Sent: Thursday, 9 June 2011 12:41 PM
To: Alderman Soward
Thank you for your initial reply. We look forward to receiving your considered reply soon.
When you say a 20% limit is effective, for whom is it such? Certainly not for the ratepayer upon whom you are imposing a 20% increase in rates for no additional service.
For every ratepayer that will pay in excess of 4% increase in rates, there is a ratepayer who pays less than 4%, no more than previously paid, and even less than previously paid. How is that effective?
If you mean it is more effective for Council, then yes, Council will hope that at 20% , it will receive a politically acceptable level of complaint and criticism. Those ratepayers will still be paying 16% more than any other ratepayer.
We are pleased to learn that you are spending time consulting with the community. We are, however, disappointed that you, particularly as a former President, have not found a single time to attend a Ratepayers Association meeting since the day you were elected. We appreciate that busy aldermen do find it difficult to find the time to do everything, but to not find a single evening after all these months, is disappointing.
We fully appreciate that the public are only going to be given the Statutory Budget figures, however that is certainly a step in the right direction for a change, and doesn’t prevent YOU from providing the detail. You have the detail, in fact a completely detailed budget, and there is nothing to prevent you from presenting whatever extra detail is necessary.
Please don’t criticise ratepayers, even pensioner ratepayers for not understanding the budget due to a lack of detail that you provide to them. Ratepayers are sometimes even more capable and qualified than Aldermen to understand the numbers in fact, and when I look around the Council Table, there are still a number of Aldermen who do not have the qualifications to sit on what is really the Board of the LARGEST BUSINESS IN LAUNCESTON.
Yes we also look forward to a large room full of ratepayers eager with questions, satisfied by detailed information you will provide, and able and willing to make constructive and practical suggestions on how Launceston’s budget may be restrained. This year you are taking ratepayers on a rollercoaster ride into deficit. Is that, under the present economic hardship, responsible ?
Regards, Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
When you say a 20% limit is effective, for whom is it such? Certainly not for the ratepayer upon whom you are imposing a 20% increase in rates for no additional service.
For every ratepayer that will pay in excess of 4% increase in rates, there is a ratepayer who pays less than 4%, no more than previously paid, and even less than previously paid. How is that effective?
If you mean it is more effective for Council, then yes, Council will hope that at 20% , it will receive a politically acceptable level of complaint and criticism. Those ratepayers will still be paying 16% more than any other ratepayer.
We are pleased to learn that you are spending time consulting with the community. We are, however, disappointed that you, particularly as a former President, have not found a single time to attend a Ratepayers Association meeting since the day you were elected. We appreciate that busy aldermen do find it difficult to find the time to do everything, but to not find a single evening after all these months, is disappointing.
We fully appreciate that the public are only going to be given the Statutory Budget figures, however that is certainly a step in the right direction for a change, and doesn’t prevent YOU from providing the detail. You have the detail, in fact a completely detailed budget, and there is nothing to prevent you from presenting whatever extra detail is necessary.
Please don’t criticise ratepayers, even pensioner ratepayers for not understanding the budget due to a lack of detail that you provide to them. Ratepayers are sometimes even more capable and qualified than Aldermen to understand the numbers in fact, and when I look around the Council Table, there are still a number of Aldermen who do not have the qualifications to sit on what is really the Board of the LARGEST BUSINESS IN LAUNCESTON.
Yes we also look forward to a large room full of ratepayers eager with questions, satisfied by detailed information you will provide, and able and willing to make constructive and practical suggestions on how Launceston’s budget may be restrained. This year you are taking ratepayers on a rollercoaster ride into deficit. Is that, under the present economic hardship, responsible ?
Regards, Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
_________________________
From: Aldman Soward Sent: Thursday, 9 June 2011 11:07 AM
To: TAS RATEPAYERS
thanks for your prompt reply.. I will give you a more detailed answer a little later as I'm about to head out to an appointment.
Just wanted to clear up a couple of points.. 20 percent was selected as it appeared on the modelling provided to be the most effective- that is my view and others are free to disagree.
The other point I would like to clarify was my opposition to the public budget process- my entire remarks as recorded on our website at the council meeting would reveal why I voted the way I did and Alison who you ccd in on this email can verify what I said- in essence I said that I totally support public consultation and that it happens each and every day- I speak with loads of people who suggest things we can do as a council, programs that need support or trimming or making more efficient, parks that need developing, different things that need council support etc.
