Well, well, well; Tamworth Regional Councillors off on yet another fishing trip to tell us, the ratepayers, what we “need” – sorry, that word should be “want”. Can’t get our needs and wants mixed up!
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It would be an interesting exercise for TRC to consider the potential and feasibility of moving all those TRC residents of the towns and villages of the region out with a radius of, let’s say, 20 to 25 kms of Tamworth CBD, to inside the limits of the Tamworth City boundary.
Just think of the all-round benefits of having the entire population of Tamworth Regional Council ratepayers living within “easy” commuting distance – 20 to 25Ks – of the existing, not to mention the proposed new facilities (sporting, theatre, aqua sports, etc) currently on the TRC’s Christmas wish list/agenda! It would make it much more convenient for the residents to participate in and partake of the offerings provided there. Little to no maintenance would be required for the currently existing facilities – halls, sports grounds, swimming pools, libraries, roads, etc, etc – in each of the outlying towns and villages which could then be allowed to deteriorate and eventually be demolished as unsafe and uneconomic propositions to retain. Rather similar to what is happening currently to the buildings/offices that once contained local businesses and now stand empty.
The above scenario relating to the resettling of TRC residents into an expanded Tamworth City boundary – where all the activities and action will be - is just not going to happen is it?
The only thing that is most likely to occur and can all but be guaranteed is the continuing slow short-fall in maintaining the existing infrastructures in the outlying towns and villages. As it has to date, even within the “City”, adequate maintenance levels have been shown to be less than desirable; why are we told that existing facilities (pools) are in need of major overhaul and it will be more cost-effective to close them and build new facilities in out of the way locations?
On top of that we, the “business” ratepayers are in the process of being told, by TRC, that they need to “up” the business rates with the intention of using such “extra” funding to advertise the attributes of Tamworth and thereby, hopefully, enticing more people to come to Tamworth to participate in the existing and additional future facilities and thereby the increased activities that will be available. Of course, we are informed, that the resulting incremental “extra” income will benefit ALL the TRC ratepayers not just the businesses subject to an idea to fund such.
Not only is this an impractical proposition, it is inequitable to imply that every business will receive and benefit from any such perceived increase in tourism/sporting participants and their supporters.
Read Also:
If a business requires extra funding, with the intention of expanding their business or even just to purchase equipment (be that a large or small business) they have to provide detailed financial justification including forward budget forecast/s to whomsoever they intend obtaining the financial assistance package. This budget forecasting must also be made available to the business’ shareholders. The shareholders with vested interests in TRC are the ratepayers. Being a TRC ratepayer myself, both in a residence and via my business, I have yet to see a detailed budget of any sort to even begin to justify this current TRC exercise.
If there is a need for additional facilities in Tamworth and, if as we are led to believe, they will provide a lucrative return on investment why are we not hearing from the private sector investors or are they waiting on the sidelines for a potentially forthcoming TRC ratepayers subsidy?
May I suggest TRC needs to get their basic function remit, as befits the definition of a Local Government’s role, in order before becoming further involved in what is essentially private enterprise business. In fact, a very necessary starting point would be to instigate a fully independent audit on TRC’s existing facilities/enterprises/functions and those such as the latter being proposed.
Equally and just as imperative and one that should have been conducted prior to this time would be to conduct an audit – “in toto” – into the effect/s amalgamation has had on those previous Local Government Councils that were evolved into TRC.
Only and until after completion of both audits should we the ratepayer/shareholders of TRC be asked by our Council representatives in which direction we need to be heading.
It can be argued that too much has been done already without due consultation and transparency; therefore we require some answers prior to ascertaining what is deemed, by them, to be “critical needs or just wants” instigated by few looking for Christmas stocking fillers.
A. Allan,
Manilla