Friday, June 30, 2023
Thursday, June 29, 2023
UPDATE ON LGH ABANDONED NURSES HOME
PLEASE CLICK ON AMAGE TO ENLARGE
Relative to 'HOUSING STRESS' in Tasmania, on the available evidence what the community has here in the abandoned LGH Nurse’s Home is:
- A community asset, owned by the community, paid for by the community; and
- An asset that is no longer fit-for-purpose as it once was; and
- An asset that has considerable potential to alleviate the stress of a considerable number of people suffering the consequences ‘governance’s’ failures over time; and
- An asset currently managed by a department – the Health Dept – that no longer has a purposeful use for the community asset; and
- An asset that another department – the Housing Dept – has expressed an interest in resting it from its current management;
- An asset that the Housing Dept. has no demonstrated capacity to manage all the ‘values’ in it –heritage, 21st architectural, etc; and
- An asset that is capable of being refurbished in such a way as to make a considerable contribution to the wellbeing of the community who in fact ’own’ it and have invested in it over time; and
- An asset that needs ‘outside the box thinking’ with nobody inclined to be innovative let alone be audacious.
All that said, the ‘political will’ to be proactive is not in evidence but speculatively it seems that for whatever might pass for ‘rationalism’ with opportunist developers inevitably lurking on the ready to profit from using this ‘community asset’ is palpable. Given that it is highly unlikely to be for the 'purpose' of housing people in affordable and much needed 'home places' the disconnect is more than lamentable. ..... CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
Guy Johnson, Australia’s first Professor of Urban Housing and Homelessness, draws on the most recent Census data to break down seven myths about homelessness.
Myth 1: Most people experiencing homelessness sleep on the streets
Rough sleepers are the most visible face of homelessness but they represent only a small fraction (about 1 in 12) of the homeless population.
Myth 2: Most people experiencing homelessness are drug addicts or alcoholics
About 60 per cent do not have a drug or alcohol problem and of those that do, the majority develop this after they become homeless. This is a troubling statistic that highlights the associated risks of homelessness.
Myth 3: Most homeless people have mental health problems
About one third of Australia’s homeless have serious mental health issues. Similar to drug and alcohol statistics, up to half of these people developed their mental health problems after becoming homeless.
Myth 4: Most homeless people break the law
Statistically, homeless people are actually more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. This highlights the increased vulnerability that comes with being homeless.
Myth 5: Giving to people who are begging only encourages homelessness
There is no evidence to support the claim that giving incentivises homelessness. People experiencing homelessness want safe and secure housing, the same as everyone else.
Myth 6: Most of those who are homeless choose to be
The majority are poor and have experienced a health problem or a financial shock, or cannot stay at home because of violence or abuse and cannot afford alternative accommodation.
Myth 7: There’s enough emergency accommodation
Australia does have some crisis and emergency accommodation but agencies are being overwhelmed by demand as numbers continue to grow.
Professor Guy Johnson is a panel member during the two day National Homelessness Conference (6 -7 August) that launches a week of activity designed to raise awareness, and promote solutions to, Australia’s growing homelessness problem.
Johnson leads the partnership between RMIT and Victorian housing organisation Unison which is drawing on academic research and street smarts to improve the lives of 650,000 Australians facing housing issues.
Story: Grace Taylor
Tuesday, June 27, 2023
GOODNESS GRACIOUS OF INTO THE DARK AGAIN
Questions about the ongoing Albert Hall redevelopment have been answered by the City of Launceston council, with further discussions behind closed doors expected at the next meeting.
Councillors previously heard on May 4 that construction company Shape Australia would provide a "refined" price by the end of the month.
Agenda papers for the upcoming June 29 council meeting show that this revised price has been received, however it will not be made public yet.
The officers also said an update would be provided "in due course", and that no monies have been paid to the construction company beyond consulting fees.
