Saturday, October 30, 2021
 |
| PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
Given that the Mayor, presumably on behalf of all Councillors, is predisposed to attribute to me [Link] a collection of questions assembled by a cohort of ratepayers that are NOT my questions I now wish to pose a series of related questions that Council can in fact attribute to me.
The first being to do with the acquisition of the PATERSON CENTRAL CARPARK for the purpose of facilitating a 'BUS INTERCHANGE FACILITY' and to permit a developer to have access to the space above. Given Council's reported position of entertaining 'compulsory acquisition' alarm bells ring rather loudly.
- What independent professional planning advice?
- What legal advice provided by whom?
- What research carried out by whom?
- Taking into account what financial advice provided by whom?
- And upon what level of 'consultation' with Council's constituency and by what means?
Given that there are – and indeed there was at the time – multiple alternatives, one being to manage and reconfigure 'the streetscape' to better facilitate a public transport interchange. Such 'streetscaping' has been undertaken elsewhere and cost effectively. Research, would surely have brought all this to Councillors' attention thus enabling better planning determinations. Sadly, that was not to be.
Personally, I have advocated such an approach with two Councillors. One asked me, audibly laughing, if I was 'joking' and the other informed me that 'the numbers are not there to even suggest such an approach'. The proof of that is the outcome before Council and dependent, as you all are, upon an outcome being contested in the Federal Court of Australia [Link] in the case before Justice O'Callaghan the prospect of an outcome a long way away yet.
Sadly, for ratepayers a considerable sum has been expended upon plans that it now seems are unlikely to realised.
According to the press, the court last week heard that there was/is a contract for the sale of 41-43 Paterson Street, the PATERSON CENTRAL CARPARK, for $12 million with a deposit of $1.2 million set to be paid. It is generally understood that Council underwrote the proposed 'sale' and indeed was a 'guarantor' for the deposit.
Apparently, Launceston's constituency has been deemed incapable of research and if they are to engage in it, apparently, it is automatically inappropriate and/or faulty. The likelihood of in-house 'planning advice' ever falling short and/or it being based upon inadequate research never appears to be considered at any level. Likewise, the cost to ratepayers almost never seems to be considered.
Somewhat curiously the City of Launceston while it employs 'planners' it does so, quite bewilderingly, under auspices of a Manager of Development. Thus it appears the concept of 'planning' has been jettisoned in favour of a paradigm of 'approval and disapproval' of developers' initiatives. That is of course unless Council deems itself a 'developer' and one undisciplined by any fiscal constraints – on the evidence.
Moreover, Council apparently does all this without any compunction, or with any perception, that it might need to confide in its 'financiers' – the ratepayers. It has been long understood that great risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing – or indeed why you might be.
Arguably, Council has reached a point where it operates contrary to State Government's Guide to Good Governance [Link] that was presumably put in place to protect ratepayers from fiscal recalcitrance.
Given that there is a well developed network of equipment suppliers in Australia offering 'traffic management infrastructure' to enable Councils such as Launceston's to achieve its apparent goal of facilitating an upgrade of the city's public transport interchange without acquiring private property in order to do so. See the attached graphics below.
So:
- Why has Launceston's Council exposed its ratepayers to fiscal risk given that it did not actually need to?
- Why isn't Launceston's Council employing this 'off the shelf' equipment to better manage traffic flows in the city towards enhancing the city's 'streetscape amenity' towards achieving amenity goals?
- Why has Launceston's Council, in the context of its Climate Emergency Policy [Link], not been proactive in developing the city in ways that better use its 'civic infrastructure' to discourage increased transport based on 'fossil fuels' ?
The answers to such questions are apparently, to a large extent, to be found within some mysterious Code of Conduct agreement Councillors are required to sign up to. Whatever it is, it seems that Councillors are in some way inhibited in fulfilling their 'function as a Councillor' [Link] indeed as 'elected representatives'.
Concerningly the Mayor say that, "at no stage since lapsing of the initial Planning Permit - some 13 years ago - has the car park owner indicated to Council his willingness or desire to redevelop the site beyond its current configuration." This assertion is highly contestable and outside the constraints of SECTION 62/2 of the Act, a search of Council's records, or indeed the owner's, that myth could be put to rest.
The Mayor went on to say that "Council firmly believes this site is one of - if not the most strategically important parcels of land in the Launceston CBD." Well what is Council's point here? Is Council suggesting that an 'investor' needs to comply with the Mayor's, or Council's world view? Indeed, has Council, or the Mayor, at anytime attempted to develop a 'collaborative development' with the owner? In other jurisdictions such initiatives are not unknown. Why not in Launceston?
Again concerningly, the Mayor claims to be able to 'correct' the Ratepayers' Association's assertion that Metro is opposed to the relocation of the bus interchange. Sadly, his assertion is little more than an attempt at 'truth by assertion'! For verification visit this link to the METRO's Media Release.
Like the Mayor, I have no wish to debate the evidence as it is what it is. Also, it can be found if it is looked for. That is if the GM (AKA CEO) does not bring down the curtain of confidentiality. Nonetheless, open minded research takes one everywhere all at once, inconvenient as it may be.
As Bertrand Russell tells us, "the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd."
So, just how does this all come about in 2021 within the context of the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act 1993? Moreover, just how does all this square with Councillors' self perceptions of their functions?
PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE
No comments:
Post a Comment