DO LAUNCESTON'S RATEPAYERS KNOW THAT THEY ARE INVESTORS IN A DEVELOPMENT SLUSH FUND THAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DELIVER A DIVIDEND

 

If you take coffee in Launceston's Brisbane Street Mall you are bound to glean all kinds of snippets of information. A lot of it, well some of it, apparently comes via a 'leakage' from Town Hall. Machiavellian or not  there are times when taking coffee in the Brisbane Street Mall is more illuminating than reading The Examiner.

It has been speculated upon for some time but it has always been somewhat puzzling as to why the City of Launceston would want to purchase a building in the Mall and abandon it for years. Just how much revenue has Council forgone by doing this and in the end who pays? It is also mystifying as to why the city was prepared to pay well above the odds for a property no other investor was prepared to buy – reportedly for $8Mil – and develop/repurpose the site. 

Now the word 'on the street' is that Council is in the throws of 'off loading' the property for $6Mill and to an investor on behalf of another who was the initiator(?) of legal proceeding related to an adjoining property. All fiscal cloak and dagger stuff when Local Governance should be open, transparent and accountable. Why is this so!

To charactorise all this as playing a kind of 'civic monopoly' with 'funny money' gleaned from the Public Purse might or might not be 'a bridge too far'. That 'the money' here is in fact ratepayers' money and it seems to escape the attention of Launceston's Town Hall and the city's management that this is in fact the case. When ratepayers pay their rates they are investing in the amenity of the city. They not making 'charitable gifts' to the city's management.

In fact the Local Govt. Act  in SECTION 62/2 drawn up in 1993 essentially gives General Managers carte blanche to exploit ratepayers without redress. Tasked with managing the city as a corporate entity General Managers have extraordinary power – powers that they can even control the elected Councillors with and apparently do.  In the real corporate world investors and shareholders would/could not tolerate such managerial shenanigans. Why is Local Govt. so special?

In the scheme of things this building that is the subject of current contention is very much a part of Launceston's history and cultural landscape. It is being treated as the subject of what seems to be yet another shonky development all because it seems that the 'money people' at Town Hall got caught out dipping into the Public Purse to play Funny Money with – it beggars belief. It is not for nothing that this building has become embedded in what has become the legendary Birchall's Carpark Debacle.

Indeed, anyone paying attention to the goings on relative to 'planning'  in the Brisbane St. Mall will know by now that Council has actually turned it into a 'black hole' into which 'management' has poured enormous amounts of ratepayers' money. Not to put too fine a point on it, tradies, contractors, consultants, et al have scurried off laughing all the way to the bank. 

IN THE GOOD DAYS – STORY LINK

Now ratepayers face the prospect of yet another COUNCIL FOLLEY being played out well away from the light of day and with them carrying the can at the end of the day for all the loses. 

True or otherwise, the 'street talk' that says Town Hall's managers say that ratepayers do not need to make a profit, if so, it has a cynical tone to it. In one sense it is true BUT likewise ratepayers cannot afford to continually 'carry the can' for the city's management's fiscal failures and their elastic budgets. 

In the Brisbane St Mall there are enough budget overruns etc. to finance a range of development urgently awaiting attention. There would be enough money in the kitty to pay the salaries of the city's managers for several years, remembering of course that their salaries generally eclipse real world salaries. Or, on the other hand, maintain all roads and footpaths to an appropriate standard. The ratepayers' lot is not a happy one.

If the State Govt. stands by and fails to protect ratepayers in regard to this matter that would be unconscionable behavior. If ratepayers actually need to take this matter to the resource starved Integrity Commission or the Ombudsman that would be outrageous. Likewise, if the Federal Govt. stands by and lets Drought Relief Funding play ANY part at all in this whole sad and sorry saga then the Treasure's statements about responsible fiscal governance are as hollow as the previous Government's promises.

There should be no doubt about it, if ratepayers are unhappy they have every right to be. Moreover, the really disturbing thing is that 'the elected 12' seem to have lost control of Council and so much so that there is a good case for believing that the Local Govt system in Tasmania is well and truly broken and way past its use-by-date.