Welcome to the special hypocrisy/corruption edition of Borderline. Is Albury and Wodonga
administered like some medieval fiefdom? Of course it is. Of course they know  what the people want - they must be guided, nurtured, enlightened - you must understand that there are some people born to lead and some (read most) to follow. Most of the councillors think they were born to lead. Likewise some of the higher echelons of the staff not to mention other vested interests who favour a more benign, anonymous like approach  in their dealings.  Some councillors have such high regard that they show unquestionable loyalty to Council employees. Is that why someone started the rumour that the GM Les Tomich was to Adopt Cr Henk van de Ven as his son? If it's true I hope it works out.  Many might suggest that this inner circle of mainly developers  determine the way Albury and Wodonga have and will evolve. Their suspicions are most probably right. Unfortunately many of these 'born to lead' types in both the Albury and Wodonga Councils live a highly delusional fantasy, who are unaware of their incompetence and servitude  to vested interests only too willing to play them for a song. because that's when process leads to hypocrisy and  corruption.
Pity Really.


The Albury City Council's decision to discontinue collecting hard waste is another example of Council hypocrisy and doublespeak. Then again what would you expect from Council that has been peddling misinformation for years?  The reasons they gave were mostly unconvincing. The task of the authors of the document  (Albury City - Engineering & Works Committee AGENDA  EWC 6 - REPORTS FOR DISCUSSION 6A Annual Hard Waste Collection  (50/90/0001) Date March 1 2010) was to provide an almost completely negative view of the sustainability of the annual hard waste collection . The authors of the document served their masters well - or so they thought. Unfortunately what ended up was a document with so many contradictions and inaccuracies - so many holes in it that it became obvious the report was cobbled together without any regard to the positives  of the annual hard waste collection.  The main thrust of their argument to end the annual hard waste collection was:

• significant negative aesthetic impact on the streetscape;

• unauthorised additions to household items by other households;

• potential public liability issues related to OHS and traffic hazards;

• greater incidence of non-compliance with disposal of
permitted and non-permitted items;


• disruption caused by scavenging;

• non-compliance with volumetric and weight restrictions;
      
• operational challenges due to concentrated peak workloads for contractors and Councils; and
      
• costly yearly advertising and print campaign.


Let's examine them one-by-one to see if any of their argument against the annual hard waste collection holds any water. 


• Significant negative aesthetic impact on the streetscape.

Negative impact on the streetscape indeed.  The thing is that Albury City Council allow far more visual pollution - see photo opposite  which are permanent or semi permanent  than the few days of visual pollution when residents their hard waste  out on the footpath.  

• Unauthorized additions to household items by other households.

Another false argument that is more that is not supported by any documentation. It probably does happen but it is a rarity. It certainly wouldn't be good for neighbourly relations.

• Potential public liability issues related to OHS and traffic hazards.

Sounds like this idea came out when the authors were work shopping ideas to try to make their reasons for ending  the annual hard waste collection completely watertight.


• Greater incidence of non-compliance with disposal of permitted and non-permitted items.

Of  all the households in Albury how many people put out   non-permitted items - again this is not supported by any evidence. In almost anything people are going to none comply. You're not suppose to speed but people do. That's non-compliance. Albury City Council itself non-complies with the truth when it suits them. 


• Disruption caused by scavenging.

This is a very interesting argument because most people would agree there is a lot of scavenging  of hard waste - but isn't this an excellent way of recycling that cuts the volume and cost of removing hard waste.


• Non-compliance with volumetric and weight restrictions.

Another non-compliance issue that is used by Council. There is always  a small minority that non-comply regardeless of the matter. You're not allowed to run a red light - but some do. That's non-compliance. Just about every issue on earth there is non-compliance.  Look at the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - riddled with non-compliance.

• Operational challenges due to concentrated peak workloads for contractors and Councils.

We're not real sure what operational challenges in this means but usually the collection of hard waste is in winter.  Is it not simply a matter of reassigning people  whose operational challenges were mowing lawns etc in the warmer months?
       • Costly yearly advertising and print campaign.