Designs for the upgraded Albert Hall released in March 2022. Picture file
Designs for the upgraded Albert Hall released in March 2022. Picture file
Progress on the $11 million Albert Hall Renewal Project has been slow, with a May 2023 report attributing much of the difficulty to the COVID-19 pandemic which has driven up costs and driven down labour supply.
The report also found costs could increase between $4.3 million and $6.4 million and at the time suggested a funding allocation could be included in the upcoming council budget.
Budget papers for the 2023/2024 financial year, which will also be ratified at the meeting, do not include a specific line item for the Albert Hall Renewal Project.
The Albert Hall Renewal Project was funded as part of the Launceston City Deal and also received money through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program.
The council expects work to be complete by July 2024, but this date is likely to be pushed back "by a few months" according to the May 2023 report.
Sunday, June 11, 2023
THAT STADIUM: WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING?
IN THE EXAMINER ... Premier Jeremy Rockliff tweeted this week, "Today, Foo Fighters have joined the list of major acts Tassie is missing out on. If only we had somewhere to host them and 30,000 fans. We're going to keep fighting until we have what every other State has. Tasmanians deserve that."
He went on to say, "Can you imagine the boost those 30,000 fans would give local businesses?"
The Premier is clearly saying if the Hobart AFL stadium goes ahead, and perhaps considerable upgrades to York Park, major music acts like the Foo Fighters would come to Tasmania and rock our socks off, benefiting everyone, not just music fans.
I'd like to agree with the Premier, but I love music, so I am biased.
Stadiums provide a larger capacity and better technical capabilities than traditional concert venues, making them attractive for artists looking to reach a larger audience. So Tasmania would have a better chance of attracting acts like the Foo Fighters with stadiums. But would a stadium in Hobart and an upgraded York Park bring rock gods and the associated benefits to Tasmania? Perhaps not. Here's why.
A destination's attraction to international music acts depends on multiple factors, not just a venue's capacity. The size and quality of the stadium would be a significant factor in increasing the demand for concerts in the region; if a major artist thinks they could fill it on multiple nights, they may consider it.
However, music industry insiders tell me that Tasmania's population spread, and the fact the largest part of the population is not concentrated in the capital as it is in mainland states, serves as a deterrent for big touring acts. The local market size influences any music promoter deciding to include a city on an international music tour. How often do you see an international artist only playing in capital cities, booking multiple nights and requiring fans to travel to them? They rarely play in regional areas. Rightly or wrongly, Hobart and Launceston are seen as regional areas. So while having a large stadium can increase the likelihood of attracting big-name acts, it is not the sole determining factor. The extra transportation costs to get equipment to Tasmania is also a significant deterrent for big bands; it is also why many don't play in Perth.
To attract international music acts, the local market would need to demonstrate a significant demand for concerts and a willingness to support and attend such events. It is unknown if there is an enthusiastic and large enough fan base to create a compelling case for international artists to include Hobart and Launceston on their tour schedules, even if we had state-of-the-art stadiums. Hobart has a population of 200,000, and Launceston has about 75,000. More than 2 million people live in Brisbane as a comparison.
The Premier is correct. An AFL stadium in Hobart and an upgraded York Park would enhance the State's ability to host larger concerts. But a stadium would not be enough to get them here. That adds to the risk of building a stadium if the premise for building it is "if we build it, they will come."
Thursday, June 8, 2023
LOCAL GOVERNANCE, STATUS QUOISM AND WHERE TO FROM HERE
It is more than timely that the good people of Launceston gave their collective futures something more than a second thought. In this 21st C, our worlds have changed and are changing but it is no surprise to find that in our aspirational First World mindsets people wish to cling to as much of what they know, the status quo, as they can.
Nonetheless, holding up what was as a kind of measuring stick for what could be, what should be, against what ‘is’, and what is likely, is delusional and it is especially so when it comes to local governance.
