Ms Cheryl Thomas
Delegate
NSW Council Boundary Review
GPO Box 5341
Sydney NSW 2001
SUBMISSION ON LEICHHARDT MUNICIPAL, MARRICKVILLE AND ASHFIELD COUNCILS MERGER PROPOSAL
I write to express my strong objection to the forced amalgamation of the three Inner West councils. I have addressed some of the key criteria below.
Financial advantages or disadvantages of the proposal to the residents and ratepayers:
Financial modelling commissioned by Leichhardt Council shows that a separate Leichhardt will perform better financially than a mega-council of Leichhardt, Ashfield and Marrickville.
Communities of interest and geographic cohesion in the existing areas and in any proposed new area:
Leichhardt Municipality is a clearly delineated and cohesive geographic area. Parramatta Road forms a long southern border with Marrickville. Likewise Hawthorne Canal forms the western border with Ashfield; and Johnson’s Creek the eastern border with the City of Sydney. The foreshore of Iron Cove, Sydney Harbour and Rozelle Bay forms the continuous northern border.
Existing historical and traditional values in the existing areas and the impact of change on them:
Leichhardt Council, as presently constituted, has been in existence for 67 years. The Council has ways of making decisions and campaigning for community objectives that involve residents. There has been the long experiment with its unique ‘Open Council’ - in which the individual citizen can make their views directly known to decision-makers - is supported as a key part of the political and cultural landscape.
Attitudes of the residents and ratepayers of the areas concerned:
I am strongly in favour of the retention of Leichhardt Council and oppose the proposal to force amalgamations.
Any effects the merge might have on elected representation:
The impact of amalgamation on local representation will be significant. At present each Leichhardt councillor represents less than 5,000 people. If the amalgamation proceeds each councillor in the new mega-council will represent more than 15,000 people. That will mean less access for residents and less advocacy from councillors. I fear this will lead to a new council waving through new overdevelopments.
Any impacts the merger proposal could have on the ability of the council to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities:
An extract from a KPMG study published in December estimated that 96% of financial savings of merging Sydney’s Councils would come from reducing Council workforces. That means reduced services.
[please add further comments below to personalise your submission]
Submission to Council Boundary Review - Leichhardt, Marrickville & Ashfield: make a submission by 28 Feb
159 SUBMISSIONS
GOAL: 150 submissions
Like this to spread the word:
Showing 104 reactions
Plus, you know, the people who it actually affects don’t want it.
I suspect that cost cutting will just lead to reduced services followed by rate increases to return the service level to where it is now!
Tim Rainey
To: Council Boundary Review
GPO Box 5341
Sydney NSW 2001
25 Feb 2016
Re: Forced amalagamation of Sydney councils
To whom it may concern
I am writing to you because of my concern over the proposed amalgamation of a number of councils including Marrickville where I live.
A number of points are of concern:
1) an October 2013 ILGRP – NSW Independent Local Government Review Panel report noted:
(d) THAT based on the Morrison Low Report, an amalgamation of the above six Councils (Marrickville, Leichhardt etc) will result in residential ratepayers in the City of Canada Bay incurring a 12% increase in rates based on an ad valorem approach or a 10% increase in rates based on a base rate approach.
(e) THAT based on the Morrison Low Report, an amalgamation of the above six Councils will result in non-residential ratepayers (e.g. businesses) in the City of Canada Bay incurring a 75% increase in rates based on an ad valorem approach or a 78% increase in rates based on a base rate approach.
Also:
2) that local councils know better the needs of local residents and are best placed to tailor the services to meet the needs of diverse multicultural communities and residents
3) that removing local councils is a step backwards for the democatic process in our communities
4) that the said council mergers, in general, have the potential to adversely affect the community and residents.
I would like you to strongly rethink the mass-councils amalgamation approach, and instead look to strengthening the current council structures and systems.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.
Yours sincerely
Tim Rainey
Please just leave us alone!
Christina Smith
As residents we have fought hard and long to preserve and restore its early Maritime History and enhance its cohesive neighbourhood spirit.
Without the enormous support of our Open Council and easy access to our devoted, elected representatives we could not have saved our significant early colonial heritage from demolition, to make it an attractive, liveable, and unique part of our Harbour City that we all enjoy today.
I DO NOT WANT TO AMALGAMATE
with Marrickville and Ashfield.
Access to our council representatives would be severely limited (or near impossible)
The development of the Bays Precinct will lift the population of this area significantly. I am angry and shocked that our voices could be so severely diluted in this exciting new development.
Our Council is financially viable.
Our Council already outsources much of its maintenance in conjunction with other councils.
The KPMG report has been disputed by professionals for accuracy on its statistics.
The Leichhardt Council has always listened to its constituents and given support when appropriate.
That is what I call DEMOCRACY.
Please let us continue to STAND ALONE!
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Horrobin
Those councils that passed the test are to be forced to amalgamate regardless. This displays the contempt for procedure and ratepayers that the dishonest NSW government is building a reputation for.
As 96% of the alleged savings from amalgamation simply come from the pointless sacking of service providers, it is misleading to count these “savings” as beneficial in any sense. Sacked workers will become a cost to the Federal government, and someone will have to pay, probably more, to restore the services to their former users. This demonstrates that it is the NSW government that is not “fit for the future”, or indeed any position requiring an understanding of economics. Killing jobs is not any kind of saving.
It has become clear that the NSW government has not been honest with the community regarding its “reasons” for forcibly amalgamating councils. The government’s strong preference for the interests of extremely large organisations, including criminal groups, over the public interest, has driven this process from day one. It is now the duty of the Premier to come clean and place his real motivation for restricting the ability of citizens to participate democratically in their local governance on the public record, with no further attempts at deception.
If the NSW government wants to cut waste and mismanagement in public administration, it should lead by example. The sacking of all the incompetent, corrupt, and otherwise wasteful members of the NSW government would be a good first step, though it might take some time due to the high numbers involved. The beneficial effect on the State’s finances would be enormous and immediate.
Once that has happened, then we can have a rational, public, conversation about local councils, but not before.
We live in a diverse community. The more geographically spread out councils are makes it difficult to focus on the needs of a community. The current council sizes do well at addressing community needs and issues. Don’t make them bigger because this will lead to ineffective councils.
Please don’t merge our councils.