There are at least four grounds upon which to object to this transfer of community assets from an indirect representational democractic governance body: The grounds being:
• .. Firstly, Stadiums Tasmania's reason for being, is to be a statutory authority, formed to own, manage and develop Tasmania’s major stadium assets, supposedly worth approximately $200Million – $90PlusMillion of which it seems is York Park – is blatantly self-serving.
• .. Secondly, the 'ownership issue' as is being acted upon, is totally at odds with the multidimensional, multifaceted, York Park Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) imperatives. An extraordinary number of people have legitimate 'ownerships and interests' invested in York Park as a 'place'. There is a class of 'rankism' evident in almost every aspect of what is being proposed in this initiative.
• .. Thirdly, despite the wording of the Stadiums Tasmania Act there is no real imperative for 'legal ownership' to be transferred to this new bureaucratic entity. Moreover, the assumption that it will succeed in its ‘enterprise’ is entirely speculative; and
• .. Fourthly, there is the issue of 'natural justice' essentially being denied the City of Launceston's ratepayers and other citizens. That this might be the case it is a non-trivial consideration.
The notion that the ‘asset’ to be transferred has fiscal value of $93Million is challengeable as too is the supposed $3Million pa saving to Council’s annual budget.
These ‘estimates’ are entirely speculative and an exemplar of ‘a truth by assertion’.
Also, no consideration has been given to the millions upon millions of ‘ratepayers’ dollars’ that has been spent providing infrastructure and maintaining it over say the past two decades.
If indeed York Park is deemed to be ‘surplus to requirement’ it needs to be sold off on the open market with any recoverable assets being sold separately or recycled by Council.
York Park is a ratepayers’ asset not a chattel for Councillors and City Management to play fiscal games with.
Moreover, Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) imperatives demand that governance pays respect to ALL those in the COI simply because rights come with obligations and visa versa. There is no evidence whatsoever that ‘COUNCIL’ as an entire entity has paid any attention whatsoever to ‘the place’s COI’ and more is the pity.
Stadiums Tasmania (ST)is not a charity but there is every prospect that as an entity ‘holding’ York Park the likelihood is that ST will turn out to be the equivalent to ‘the corporate citizen from hell’. No doubt ST will not be paying rates but nonetheless it will be consigning large volumes of ‘waste’ to the city’s ‘tip cum landfill site’.
Moreover, ST will have a considerable impost on the city’s stormwater management and sewerage works without making an equitable contribution. Likewise, despite being a somewhat enormous consumer of energy there is no indication that any attempt to generate any energy onsite will be made to reduce its impact upon ‘the grid’.
.
To compound the inequity ST speculates that – funded from the public purse no doubt – it proposes to compete with private entrepreneurs in the ‘conference business’ alongside operating an apparently surplus generating enterprise, a sport stadium, without by necessity delivering a dividend – fiscal, social or cultural – to those who have invested in and created the asset that ST now wants to exploit.
Apparently, what ST is blatantly attempting to do here is to, in the vernacular, “sell Launcestonians a pup” with the beneficiaries being the salaried ‘functionaries’ within ST .
Insultingly, by-and-large this initiative has evolved in camera, in the dark, and well away from incisive critical review of ‘the people’. Therefore, it has all the hallmarks of total disinterest in meaningful engagement with ‘the place’s’ Community of Ownership and Interest or their collective interests and aspirations. This is nothing short of a failure of governance given the lack of transparency and accountability on display.
On the grounds that Councillors are elected and are ultimately 'trusted' to represent all constituents I object most strongly, not only to the lack trust but also to the denial of natural justice. Unless and until Councillors meaningfully engage with York Park's COI, I vigorously contest Council's apparent disregard for the COI and I object most strongly to this community asset, owned by, and invested in by, the people of Launceston being transferred to Stadiums Tasmania.
Indeed, Launceston's constituency is owed an apology given the circumstance that we have arrived at.
Looking to the city’s vision, purpose, and values I do so with great expectations as I do to the State Government’s good governance guide.
Creating a culture of integrity and accountability not only improves effectiveness, it also generates a respectful, enjoyable and a life sustaining cultural landscape in which to live, work and play. Local government depends upon the social licence granted it by its constituency. There is no simple list of requirements that have to be met in order to be granted a social licence yet we all know when the one granted has been violated.
.
I call upon
• .. Councillors to:
Rescind their December 15 2022 determination – Item 16.3 Intention to Dispose of York Park and Associated Land to Stadiums Tasmania FILE NO: SF6660 ; and
• .. Initiate a Citizen’s Jury/Assembly to develop better civic understandings relative to ‘placemaking, placemarking and placedness’.
END
Attached
No comments:
Post a Comment