Metaphorically, the ‘imaginings’ that have attached themselves to local governance can be likened to the barnacles, other opportunistic marine growth, and all the periphery dross and detritus that has become attached to the good ship ‘Local Governance’. The vessel as we have come to know it is no longer truly functional nor fit for purpose. Somehow local governance’s fundamental purpose has been lost sight of and it has been overwhelmed by all manner of detritus.
Currently, the big questions seem to be:
• ...Can ‘the vessel’ be restored?
• ...Should it be restored?
• ...Should it be kept as reminder of what was and then sidelined?
• ...Is it, in its current state, or even its restored state, of any value whatsoever beyond its inherent curiosity value?
Each one of us will have different answers relative to our cultural reality – and rightly so. Whatever, it is highly unlikely that there will be any level agreement among ‘the governed’ about a one size fits all, cum common denominator, level of some mutually shared understanding. In every aspect of humanity’s development as the evolved ‘top predator’, the management of, and the control of ,‘a place’ has been increasingly important, and progressively complex – and it remains so.
Currently, the ‘governed’ – locally, nationally and internationally – are disparate and clearly definable ‘community networks’ and ‘cultural realities’ that have strived to establish their own, and variously understood, precincts are quite often contested and contestable, along with different and divergent understandings of their ‘placedness’. Migratory behaviour, and indeed wars, are largely to do with all this.
Ultimately that ‘uniformity’ that ‘Empire builders’ hoped they might achieve has invariably been unreal, out of reach, and relatively short-lived in terms of humanity’s cultural diversity and the variousness of the places we have found ourselves, or chosen to make our homes in.
Empire builders have always been less than welcome no matter how benign they claim to be. Empire builders are typically seen as a threat to the security we have invested in our ‘placedness’. This is rarely discussed relative to local governance, and it needs to be.
Fundamentally, place defines culture and culture defines place. Local governance by extension is all about the shaping and the making of places – nothing else in reality.
It turns out that humanity constructs, and shapes cultural landscapes in alignment with perceived needs and aspirations. Consequently, local governance plays a critical role. In the vernacular, it is where the rubber hits the road. Also, it is increasingly evident that our cultural landscapes are complex and diverse places in every aspect yet sadly, and ultimately, this by-and-large is not on many elected representatives’ agendas apparently.
Arguably, in a 21st C context Indirect Representative Democracy (IRD)has outlived the relevance it once had in ‘placating the masses’, in essence, as an outcome of the Industrial Revolution. This evolutionary cum revolutionary event, with all its deeply embedded consequences and its unanticipatable outcomes has impacted everywhere, all the time and it continues to do so.
What has been avoided by the empowered political class is Direct Deliberative Democracy (DDD) largely based on an assumption that it shouldn’t be allowed to replace IRD – or in other words allowed to disrupt the status quo. Given the revolutionary ‘Information Technologies’ currently available to an ever increasing populous the relevance of IRD shrinks exponentially almost hourly. Consequently, the status quo needs to be challenged at every available opportunity.
Relying upon the status quo in a 21st C context, and at any level, is quite delusional. Any assumption that it can be overturned by stealth or persuasion is also a folly. In fact, it is very likely that ‘change agents’ are going to need to be audacious and even then, they will experience formidable resistance. The status quo benefactors have far too much at stake. Arguably, this is why the French revolutionaries took the powerful to the guillotine in an attempt restructure powerfulness. .
In a social context local governance is needed but not by necessity in its current context in Tasmania, or indeed much of the Western World, given its ever diminishing social and cultural relevance.
Between the wish and the ‘wished for’ the world waits on expectantly. We make ourselves up and we fuse what we are with what we wish we might yet become if only this or that. We seem to be oblivious as to why it is so, yet it is. We need to know and acknowledge this.
In governance, we might well think about the benevolence of wise kings, and we might even wish we had done more to prepare ourselves for the benevolence we might well wish for. However, is our world capable of delivering our aspirations in the context of the status quo we seem all too willing to tolerate much less than we might.
