Why leave Ip­swich City Prop­er­ties?

The Queensland Times - - OPINION NEWS - — Ken Alder­ton One Mile

I AM in­trigued by Mayor An­drew An­to­niolli’s com­mit­ment to clos­ing only three out of the four Ip­swich City Coun­cil-owned com­pa­nies, (QT Fri­day, Septem­ber 15).

If this is as far as he in­tends to go, then it is sim­ply fid­dling at the edges of the prob­lem, real or per­ceived. The core of the prob­lem, the coun­cil own­er­ship of Ip­swich City Prop­er­ties (ICP) will ap­par­ently con­tinue.

It is ICP that car­ries the great­est fi­nan­cial bur­den and which is re­spon­si­ble for the great­est level of devel­op­ment ac­tiv­ity.

It is ICP that car­ries the great­est per­cep­tion of con­flicts of in­ter­est for those coun­cil­lors and City of­fi­cials who con­sti­tute its board.

At the very least, the own­er­ship of ICP by Ip­swich City Coun­cil casts a shadow on the in­tegrity of the devel­op­ment ap­proval process, since the own­ers of ICP are also re­spon­si­ble for ap­prov­ing its devel­op­ment ap­pli­ca­tions.

I won­der whether the QT can per­suade Mayor An­to­niolli, in this new era of trans­parency, to tell the public if ICP will sur­vive as a City-owned en­ter­prise and the rea­sons, if any, for this sur­vival.

Af­ter all, I thought that the busi­ness of lo­cal gov­ern­ment bod­ies was gov­ern­ing, not prop­erty devel­op­ment.


SHUT­TING DOWN: Mayor An­drew An­to­niolli has com­mit­ted to shut­ting three of the four coun­cil-owned com­pa­nies.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.