The true picture is even worse when you consider that the analysis also does not include the interest repayments on the debt, which we now know will be over $400 million."

Premier Jeremy Rockliff said the stadium's business case estimated it would bring $2.2 billion in additional economic activity to benefit the entire state and would secure the state an AFL and AFLW team.

"The cost benefit analysis for the stadium component shows it is line with similar stadia developments around Australia," he said.

"It notes the significant economic and social benefits the stadium component will bring, including improved financial outcomes for professional sport and encouraging greater participation in sport for this and future generations."

MI Global Partners has estimated the stadium could have 572,438 people in attendance each year, and 113,153 interstate and overseas visitors each year, for a projected 44 events.

A separate analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated an AFL game would fill out 70 per cent of crowd capacity at the 23,000-seat student, a Big Bash League game would fill out 65 per cent and an A-League game would fill out 50 per cent.

The analysis has predicted six concerts would be held at the venue a year and crowd capacity would reach 70 per cent.

TOWN HALL'S 10 MIL OF DROUGHT MONEY HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN

..

 A $10 million Federal Government grant that was to have helped fund the $90 million Creative Precinct on the Birchalls car park has been withdrawn after the City of Launceston council was unable to reach a funding agreement and a December 31 completion deadline passed.

The controversial Building Better Regions Fund drought grant was made in 2020 under the Morrison Government and directed towards the proposed development in Paterson St.

A Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and Arts spokesperson told The Examiner: "As a grant agreement was unable to be reached, the Department has withdrawn funding for the Launceston Creative Precinct project under the BBRF. "

The announcement came just a week after Mayor Danny Gibson said: "Active and positive discussions with the federal government concerning the BBRF are continuing."

On Friday he said: "A request to modify the grant application was made in March last year, which we understood was still being considered by the Federal Government right up until we received the notification.

"There are a number of issues and options to work through in respect to this project, with the Federal Government's decision on the BBRF grant being the latest of these.

"This withdrawal of funds will naturally reduce the community assets and benefit that can be delivered."

Under terms of round four of the BBRF the council was required to complete the project by December 31, 2022. The grant was specific to the Creative Precinct project and could not be applied to another project or another site.

The withdrawal comes days after the Tasmanian Civil Administration Tribunal ordered the council to provide a permit to Car Parks Super, the owner of the 41-55 Paterson St site, for a $60 million retail, residential and parking development.

The withdrawal is a blow for the council which was strongly committed to the Creative Precinct project. It used ratepayer's funds to pay a $1.2 million, or 10 per cent, deposit towards the proposed $12 million car park purchase by precinct proponent Creative Property Holdings in July 2020.

It also stood behind CPH as financial guarantor at one stage and separately paid $8.4 million for the still vacant Birchalls building. The Council preference was for a bus interchange and the Creative Precinct.

A council YouTube production still claims the council has bought part of the Birchalls car park for a business interchange and that CPH had bought the rest of the car park for the precinct.

However, a Federal Court case and a subsequent appeal derailed the plans.

A Tasmanian Government spokesman said: "It is disappointing that the Federal Government has decided to remove this funding from a Northern Tasmanian project."

"The Creative Precinct is an exciting project that would transform Launceston and Northern Tasmania by helping create new industries for the region, driving innovation and education outcomes and bringing development and vibrancy to the centre of the city. The Tasmanian Government will continue to work with the Council and the project partners on a revised project for Northern Tasmania."

LAUNCESTON HAS AN ABANDONED HERITAGE ASSET

Rather than squander surpluses on tax breaks for the well housed and well off, we should/could add a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program, shore up Social Security, value our heritage, fortify our defence systems, provide a quality public education for all, offer economic assistance to the needy and give a hand up to those in need ... especially those experiencing housing stress.

A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various and powerful interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in the banks. It turns out that all too often people and places get to be imagined vas 'surplus to requirement'.

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

THREE QUESTIONS TO LAUNCESTON'S MAYOR & COUNCILLORS

 QUESTION 1 … Addressed to the Mayor and all Councillors

Against the background of:

• The TASCAT determination directing City of Launceston Council to approve the building of the multidimensional project on the site of the Paterson Street Central Carpark; and 
• The various legal challenges, in the cause of accountability and transparency; and 
• In accord with Council’s stated Vision, Purpose and Values;

will Council now present to the city’s residents and ratepayers with a full report of all the legal costs, that they have funded via their rates, that are relevant to all the legal cases Council was a party to in any way relative to this site and this Council’s planning initiative?

QUESTION 2 … Addressed to the Mayor and all Councillors 

Against the background of:

• Launcestonians, Tasmanians and indeed Australians facing housing stress; and 
•  The paucity of outcomes thus far relative to Council’s establishment of its ‘homelessness action committee’ in April 2022; and
• Community perceptions that Council is less than empathetic in regard to so-called ‘homeless people’ experiencing housing stress; and
• The city’s housing crisis showing every possibility of expanding in the short to medium term;

will Council now reconsider its past strategies relative to dealing with the city’s housing crisis by initiating a Citizen’s Assembly/Jury with a randomly appointed membership that reports openly to, and engages with, Council, Government, and the wider community?

QUESTION 3 … Addressed to the Mayor and all Councillors

 Against the background of:

• Launceston’s ‘Waste Management Centre’ being a locality where resources are delivered to be undervalued and typically wasted; and
• Launceston’s ratepayers are funding a loss making cost centre that is not meeting appropriate 21^st C performance criteria despite Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency;  and
•  Launceston remaining committed to an outmoded and expensive ‘land fill strategy’ to dispose of what is deemed to be ‘waste’; and 

will Council now reconsider its anarchic and redundant strategic position along with its outdated policy determinations by initiating a Citizen’s Assembly/Jury with a randomly selected and appointed membership to address the issue of ‘community based resource management’ and the ‘circular economy’ and that is a standalone entity that reports openly to, and engages with, Council, Government, and the wider community?

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

CITIZEN'S JURY LINK