Fundamentally we want to look at our lives for ourselves –but we are not allowed. We are punished for our wishing for anything beyond the status quo. We are worn down on the tread mill of conventions – the status quo. Thus, the aspirations of the governed are typically a long way down the list of expectations and the self-interests of powerful governors and those they empower around them tasked with preserving their power.
Comparing local governance with the corporate world is quite inappropriate. Using the corporate world as a yardstick to measure sustainability, well it is both absurd and irrational. ‘Sustainability’ is almost always mirage where the closer it seems to be the further away becomes. Nonetheless, in ‘placemaking’ we might well develop environments with life supporting ecologies. However, hierarchies are typically antithetic to the complexity of ecosystems and the intense caring for they demand.
We may wish to see sustainable local governance that is transparent, accountable, and fundamentally engaged with the community it serves. Unless and until the first principles of purposeful local governance – placemaking and placeshaping – are in place these things are ever likely to be mistaken aspirations.
For a Council’s purposefulness to be fulfilled in a 21st C context, and all the while being ‘rusted on’ to the Indirect Representational Democracy (IRD)mode of governance, as opposed to a Direct Deliberative Democracy (DDD)model of governance, ‘the governance’ is highly unlikely to be fit for purpose. IRD was not understood as ‘democracy’ in Ancient Greece, democracy’s birthplace, as DDD was seen as being fit for purpose. IRD is but a compromised machination of DDD.
First World aspirations to resist the disruption of the status quo are there to be seen and it is somewhat perverse to witness IRD being lauded as democratic ideal when it requires an army of bureaucrats to sustain it. Even more troublesome is the fact none of these bureaucrats are in any real way accountable to the constituencies they are there to serve. Moreover, it is concerning when it is realised that they are virtually insulated against being subjected to any kind of meaningful scrutiny.
Therefore, talking about ‘sustainable’ IRD local governance and not exposing all aspects of it to purposeful accountability and transparency tests is nothing but hollow rhetoric.
For example, using ratepayers service payments as some kind of ‘rubbery public purse’ available for an invested in, risked in, some entrepreneurial endeavour is loaded with the possibility of negative unintended consequences –and they are a legion. Public servants are not entrepreneurs, it is not why they bare there. Similarly, ‘elected representatives’ are there to placemake not to be investment brokers. Nonetheless, they might well engage with their constituents in placemaking enterprises – out in the open and exposed to an atmosphere of incisive critical deliberation that is not shrouded in secrecy.
Moreover, local governance is empowered to generate income, operationally, and thus it charges fees for services such as fees for the use of public property, parking fees, fees for the disposal of what is assumed to be ‘waste’ and the disposal of the dead even plus the levying of fines for errant civic behaviours. The inherent danger here is when revenue collection best serves operational salaries without the social and cultural dividends flowing to constituents.
Rate demands must mirror the equitability of local governance’s cost centres as they are exposed to the fiscal pressures in the current First World social and cultural realities – however that is it imagined, ideologically. .
Local governments’ constituencies need to and want to see their councils meet their financial commitments and enabled to do so in an ongoing and sustainable way. However, if a cfouncil sets out to generate income other than via fees for required services, they must garner their constituency’s approval and there are proven ways to do that.
Open deliberation in public forums, proactively via social media and the press, and around the decision-making table would be ‘best practice’ in order to counter any corruption implications – and they are there.
Generational investment, wise investment, in the future is ever likely to be subjective, speculative, and highly contested. Wisdom is but one tree in a forest of ideas. It can grow stronger if nurtured, sturdier if tested, and in time become undeniable. It is alive in every forest if only we are quiet enough for long enough and then listen hard enough for it to reveal itself. A Council might well detect wisdom well away from its offices. By looking and listening its outcomes may well be deliverable.
Similarly, proactive placemakers might well be found well away local governance’s offices. They will be competitive, networkers, entrepreneurs, investors, homemakers, and many other things. They will be driven by self-interest and cultural imperatives. They will also dedicate their time, and their resources to vitalising the urban precincts and cultural landscapes within which they have a deep and abiding sense of ownership.
