Start printing money 31.8.2011

by

We’re apparently spending almost $2500 a day on Laman Street and it would appear that this is in order to save the reputations of experts and administrators.

Where did this figure come from? On 19.7.2011 Cr Scott Sharpe helpfully wrote an article in the Herald telling us that the spend to that time was $648 000. About one-third of that total was staff time.

Yesterday the total spend was ‘over’ $750 000.

Sounds rubbery to me.

Remember: only $70 000 was spent by elected Councillors; the rest was by administration, underdelegated authority. Wikipedia on delegated authority says this is ‘an authority obtained from another that has authority since the authority does not naturally exist.

‘Typically this is used in a government context where an organization that is created by a legitimate government, such as a Board, City, Town or other Public Corporations to allow them to legally function in the name of the constitutional government.’

And also remember: these trees are to be cut to stumps and will potentially sit there for a year. Home

 

 

Advertisements

One Response to “Start printing money 31.8.2011”

  1. ArchitectGJA (Ed) Says:

    Here is a portion of a longer email I sent to the Council which relates to costs and impressions of what is happening (I did especially thank the Lord Mayor and the Councillors who support the trees, not included below):

    “…We are told that the Laman figs are unsafe and must be removed as determined by reports in your possession and thus the figs are not insurable. Yet in reading these reports and following the history of how each successive report relies on preceding documents, the misinformation is carried forward and a vast body of information is presented.

    But this vast body has flaws at its base, as did the claim that the trees are uninsurable. Even some of the conclusions announced of late cannot be found in the quoted report.

    Some examples of obvious flaws:

    • The wind study did not recommend tree removal as claimed, it offered easy and inexpensive mitigations.
    • The SULE (safe useful life expectancy) of the Laman Street figs, by the same report writer, was initially estimated at many years then amended to zero with the introduction of a redevelopment plan.
    • It was reported that the trees were uninsurable, yet the insurance company offered funds to test them, as did private enterprise, and additionally Statewide Mutual offered to continue insurance if Council provided one, one, countering report that stated the trees are viable.

    You already have those countering reports in your possession, why were they not provided to Statewide Mutual to continue insurance? Why was the insurance matter released to the public as an absolute with no options? Why was the cost of fencing off the trees, the visual ugliness, the threat of closing the Library and Cultural Center and the alleged loss of insurance and accompanying liability blamed on the citizens attempting to save the trees when it was well within your power to continue insurance? Can there be an answer to any of these questions that would differ from the obvious conclusion? …”

    As of this writing, I have not received any response from Council.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: