YIN YANG (with the Shire of York rates on the dark side and the City of Joondalup shining brightly.)- (So do we each pay an extra $981 per annum to live in York?)

Once again the hierarchy of the Shire of York has been asked questions that have answers the community will not be adequately informed of. (see below)

Unfortunately many Rural Local Governments are still sparse with the truth and make a habit out of keeping dark financial secrets that the community should be allowed to share- seeing that ratepayers pick up the tab.

In York’s case definitive answers eventually come from official outside sources and can be uncomplimentary to say the least, but then the truth often hurts.
Here is the verity regarding the variance in domestic property rate-in-the-dollar valuations where readers can do the catastrophic calculations in the comfort of their own home in York

The City of Joondalup Gross Rental Value is charged at 5.3090 cents in the dollar on domestic properties within its Local Government Area.

The Shire of York Gross Rental value is charged at 11.8490 cents in the dollar on domestic properties within its Local Government Area.

That is roughly 2.23 times greater than the City of Joondalup- spelling double the financial trouble for Shire of York ratepayers.

The Median house price in the City of Joondalup is $510.000 with an annual capital growth rate of plus (+) 0.82% meaning a property (worth $510.000) increases in value by $4,182 every 12 months.

The Median house price in the town of York is around $300.000 with an annual capital growth depreciation of minus (-) 5.51%, meaning a property (worth $300.000) devalues by $1,653 every 12 months.

A 1000 m/2 block of domestic land in the City of Joondalup would fetch a guesstimated minimum of $700,000, the same in the York town-site, around $60,000.

The Valuer-General’s Office, within Landgate, revalued GRV property for the Shire of York that came into effect as of July 1, 2016.

Comparing the known valuations of domestic properties in the City of Joondalup- with Median house prices $210,000 greater, annual capital growth rate 6.33% greater, comparable land value nearly 11.8 times higher and rate valuation 2.23 times less than the Shire of York, even a government department could not screw things up that badly.

The Landgate GRV rating is not to blame. It is what the Shire of York calculates is the predicted revenue needed for budget requirements to fund council services-(and to service council debt which it tends not to mention.)

It is not how much your property is actually worth, otherwise you would be paying much less than Perth ratepayers.

As a simplification we calculate the rates payable on two properties, one in the City of Joondalup, one in the Shire of York, with their valuations exactly the same, $15,000 -GRV.

The City of Joondalup’s amount payable at 5.3090 cents in the dollar on $15,000 comes to $796.35.

The Shire of York’s amount payable at a total at 11.8490 in the dollar on $15,000  comes to $1,777.35, a massive differential of $981.00.

Add to this the average property devaluation of $1,653- you are financially negatively geared to the tune of $2,634 per annum.

There is no-way that York ratepayers get an additional $981.00 annual value from services provided by council, and its overall performance, than its suburban cousins in Craigie, Carine, Carlisle, Caversham, Clarkson, Coolbellup, Coolbinia and Currambine, Yanchep, Yangebup and Yokine, to name but a few.

The 6.54 cents in the dollar additional impost paid be York ratepayers, over double paid in most Perth suburbs is because of the Shire of York’s poor financial position of its own making, nothing more, nothing less, for which no-one will ever be held appropriately responsible.

The rates revenue received by the Shire of York make up around 50% of its gross revenue and 50 % of rates revenue goes on the staff salary component, their facilities and the day-to-day running costs of the Shire. So there is no obvious revenue savings, other than a reduction in overall shires costs.

Where any reduction in services supplied by the Shire would come from is anybody’s guess.

So the Shire of York ratepayer will be forced to carry this unconscionable financial burden for the forseeable future, maybe decades- to come.

How can the Shire of York improve its ratepayers fiscally vacant lot-in-life?

To consider tourism ‘Events’ as a panacea may bring little credibility to the entrepreneurial and economic skills evaluation of the Shire of York. If it checked news reports it would find that the WA Tourism Industry is the most poorly performing in Australia and filling empty Perth hotels first- is the number-one priority.

Additional local government loans and grants, and cheap State Treasury loans to purchase derelict buildings, is probably a thing of the past given the state’s poor financial situation.

The Nationals ability to assist rural towns and rural industry has gone at least until the next election, which is about the same time as Paul Martin’s, Paul Crewe’s and Suzie Haslehurst’s employment contracts are up.

The injection of Royalties for Regions funds bringing beautification and flower power to a rural retreat’s main street and paying for empty parking spaces surrounding a near desolate community facility, where the true meaning of ‘community’ is ignored, has gone.

It would appear that the Shire of York’s understanding of community means every individual domestic property ratepayer in the Shire pays an additional annual rate levy of $981.00 for the pleasure of enjoying the ambience of the its Forrest Bar & Café and funding whatever other financial mistakes you can think of.

Maybe former Councillor Tony Boyle, the President of the Shire of York during the catastrophic development of a hardly used Tavern, restaurant and convention centre, is selling Boyles Feedlot Operation for $2.5million to help repay this debt on behalf of the York community?

Any possible Royalties for Regions funding in future will require highly skilled local government administrators touting their very best ideation of high quality, local commercial/industrial opportunities to an extremely tough politician and arbiter in Alannah MacTiernan, the Minister for Regional Development.

The rules have changed and whether the Shire of York can come up with some outstanding concepts to attract government capital investment is another big unanswered question.

The current question -is will these particular questions be answered or have they alreay been answered here?

David Taylor.

Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 12:52 PM
To: David Wallace
Cc: Paul Martin
Subject: FW: FW: YIN

Gentleman,

On evaluating and comparing two official Rate Invoices for the 2017-2018 Financial Year there is a huge negative financial discrepancy between York’s domestic rates and those in Perth suburbs.

Have you got a satisfactory answer that you can communicate to the ratepayers of York in the foreseeable future? Probably not to highly unlikely!
I have also contacted Jenni Law from the DLGC politely requesting that she keeps a close eye on the “York Bitching” Facebook page and any links to the Shire of York, hopefully keeping her gainfully employed and away from the Labor Government’s public servant chopping block.

Regards
David Taylor.

YIN YANG (when the same is opposite-in a rate-rating exercise)

It is that time of the year when you receive your Local Government Council Rate Notice/ Tax Invoice for the Financial Year July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018.

Here is a cautionary tale of two invoices for two properties in two separate locations. The financial calculations are based on the contents of these invoices and are undisputable. In layman’s terms the massive discrepancy can best be illustrated by the following- one man has a car valued at $30,000 and his annual insurance premium is $1,150. Another has a car valued at $60,000 but pays just $1,000 for insurance. It is as simple as that, easy to explain, hard to understand other than it sucks.

YIN-One domestic property is located in a quiet cul-de-sac in a medium density, medium income suburb 20k’s from the centre of Perth.

In size- the suburb is similar to the York town-site and has close to every social amenity under the sun.

Its facilities range from aromatherapy shops to restaurants, cafes, shopping centres, fast food outlets, all health care facilities, playgrounds, sporting fields and open space areas, to crèches for youngsters and lots of outdoor summer yoga. Walking is also a favourite pastime of choice.

For all residents- two railway stations are within easy walking distance, buses abound, so do taxis and Uber and a freeway is just next door.

Records show there is little violence, theft or noisy neighbours.

The suburb came into existence thirty-years ago, but already there are regular sightings of ‘mummy bumps’, a new generation of occupied prams and strollers parading up and down the urban streets and kindergarten enrolments are booked 12-months in advance.

The property itself is a semi-detached duplex on a 570 m/s2 block. It is not glamorous, but comfortable with three bedrooms, one bathroom and two toilets with all modern conveniences.

Because of the block size it features the latest design, one bedroom, one bathroom ‘Granny Flat’ with an ultra-modern kitchen.

Even in WA’s depressed housing market it is valued from $620,000 to $650,000, and would take about six-weeks to sell in this suburb- in this price range.

YIN’S total rate invoice is over $330 per annum less than the other property and you can win up to $60,000 in prizes, including a 4WD if you pay in full by a designated date. Living in Yin is convenient.

YANG-The other domestic property is located at the junction of two suburban roads in a medium to low density, lower household income town- 97 k’s from Perth.

The number of social amenities and commercial and public facilities could be considered adequate-but limited.

There is no internal public transport.

Statistics show that drug possession and threatening behaviour is above the WA average, but in the main there is little noise pollution other than, allegedly, from specific commercial premises.

The town is 156-years older than the suburb, its population on average is 15-years older and population growth could best be considered as limited by comparison.

The property is located on a 1900 m/s2 block and offers the charm of yesteryear.

It has three bedrooms, a sleep-out, two bathrooms, one with a spa-bath, three showers, three toilets, a media/TV room, an office, polished floorboards, high ceilings, reverse cycle air-conditioning and a new kitchen with dinette, a formal dining room and formal lounge. (This is not a sales pitch!)

At best its market value would be $320,000 to $350,000 and would take many months to sell at this price range even at around half the Perth suburb’s property valuation.

Living here, in YANG, is very much a lovely ambience/quiet, sedentary lifestyle by choice.

The argument is the exorbitant inequity in rates levied by YANG compared to YIN.

Unless the Shire of York is totally stupid it is aware that its rates sit at nearly 15% higher than on domestic properties in a medium density, medium income Perth suburb. It cannot dispute this figure.

It should also be very much aware that rates in the Perth suburb are 2% or less of household income whereas in York rates sit at 5% plus of the same. It cannot dispute this figure either.

Nor can it refute the fact that there is an enormous gap between house prices in York, compared to Perth, which was not there a decade ago.

And of course the current annual cost of staff, as a ratio to any overt improvement in the quality of so called ‘community and lifestyle’ is not an abstraction (ideas rather than events) because the community is provided with neither good ideas- or good events- by the Shire.

The ratio between wage costs compared to rate returns, compared to positive commercial end- results does not compute.

Given any form of calculation this York rates impost is unfair, unjust and unsustainable. Despite all of this over-rating -if the Shire of York fails to receive more than 70% of rates in any given year, which is happening now, it could be broke by the end of this decade. Its only choices will be large future rate hikes- or to sell what assets it can.

The main problem was, and is, the York Recreation and Convention Centre. This includes its poor concept and design, initial cost and running costs that were never properly calculated by a whole-of-life estimate of total outlay- including cost of community investment to financial return.

Added to this debacle was the continuous syphoning of funds from other necessary projects to this failing facility- which now require a massive, continuous funding input (such as local road maintenance.)

The whole project reeks of near criminal neglect in any form of duty-of-care, both then and now, and is a rate-payer rip-off of the first magnitude.

There is cold comfort in how the current Council is now handling this out-of-control situation.

Despite coming up with three business plans, with two of them that will not work, it still has to rely on expensive expertise to basically make a decision that Council should already have the ability to make. (The problem came to light in 2013-2014.)

That is if this administration has anywhere near the required business acumen and planning ability it is supposed to have.

Unfortunately the plan most likely to work, to some degree, has the former Shire President, Pat Hooper, front and centre, hovering around a still rate-payer funded, benevolently malevolent ‘cookie jar’ he helped  create.

It also appears that any future decision this Shire makes will come at the extra cost to the ratepayer for outside expert evaluation along with extreme, expensive delays in the decision-making process even if, in this case, the YRCC is to be shut down.

Facts are facts. It costs local ratepayers 15% more, per annum, to live on their property in York than it would in many middle and outer suburbs of Perth.

They have to pay these rates from only half the household income of one particular Perth suburb which is averaged at $89,000 per-annum.

The Shire of York’s community communications system is still based on telling you what it wants you to know, not what you should know.

The Shire also has a heavy reliance on outside help. Over the years the various attempts at providing a successful business model for the YRCC, that remains unknown, and all associated losses has cost York ratepayers a sum that will never be revealed by the Shire.
 

An educated guess would be anywhere between $3 and $10 million.

So what does the Chinese YIN YANG philosophy mean? Basically, that black and white can be interrelated and complimentary.

In this scenario it is not so.

A Shire of York made a decision to build a massive monument to its own ego through malfeasance that placed the town in a parlous financial position.

This Shire of York has shown itself to be incapable of making its own decision on how to deal with a situation it is paid to deal with. So from now on, each year, York ratepayers will have to cough up around $300 more than much of WA’s domestic ratepayer community with no added value to reasonable community expectations.

Until all this changes rapidly- York will go nowhere fast!

David Taylor.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

PLACENAME SHAMING

It would be remiss not to advise that Shire President, David Wallace, responded with alacrity, like Paul Martin, to the letter to them regarding ‘United Nations Organization Placenames/ York Bitching-Facebook Page.

Councillor Wallace first response was:

Hi David

I have spoken to Cr Smyth and Cr Randell  regarding this issue. Also at the next Councillor Forum this subject will be discussed so all Councillors are fully aware.

Regards 

David Wallace 

It was followed by From: David Wallace Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 4:51 PM To: davidgrant@westnet.com.au Subject: Re: United Nations Organization 'Placenames'

Hi David

Just checking I sent you an email this morning. It is not in my sent box and has disappeared.

Regards 

David Wallace 

All three responses, the one from Mr. Martin and two from Councillor Wallace were both appreciated and eventually responded to.

Mr. Martin’s reply still begs the question why two senior, long serving executives within the WA Local Government Sector would contemplate joining a closed Facebook page club titled ‘York Bitching’ without expecting to be approached by the Department of Local Government & Communities asking ‘what in hell do you think you are doing’?  Also- ‘are you aware that your actions could bring the Shire of York Council into disrepute’?

Even more unsettling is that, at such senior management level, it should be expected that they are aware of all potential ramifications to their actions relating to community expectations, including that it could be considered that local, state and federal government and governance has an international ‘big brother’- the United Nations Organization- no matter how tenuous and ethereal some think this link is.
(UN Resolutions certainly have enough power when one country wants to dump some serious-shit on another.)

The UN’s adjudication is that a ‘Placename’ should be considered sacrosanct in that it represents a community, its history, its culture and its values and this significance should be respected.

So York deserves better than having its Placename linked to the gender epithet ‘Bitching’

If these two officials had thought that this Facebook offering would give them an in-depth insight into York’s psyche and how the shire should respond in a communications sense, why did they not get a proxy to join the club page and inform them of its content after telling the administrator to remove York from the name?

It is highly unlikely that Shire President Wallace was aware that the two most senior shire executives and, his Deputy President and another councillor were members of ‘York Bitching’ until told several days ago.

It is hoped that Councillor Wallace did not even know the page existed.

His rapid responses are probably testimony to him not knowing and suggests that he considers what has occurred as both stupid and disgraceful.

It is certainly hard to understand why two elected Councillors of long standing in the community would link themselves to ‘York Bitching’?.

This is the biggest question of all.

(According to the UNITED NATIONS a lot- decreeing that ‘PLACENAMES’ such as York are of extreme importance to their community. Will the Shire of York recognise this?)

Date July 17, 2017.
Mr. Paul Martin
CEO
Shire of York
1 Joaquina Street
YORK WA 6302

Dear Sir

Your Reference        ‘YORK BITCHING’ FACEBOOK PAGE

Please correct me if I am wrong but the name, York, has a long and proud history. It is the name of WA’s first inland town, established 186 years ago, and is listed as a place of extreme national, historic importance.

It was, and still is, of inestimable value to the development of this state with its agricultural produce keeping the Swan River Colony alive and thriving throughout its formative years and beyond.

Its pioneering families date back close to ten generations, six years before Davy Crockett and the Battle of the Alamo, seven years before Queen Victoria commenced her reign and just ten years after Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1821.

Therefore the ‘placename’, York, should be considered to be a priceless, irreplaceable, iconic brand name that sets it apart from other WA towns and is its symbolic trademark and badge of honour. It is a name of a town that you are paid to protect, advance and promote as if it were your own.

The United Nations Organization considers ‘placenames’ to be of major social importance. They represent irreplaceable cultural identity and values and are of vital significance to their community’s wellbeing and the feeling of belonging, of being ‘at home’. This recognition is on both cognitive and emotive levels.