How can any of these placemakers be enlisted by local governance? Well, in the end it always comes down to determining the policies and adopting the strategic plans that do not stifle diverse and unanticipatable aspirations within the network of communities councils are there to serve. That is, policies and strategies that foster the realisation of the realisable and the attempt to do so in ways that are unhindered by status quoism.
Given the increasingly obvious impacts of environmental degradation cities everywhere, like Launceston, need look to their ‘urban green spaces’. These spaces, precinct by precinct, need to be monitored, preserved and expanded upon but that is not entirely up to local governance, but it is where councils need to proactively engage with their constituent community networks.
Similarly, the need to address homelessness and housing stress is an issue where local governance needs to be proactive. Importantly, it needs to be acknowledged that this ‘housing stress’ is by-and-large brought on by an underlying and deeply embedded commitment to the status quoism by every level of governance.
By-and-large the benefactors of status quoism are investors et al and homemakers are out competed by design.
If someone is elected as mayor in the Indirect Representative Democracy mode of local governance, mayors are there to ‘represent’ their constituency in all its diversity. In the most part that means ensuring that sound decision making relative to placemaking goes on. This means setting agendas and ensuring that transparent and accountable policy making, and strategic decision making is facilitated, fostered, and then implemented as intended.
Importantly, a large part of the mayoral role is to do with ensuring that strategic policy making is firstly consultative and secondly quite separate to the implementation of policy determinations as that is managements role.
Ultimately, the ’standard’ that mayors need to be a part of setting is to do with the maintenance of and the assiduous adherence to, acknowledging that the primary 'placemakers' are those who invest their lives in a community – the constituencies that put local governance in place. How a mayor addresses this issue in the current Indirect Representative Democracy model is the issue to hand.
All this should be a given and already etched in stone but sadly it apparently needs the reiteration.
Some wise commentator somewhere has observed that change is brought about because ordinary people can do extraordinary things if given the opportunity.
Saturday, June 3, 2023
FIBRE PRODUCTION: There are none so blind as those who just will not see. So the status quo reigns supreme
Hemp advocates hail the "stigmatised" crop as the billion-dollar saviour of Victoria's ailing timber industry, but politicians are concerned the industry could pave the way to legalising cannabis.
Key points:
- Eastern Victoria is "perfectly placed" to become a new industrial hemp hub
- The global industrial hemp industry could be worth $27 billion within four years
- Fire-resistant hemp construction materials could address building supply shortages
- The cannabis variety can be processed into a range of building materials, many of which are heat or fire resistant.
That's a drop in the ocean when compared with the global industry, which is expected to grow from about $7 billion a year to more than $27 billion by 2027.
Victoria and Canada both passed legislation to allow industrial hemp cultivation and processing in 1998.
While Canada has become a world leader in production, Australia remains far behind.
Timber replacement
The Victorian government made the shock announcement on May 23 that native logging would end by January 1, almost seven years ahead of schedule.
Processors in Gippsland could replace timber with hemp, says Darren Christie, president of the non-profit industry organisation iHemp Victoria.
This would maintain employment and financial stability for logging communities while offering a solution to building supply shortages, he says.
(1)
Hemp pulp can be used to make a range of building materials.
(Supplied: Pro Hemp)
"Industrial hemp is another chip and pulp industry, exactly the same as our timber industry," said Mr Christie, who also chairs the Australian Hemp Building Institute.
Industrial hemp requires fewer agricultural inputs – fertiliser, pesticides and water – compared with many other crops, according to AgriFutures Australia.
But the research body says fibre transportation is costly due to hemp's light weight and large volume.
This means the industry needs local growing and processing.
And with home building companies going to the wall as building costs rise, locally produced construction materials could fill that gap.
