PETITION PRESENTED TO COUNCIL

 CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

  CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Today the citizen's petition with 1493 signatures calling for a Public Meeting in regard to Council's in commitment to gift land to UTas was presented to the city's General Manager.  The Local Govt. Act 1993 requires Council to call a pub;oc meeting if 5% of the electorate, or 1,000 residents on the electoral roll, call for such a meeting.

Council has 42 days to verify the veracity of the petition. The letter accompanying the petition calls upon Launceston City Council to call a public meeting in accord with SECTION 57 of the Local Government Act 1993 for the purpose of: 

1. Discussing Council’s decision to gift land known as Willis Street Car Park and the Old Velodrome site to the University of Tasmania; 
2.  Calling upon Council to rescind the motion passed by the Full Council Meeting 9th November 2015; and to 
3. Discuss the proposal to place this land on the open market via a Public Auction with a Reserve Price of $5milliion. 

 Furthermore, it is requested that:

1. The meeting time be 7 PM 
2.  The meeting be chaired by an independent chairperson; 
3. Council and spokespeople for the petitioners be given adequate time to state their respective cases – 15 minutes; 
4. The meeting accept any motion from the floor for the consideration of Council; 
5.  Council consider the following people as appropriate independent chair people: Hon. Rosemary Armitage MLC; Hon. Don Wing AM; Hon Kerry Finch MLC; and Hon Ivan Dean MLC.

Given that half as many again signatures are required have been provided there should be no inhibitions in calling the meeting promptly. Indeed, there are many reasons to rethink the whole UTas relocation  proposal given the level of community disquiet.

It has been said that the the number petitioners "is only a small number of people who disagree with Council gifting land to UTas" but in the scheme of things it needs to be considered that:

• Only three Aldermen won their seats on council with more votes than there are signature on the petition – Ald. van Zetten, McKkenzie and Finlay;
• Five won their seats with less votes than signatures on the petition;
• With the other four winning their positions with less than 1,000 votes and three with less than half the number of petitioners. 
• See http://www.tec.tas.gov.au/LocalGovernmentElections2014/2014LGResults/LauncestonCity.html
• And only seven aldermen were in attendance to receive the petition.

In any event if the petition makes one point it is that the aldermen, and council by extension, on this issue ate least, are not connected with their constituents and have failed to include their constituents' concerns in their decision making processes.

CLICK HERE SEE EXAMINER STORY

Citizens' Petition To Be Presented To Council March 30

CLICK ABOVE TO ENLARGE

Curiously the Mayor seems to have adopted a position where he is deliberately privileging the "Property Council, the Chamber of Commerce, prominent private developers like Errol Stewart, TasTAFE and many other" (unnamed!) over and above ordinary ratepayers. 

After all these 'stakeholders' might be expected to – or even be expecting to – turn a dollar out the development phase of any large scale development project. Nothing inherently wrong with that except that it is a slanted and self-serving world view.

The Mayor in particular, via his dogged defence of the agreed 'land gift' to UTas, has put ordinary ratepayers' interests to one side. Is the Mayor actually invoking Matthew 12:1-11 were "Spiritual gifts were extraordinary powers bestowed in the first ages, to convince unbelievers, and to spread the [word]"?

If so, ordinary ratepayers, it appears, are being required bear the burden of funding ancillary infrastructure for the benefit of UTas – a non-contributor to the city's recurrent budget albeit that the institution is a significant benefactor in regard to Council services.

Indeed, it can be argued that Council is proactively discriminating against the greater part of the city's ratepayers in failing to consult with them in a meaningful way. It would appear that the risk in doing so, from Council's adopted perspective, would be to receive the kind of unwelcomed feedback embodied in the petition. It is an unavoidable and self-fulfilling prophesy!

Someone, somewhere, has said that the only real mistake is the one from which nothing is learnt. So if as they say, life is a process, not an end, mistakes are an inherent part of 'the process'. Thus mistakes are lost opportunities unless something is achieved via mistakes. Suffice to say unless the lessons learned are put into practice nothing at all can be achieved.

Here it seems that there is a 'Mexican stand off' in play and there a need for something that will break the nexus and perhaps its time to consider Proverbs 28:13: Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.