Given this, there should be both ethical and legal impediments to the desecration of an iconic placename through a facebook page directly linking the placename to ‘Bitching’- an adjective that is universally considered to be a deliberately offensive, insulting, gender intolerant and a sexist slur.

It is a pity that you and Paul Crewe did not take this into consideration before joining ‘York Bitching’. I know you have since removed yourself from its membership and am hoping that you have requested that Mr. Crewe does the same.

Councillors’ Denese Smythe and Trevor Randell have been spoken to by Shire President, David Wallace, regarding their membership and it will be a subject on the agenda of a Councillor Forum to be held in the foreseeable future.

Prior to this, as Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of York, I call on you to approach the Administrator of the Closed Group Facebook Club, ‘York Bitching’, in writing, demanding that they remove the placename York and replace it with something less specific.

Such as Local, Social, Neighbourhood, even ’A place of Community and Lifestyle’ Bitching. Then its membership can proceed to do as much bitching as it pleases.

This has nothing to do with interfering with, or preventing, freedom of speech but is to show due and proper respect to the placename York.

The Social-Media site, SHIRE OF YORK- The Official Unofficial Site has never denigrated the placename York, either in its title or in any other way. It has raised the issue of a range of administrative inadequacies within Rural Local Government Areas over the last decade and its potential negative impact on a town’s socio-economic progress, in particular its effect on York. It makes no apology for that.

Should the request to remove the offending word be rejected- then the Shire of York advises the Administrator of its intention to seek legal advice to have York’s name removed from this Facebook page as being defamatory- quoting the United Nations Organizations dictum on the social relevance of placenames. 

Yours sincerely

David Taylor   

From: Paul Martin
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:47 AM
To: david
Cc: David Wallace
Subject: RE: United Nations Organization 'Placenames'

Good morning,

Thanks for the email David.  I have spoken to the Shire President about your correspondence this morning and we will discuss it at the concept forum with Councillors you have referred to below.

Regards,

Paul

Paul Martin

Chief Executive Officer

IS ‘BITCHING’ GOOD FOR YOU? (Maybe not!)

The dictionary definition for bitching includes spiteful, critical and maligning with the next step being from the legal lexicon including words such as libel, defamation, vilification, denigration, insult and slander.

Around 300 (apparently) concerned citizens have set up a Facebook page called ‘York Bitching’. It is what is called a closed group site where an administrator must approve your membership prior to you being able to access its content or post comments.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is more than happy with closed group, on-line discussions between like-minded participants although it would not appreciate it being in breach of any Federal, State or Criminal and Common Law.

Also, many do not appreciate human rights legislation being used to disseminate embarrassingly tasteless reports and comments relating to local neighbourhood infighting, and on any other type of on-line site slur for that matter.

Or, in this case, being subject to negative ramifications regarding the WA Local Government Act, 1995, and its interpretation.

Those employed and paid to serve a Local Government area Council are obliged to do so in the best interest of its community and defend its reputation. Those elected to serve the community must do the same.

In York’s case, four from the Shire of York itself chose to link themselves and their private Facebook pages to, ‘York Bitching’. In itself it is a name which could be considered, at best, to be disparaging to a community image as a whole.

One reason given by one of the four was to be more aware and have more understanding of communications within the community.

This is a holistic statement that appeared not to satisfy Ms. Jenni Law from the department, within the DLGC, charged with administering required standards of propriety which should be observed by local government councils.

Therefore one person concerned is known to have removed any links to York Bitching and should be commended for doing so.

It is up to Shire President, David Wallace, to ensure all Councillors are aware of what has occurred and the reasons this person has decided to sever all personal links to this Facebook page.

Also- why no Councillor should be a member of such a closed group, as ethics such as transparency, openness and accountability do not equate to this type of Facebook Page.

Regarding Common Law, those remaining as listed participants in ‘York Bitching’ must have extreme faith in their administrator’s legal ability and moral and ethical community compass.
There is supposedly a fine line between pleasure and pain and the same between Bitching and Libel.
And nothing is more breathtakingly disturbing as receiving the following; -

                                                               WALRUS & WOMBAT
                                                                           Solicitors

 Your reference: -           SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

                                                         INTENTION TO SUE FOR LIBEL.

The Administrator, ‘York Bitching’, Facebook Group.

We advise you that (name) (hereafter Client) has demanded that a Supreme Court Injunction be taken out against you and ‘York Bitching’ Closed Facebook Group regarding articles and comments on this site that have maliciously impugned the personal reputation of our Client

You are hereby required to remove all offending material involving our Client from this site, and any associated sites, effective immediately.

Upon our request on behalf of our Client you are obliged to deliver up to us all material things pertaining to this case, including but not necessarily limited to all defamatory articles and comments published and distributed involving our Client and the names of all those who have received or have access to such.

Failure to accede to these demands in full will initially see all legal actions deemed necessary taken against you by appropriate authorities prior to the proposed libel action being taken by our Client.

Yours sincerely.

Walter Walrus.

The Administrator will be considered initially responsible with the authors of legally considered derogatory articles and comments following closely behind.

Technically- anyone listed as a member of the site could be considered a material witness in any court case.

Of course the perception that a Closed Group Facebook site is closed to all but members is wrong. Any duly authorised agency can enter the site to review its content and take any action it deems necessary.

Unfortunately, what is in a name can be perceived to be what is on a site- which is rather sad because there is an inalienable right to have a closed group Facebook site and York does need one.

David Taylor.

MISSEDCOMMUNICATIONS (when ‘Principles’ are not put into practice)

As previously stated it is pleasing to see that the Shire of York has identified website presentation as its preferred platform for access to its ‘information that is essential for having an informed community which has trust  in its (local government) democratic process and its decision making’. They are the Shires’ own words.

These Shire of York PRINCIPLES are set out in G 2.2 regarding ‘Community Access to Information’ that basically means trusting the Shire with what remains of your rate-raped credit card, property value and lifestyle.

Community consultation is claimed to be a priority.-with proper (website driven) interactive communications an issue to be addressed sometime in the future, if it is considered, by the Shire to be affordable.

An 80% approval rating for the information content of the monthly publication called ‘Voice of York’ Community Update is encouraging, although such acceptance still depends upon what is written and published and when, where, how and by whom the survey was taken.

As this positive York& Districts Community Matters printed commercial vehicle for the Shire to promote itself and provide information, allegedly, costs ratepayers in access of $1,000 per month- there should also be answers to important questions raised by the community published on this page.

The cost of printing Shire information under a commercial contract should be subjected to an evaluation of how many Shire of York residents do not have access to its website. This newspaper is delivered to Northam, Beverley, Quairading and Cunderdin whose readers would have no material interest in Shire of York information.

Otherwise, given the current economic climate, the Shire of York uses the $12,000 per annum to meet its obligations to the community as promised in Principles G.22 Community access to Information- on its Website.

Questions have already been raised about the future of the YRCC sporting complex, the Forrest Bar & Café,  the SLG Consulting Group Report and future Liquor Licences.

Here is another one.

The apparently unprincipled Lord Mayor of Perth, Lisa Scaffidi, has raised the issue of Local Government rate-exempt property that include churches, schools, charities and not-for-profit organizations that she believes, in some cases, should not be exempt.

Her focus appears to be on property owned by not-for-profit organizations and is caused by the current perilous state of the WA economy that will have a negative impact on Local Government coffers.

Ms. Scaffidi has a point with some properties having only tenuous claims  for exemption, while others may have none at all.

Therefore the questions are;-

a)  how much undeveloped and developed property in the Shire of York is exempt from paying Shire Council Rates- and why?

b) which properties are exempt through shire approval that normally would not be eligible for exemption? (for example the racecourse that has, in the past, had $150,000 in rates waived)

c) how much rate revenue return do these exemptions cost ratepayers and the community based on current Shire of York land, property and business rates evaluations in the 2017-2018 Financial Year.

d) would there be a future reduction in rate valuation assessment for York property owners and businesses if all outstanding rates due and payable were payed, including any Shire of York approved exemptions.

David Taylor.