A pile of timber pulp with some coming from a chute
Pulp mills process wood chips and other plant fibres. (ABC News)
Gippsland is perfectly placed to become an industrial hemp hub, say industry leaders.
"We can grow industrial hemp on a biomass scale in 100 days. Five thousand hectares — there's $100 million into the Gippsland communities and farming."
The Victorian parliament on Wednesday agreed to an inquiry into opportunities to expand the hemp industry in Victoria.
While supporting the motion, brought by Legalise Cannabis MP Rachel Payne, Liberal member Georgie Crozier said she had questions around the viability of the industry, as well as its potential outcomes.
Homegrown hemp houses
An industrial hemp processing facility is set to start operating later this year which could lead to more South Australians living in homes made from carbon neutral fibre.
Two men in shirts and dark slacks look at tall leafy hemp fibre plants.
Read more
"We go on to the real crux of I think where Legalise Cannabis are going to, and that is the cannabinoids and legalising cannabis," Ms Crozier said.
"I'm strongly supportive of medicinal cannabis, I don't support legalising cannabis."
Hemp and marijuana are both species of the cannabis plant.
Ms Payne says this can cause sticking points when it comes to state and federal regulation.
"Hemp could be a real opportunity for the timber industry to pivot into," she says.
"It can be used for a whole range of [things] from production of textiles through to bioplastics, construction and biofuel," Ms Payne says.
Building the hemp industry
Victoria's now-disbanded industrial hemp task force reported in 2020 that Tasmania's industry was worth $4.5 million.
The economic and environmental benefits are significant, say researchers.
"We know that there's a lot of interest in not only the opportunities for what hemp can create, but also ... the fact that hemp is an incredible carbon sink," Ms Payne says.
Matthew Box runs Pro Hemp on the eastern outskirts of Melbourne, where he grows, processes and supplies hemp, and develops and builds hemp processing machinery.
He says the industry is on the verge of taking off in Victoria, but it needs support to scale up.
"There's so much demand for hemp, but it's always companies that want it in large volumes," Mr Box said.
Innovative producers are coming out of the woodwork from all over the state, he said.
Prefabricated building panels are being produced in central Victoria, bricks are being made in the west of the state, while hemp powder is being transformed into 3D printed houses in Victoria's south.
But just six growers are managing about 200 hectares of hemp plantation in Victoria — about one sixth of Tasmania's production.
Call for industry investment
Regenerative Hemp Victoria president Lyn Stephenson says the state could rival Canada to become a market leader.
"The growing conditions in Gippsland lend themselves really well to growing hemp," she says.
"Certainly, I think there's massive scope for replacement for paper pulp."
Industry leaders say draconian regulations and costly monitoring requirements must be overhauled.
Mr Christie is calling on the state government to support and invest in the industry.
"They've got to open their eyes and have a really deep, hard look – now – because otherwise we're 10 years behind."
Posted 1 Jun 20231
Jun 2023 ... Related Stories
Inside the bid to expand Australia's hemp crop by 97,000 hectares
A woman stands in front of a bench
Thursday, June 1, 2023
THE RESISTANCE TO CHANGE EXPLIANED
Really influential people are never satisfied with the status quo. They're the innovators and the thinkers who continually ask those questions like, what if and why not and when. They do not harbour the fear of change, of the what any challenge to conventional wisdom might bring. They don't disrupt things just to be disruptive. They just want to make things better. Nonetheless, such people become targets if they look like they might actually change this or that.
People of colour, women, culturally diverse people, poor people, disabled people have no interest in maintaining the status quo. Why would they? The status quo is harmful to them. The status quo is racist, sexist, ageist, it fosters and rewards rankism and a lot of other things that need to be overturned, exposed and changed.
Ronald Reagan called out 'the status quo' for being Latin for the mess we are in and nobody really argued with him – albeit that the mess is still with us. However, governments cannot make marriages work, or turn the lazy into responsible hard workers, enlighten citizenaries or for the most part, get trains to run on time. All that needs another kind of change agent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)