         Costly? a few cheap flyers in the letterbox. Compared with that 8 page propaganda brochure Accent On Albury the cost would be negligible.  
   
The Albury City Council  also state the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery targets  to be achieved  would need to be  reduced by 100,000 tonnes per annum, diverting current deposits  by approximately 50%. This where the Council seem to be a bit confused  because  the total tonnage received in 2006 were 1287 tonnes  in 2009 the total volume received was 647 tonnes  almost half the 2006 volume received.  Then the  cost to collect hard waste  sounds rather suspect.  In 2006 it was $187.15 a tonne, 2007 $208.37, 2008 $223.67 than in 2009 the cost has almost doubled to $402.87. Why the cost of collecting hard almost doubled in a year is not explained - probably because they used some other sham accounting method to justify the claim.


The Council also claims that: Many complaints are received during the service. Primarily complaints focus on lack of notice, receiving no notice, restrictions, missed collections, illegal dumping, scavenging occurring and the unsightly impact of waste throughout the community during the term of the collection.

This raises the question of how many is many. Of course there would be complaints usually the biggest complaint is missed collections and this is usually because the household has put their hard waste out late. What about the complaints made to council that they don't like to mention?

Now for the good part

With the introduction of the free entry voucher system, Council has the opportunity to consider whether additional vouchers per residential property be provided to compensate for the removal of the hard waste collection. This will allow the community to deliver their excess waste to the landfill at their convenience, which promotes resource recovery and cultural change. A small portion of the community may have some difficulty accessing this service due to the availability of transport (car and/or trailer). However, with the landfill gate entry being free of charge, via the voucher system, alternative arrangements can be easily established.

A small portion of the community!

Again this is unsubstantiated. How many people have got trailers - let alone towbars. And exactly how much hard waste can you fit in the boot (1 voucher) next to nothing. And what exactly does ...with the landfill gate entry being free of charge, by means of the voucher system, alternative  arrangements can be easily  established...  mean? You mean get a skip or hire someone to remove  your waste.  What about the pensioners and others who haven't got a car.  This is to be solved by apparently giving households an additional  two vouchers  which  doubles the volumetric  allowance per household. If one was to believe that you'd believe anything . You can give people   a hundred vouchers yet if they haven't got the means to get it to the tip vouchers are completely useless. Getting the clapped out fridge  or washing machine into Your Kia Rio is rather difficult.

Of course the Council use Sustainability as a justification  - which includes  long term strategic planning and consideration of a quadruple bottom line (Social, Environmental, Economic and Governance). The current hard waste program has serious limitations in all these areas. It is clear that despite improvements to the program over the last four years, the cost per quantity of material retrieved has been increasing, and the total mass and range of materials accepted has declined. This is a clear indication that it is not sustainable.








As you can see the actual total hard waste has decreased over the last four years yet the collection cost have increased but only marginally  which is compensated with less landfill and why the sudden spike in the cost of recovery  in 2009 from $223.67 to $402.87 per tonne.

Their argument about free entry voucher system is nothing if not fanciful.

Free Entry Voucher System

Two free entry vouchers were introduced on 1 July 2009, substituting the previous free entry days at the AWMC. These vouchers were distributed with the rates notices. The feedback received has been positive. The presentation rate as of 31 January 2010 was 15% (6,476 vouchers presented).
The positive aspects of this service are:
       • waste is transported to the landfill at the resident's
convenience and cost;
        • increase in volume of resource recovery;

        • each residential household has been provided with two free vouchers to dispose of waste at any time during the financial year; and
       • allows for no disturbance in operational activities.


The feedback received back has been positive is just another bit of council spin.They don't even mention the extremely negative feedback from ratepayers. A very selective use of 'feedback' is another way Albury City Council manipulate the arguement in their favour.

Borderline's case against the Albury City Coucil's discontinuation of  hard waste.
·        Most people do not have the capability of removing hard waste.

·        Most people have smaller  cars which have a limited capacity so that even 4 vouchers would not come anywhere near 1 trailer load.

·        The majority of Albury residents do not have a trailer or a towbar should they wish to rent a trailer.

·        A lot of hard wast is too bulky to remove in a car boot.

·        The less fortunate will incur more expense incur more expense, like having to hire a skip.

·        The increased operating costs  from $223.67 in 2008 to $402.87 in 2009 is not justified by any supporting evidence

·        Instead of paying for the optional green waste service  residents will use existing waste. services to remove their green waste.

·        Scavenging is another efficient form of recycling that keeps down the volume of hard waste collected. Many residents will testify that by the time the waste has been collected it has greatly reduced in volume.

·        The argument of non-compliance, OHS anfd the aesthetic impact on the streetscape is baloney. 

·        Borderline has anecdotal evidence that  some landlords do not pass on the vouchers to tenants. Over 20% of properties in Albury are rented.

·        Residents will dispose of their larger items of hard waste illegally. Borderline has anecdotal evidence of some tenants dumping their furniture in Ebden Street. It was there for a month or two before it was finally collected.

·        Albury has some of the highest municipal rates in Australia and can easily afford the service.

·        The so called implementation of a waste minimisation program promoting resource recovery and more sustainable opportunity is is just a load of sanctimonious twaddle.

·        The boast  that Albury City municipality exceed the services  offered within local government areas within NSW is a lie. 

·        The Albury City Council in their documentation supporting the discontinuation have produced a document that is misleading, Inaccurate, riddled with half truths.

·        The Albury City Council have dressed up their argument against the continuation  of the collection of hard waste  when in fact they simply want to save money.
Albury City Council allows far
more ''negative aesthetic impacts'
in Albury compared to the few days
the hard waste is put on the footpath.
The trouble is these eyesores are
allowed to remain on a permanent
basis. Borderline complained to James
Jenkins (Director Community and Recreation)
about the 'negative aesthetic impact'
of the structure above several times.
He hasn't done anything about it because
we're afraid  James is so beholden to
his masters that he dare not mention
the subject.

How many 'free entry vouchers' would
you need to remove  your hard waste
using this car. 50 vouchers and a couple of spare
days. That's sustainability?


We suppose you can  always step
out of the square - one shouldn't
be too depressed because there are a lot
of creative ways of getting rid
of your hard waste. Don't throw it
on your next door neighbours footpath - be
a bit more subtle than that.  Make sure it's a few
doors up or down) and don't leave any clues
as to the ownership of the article/articles.
Also for example if your the only one with
a Blue Cedar (a tree) within miles that is 40
metres high and a neighbour down the road 
suddenly finds their footpath inundated with
Blue Cedar branches your in trouble.
Remember as the photographs above shows
be mindful that overloading can lead to
unforeseen circumstances.  
PAGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION
If you happen to be out at the Albury Airport you will notice that the place is a hive of activity as they get the place ready no doubt to impress the expected 600 delegates who are expected to attend the 2010 Local Government Association NSW Conference to be held in Albury from 24 October - 27 October. This is the blue ribbon event of municipal junkets and there is much eating and drinking. It is held annually in various localities throughout New South Wales, councillors look forward to it because they can kick up their heels a bit in a spirit of conviviality and camaraderie.  That's not to say important issues are not discussed but they are done so in a relatively relaxed atmosphere which is probably one of the few occasions they can engage each other in a relaxed atmosphere far from the council they represent and the intrigue and backstabbing that goes on there. It has been known for delegates to engage in acts of adultery - (no doubt after a skinfull although this is not obligatory) I suppose seeing they are consenting adults makes it all hunky-dory though there are unforeseen eventualities that are sometimes embarrassing as the snippet from our June 2008 edition testifies.

 










































Here Borderline is insistent that it is making no moral judgment on such behaviour. What puzzles Borderline is how two delegates after an hour or so of enthusiastic bonking you can get your nametags mixed up. Were they so exhausted they didn't know who they were - stranger things have happened. There are numerous scenarios that spring to mind but for the sake of decency further elaboration might offend Borderline's more puritanical readers. Of course if any reader can shed more light on further possible circumstances that could have led to such an outcome a discrete email to borderlinealburywodonga.com.au would be appreciated if only to put Borderline's mind to rest.    


I suppose one could always ask the person in question to elaborate on this rather sensitive outcome but posing such an inquiry could be construed as being rather offensive not to mention humiliating for accused adulterer - you'll have to admit asking such a question would require a high degree of subtlety . Besides Borderline to descend to such depths might set a worrying precedent which could precipitate Borderline becoming nothing more than a litany of scandal and idle gossip. No way.


The thing is that for all the millions being spent on the Albury Airport there is a nagging suspicion that it's in the wrong place - in a valley is generally not a good place for an airport. This has led to the airport being fogbound and subsequently closed so far for 25 days this winter. This is not good for business as appointments have to be cancelled, apologies made. After all Albury is quite proud of its airport being the second largest regional airport in New South Wales.  With over 200 flights a week and carrying over 300,000 passengers, it's a far from satisfactory situation.  Then again that's the price you have to pay when you don't accept good advice. Have you noticed as the years go by Albury seems to have less frosts and more fogs. Has it something do with climate change - who knows. One thing is for sure that the airport is the wrong place and Albury was warned about it years ago in the early 1930's by one Edward Gallop an engineer on the  new road being to connect  Albury to the Hume Dam. Mr Gallop had seen active service with the Australian Imperial Australian Imperial Force with 3rd Field Company, Engineers in France.  He went on to become permanent head of the Housing Commission of New South Wales and became a champion of public housing. Come to think of it we could do with such a person now considering  the deplorable level level of homelessness in NSW. 

In the thirties Albury Airport was a dirt strip but even then Mr Gallop said the airstrip was in the wrong place because it was enclosed by hills and was in a valley which made it prone to being fogbound in winter. No one took any notice of him and the airport continued to develop in its present location.

Where the airport should have been located Mr Gallop said was in Jindera because when Albury is fogbound once you get over the Jindera gap the air is mostly clear - ask anyone who makes the trip from Albury to Jindera. Having the Airport out Jindera way would guarantee the reliability of services in Winter. After all in this competitive world you can't have a major regional airport closed on so many days.   

You also have the prospect of the airport as development continues eastward that the airport will be hemmed in by residential and industrial development that if God forbid there was a crash of an aircraft there could well be a considerable loss of life.

Has the Albury City Council given the matter any attention to the matter and perhaps acquired some land out at Jindera. Of course not - that's long term planning. On another matter Borderline remembers a chap - forget his name and he's long since gone to his maker. He was a rich man in the forties or was it the fifties anyhow he had sufficient liquidity that he could afford to buy his own aircraft. One day he decided to fly to Tallangatta. He landed his aircraft in a paddock adjacent to a Tallangatta hotel and was having a few beers when a he struck up a conversation with a fellow patron. The pilot in the course of the conversation told his fellow drinker that the plane over in the adjacent paddock was his. The fellow drinker was not inclined to believe him and bet him a couple of beers that he couldn't fly it. The pilot accepted the wager enthusiastically. After a couple of  of loop-the -loops and a few other aerial manoeuvres over the pub which no doubt convinced the assembled drinkers of his skill with the aircraft the pilot realised  night was approaching (no runway lights then)and he flew back to Albury. Arriving at Albury Airport in near darkness he got in his car and drove back to Tallangatta to claim his prize. Those were the days.  

It's all go at Albury Airport. No doubt the haste to complete the new car parking and roadworks is due to the wish to impress the 600 delegates  arriving in Albury for the 2010 Local Government Association NSW Conference in October.Thank God Albury doesn't get many fogs in October.