The reason I opposed it was NOT on the basis of secrecy or anything sinister but the simple premise that I believe a budget needs to be seen in its entirety- it is pointless to hold a meeting where people come along and say " We should increase the parks budget by $500,000 a year so our city is neater and tidier and our parks are better' or " We should have a nil rate increase" or " we shouldn't put any funding into Aurora Stadium " [ all things people have by the way brought to me as ideas and passed on] . These suggestions are made and submissions can be made BUT [and this is the but] the same people do not indicate how things would be funded or what services they would cut to make their submission happen. At the council meeting I spoke of my time as a director of MyState Financial where at our community consultation/ AGM people would come along and say they wanted higher deposit rates for their money and lower home loans- a position I'm sure you can see would make the institution go bankrupt in a day if we were offering 7 percent deposit rates and 4 percent home loans at that time.
When I spoke at the meeting on Monday and seconded the motion it was not done to be populist and in my remarks once again I recorded as Alison could attest I said I had reservations and that budgets had to be seen in their entirety- I have had pensioners for instance contact me last year about how many free entry's they got into the tip and wanted more- a fair point for many with gardens etc- I asked them how we would fund it and they either didn't know or suggested we take money out of the tiger bus or we dint have footy in Launceston- their view and opinion- fair enough- but not really showing an understanding of a whole budget approach.
I also said on Monday that I hope we fill large rooms with both sessions where people come along- my concern is that given we have a process that's ongoing where people contact their aldermen about certain programs or roadworks or projects of merit that need to be funded or trimmed that we wont get large numbers of people engaged at these sessions.I also hope that people who do attend and make creative suggestions understand and suggest ways they can be funded- as I said its easy to come to a meeting and suggest an idea like I outlined above but not be able to fund it or indicate how it would work..which is as I'm sure you would agree pointless- It is my view that consultation takes place each and every day and I regularly take ideas to council for support.
Just wanted to clear up a couple of points.. 20 percent was selected as it appeared on the modelling provided to be the most effective- that is my view and others are free to disagree.
The other point I would like to clarify was my opposition to the public budget process- my entire remarks as recorded on our website at the council meeting would reveal why I voted the way I did and Alison who you ccd in on this email can verify what I said- in essence I said that I totally support public consultation and that it happens each and every day- I speak with loads of people who suggest things we can do as a council, programs that need support or trimming or making more efficient, parks that need developing, different things that need council support etc.
The reason I opposed it was NOT on the basis of secrecy or anything sinister but the simple premise that I believe a budget needs to be seen in its entirety- it is pointless to hold a meeting where people come along and say " We should increase the parks budget by $500,000 a year so our city is neater and tidier and our parks are better' or " We should have a nil rate increase" or " we shouldn't put any funding into Aurora Stadium " [ all things people have by the way brought to me as ideas and passed on] . These suggestions are made and submissions can be made BUT [and this is the but] the same people do not indicate how things would be funded or what services they would cut to make their submission happen. At the council meeting I spoke of my time as a director of MyState Financial where at our community consultation/ AGM people would come along and say they wanted higher deposit rates for their money and lower home loans- a position I'm sure you can see would make the institution go bankrupt in a day if we were offering 7 percent deposit rates and 4 percent home loans at that time.
When I spoke at the meeting on Monday and seconded the motion it was not done to be populist and in my remarks once again I recorded as Alison could attest I said I had reservations and that budgets had to be seen in their entirety- I have had pensioners for instance contact me last year about how many free entry's they got into the tip and wanted more- a fair point for many with gardens etc- I asked them how we would fund it and they either didn't know or suggested we take money out of the tiger bus or we dint have footy in Launceston- their view and opinion- fair enough- but not really showing an understanding of a whole budget approach.
I also said on Monday that I hope we fill large rooms with both sessions where people come along- my concern is that given we have a process that's ongoing where people contact their aldermen about certain programs or roadworks or projects of merit that need to be funded or trimmed that we wont get large numbers of people engaged at these sessions.I also hope that people who do attend and make creative suggestions understand and suggest ways they can be funded- as I said its easy to come to a meeting and suggest an idea like I outlined above but not be able to fund it or indicate how it would work..which is as I'm sure you would agree pointless- It is my view that consultation takes place each and every day and I regularly take ideas to council for support.
kind regards
Alderman Rob Soward
Launceston City Council
www.robsoward.com.au
"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties"
To: Alderman Soward
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:25:56 +1000
Sent: Thursday, 9 June 2011 9:49 AM
To: TAS RATEPAYERS
"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties"
Sent: Thursday, 9 June 2011 12:41 PM
To: Mayor & Alderman
Cc: GM
Mayor and Aldermen,
Launceston City Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment