One attendee observed that one very useful outcome of the forum was that it gave voters a chance to see something of personality, style, approach and demeanour of the candidates as well as their passions and ideological bent. Reading the flyers you might get the impression that it was a matter of six of one and half a dozen of the other – we are all in favour of motherhood. What was on display on Monday night was a much better differentiator, a much better basis of choice.
Jim Reid came across as the elder statesman able to build on 20 years of experience.
Peter White showed that he has not just creative flair, but commitment and the tenacity to follow issues through (in this case the state of council’s finances).
Libby Moline reminded us that all the qualifications in the world are of little value unless matched with a big dolop of common sense. Libby’s leadership qualities were revealed when she, much to everyon’e relief called it a night while we were all sytill having fun.
Simon Menzies was justifiably proud of what Council had achieved this term. Given zero notice to come up with a choice for a community project for 2013, he demonstrated amazing fleetness of mind in coming up with the Tour de Mosman idea. This resonated nicely with the Five Bay Bash that the Active Transport Working Group have been working on at the suggestion of ATWG members Brian Watters and John Goddard
Roy Bendall was true to form in that he never let the truth or logic get in the way of populist line. He claimed for instance that ratepayers were funding the Spit Junction Master Plan initiative, when in fact it has been fully funded from a $225,000 NSW government grant. He implied it was a done deal when in fact concepts are being aired simply to get a community conversation going. He trumpeted his team’s financial management credentials while committing to a car park under Alan Border oval but outlined no plan to find the $50,000 a space that would be needed to fund construction.
Peter Abelson demonstrated that an occupational hazard of a career as a consultant doing cost benefit analysis – the ‘to a hammer everything looks like a nail’ syndrome. So for Peter, the only possible basis for justifying the Balmoral Oval stormwater reticulation system would have been does it deliver water more cheaply than mains water now. But that system means that the oval can be watered no matter how severe Sydney Water restrictions are and in any case we all know that the price we pay for Sydney water has no component built in to cover the environmental damage associated with getting he water from Warragamba to Balmoral. Over time water charges will inevitably rise so if you take a long term view the system is a very good investment in dollar terms, one that will keep Balmoral Oval green through the worst drought as well as doing the right thing by the environment and leading by example.
In claiming the project cost ratepayers $900,000, Peter is doing a Roy. The true cost as per the NSW government Grant Funding audit statement was $$775,000 (ex GST). But of this, Council received $227,273 (ex GST) from the Commonwealth Community Water grant stage 3, and $140,000 (ex GST) from NSW government Water Savings Grant. Accordingly Council spent $407,727 on the project less than half the figure claimed by Peter. Whether this error was due to inadequately chasing up the facts or a deliberate misrepresentation to score a political point we cannot say. But either way it is not what we would expect from a candidate who is asking us to put so much store in his decency, honesty and competence.
The other example of cost benefit analysis myopia was Peter’s slamming of the Mosman Rider. This is despite the fact that in school holidays and at weekends the Rider has provided independence and mobility for our youth – youth that Serving Mosman wants us to believe are one of its priorities.
Myself? I would to like to think I am across as a typical engineer. Strong on integrity, not such a good communicator and very poor as a political points scorer. Someone who makes decisions based on sound evidence and who follows through on projects to make such the details are right.
Thanks Mosman Daily for a great community initiative.
Warren Yates' Blog 
August 29, 2012 at 7:50 am |
Dear Warren As usual, your blog puts the facts on the table, is well written, educational and a good read. A pity who paid for the Spit Junction master plan was not mentioned on the night or communicated to rate payers I had no idea before reading your blog.
Thank you for your support over the last 4 years and all the best for your campaign and the outcome. I sincerely hope you will be on council from 2013, your balanced input is a must! Regards Jill Wedgwood PS I disagree with your blog however which incorrectly states that you are not a good communicator!
Sent from my iPhone
August 29, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
Thanks Jill. Appreciate your encouragement!
August 30, 2012 at 11:50 am |
Unfortunately Councillor Yates’ blog represents some of the nastiness and rudeness that has become endemic in the current council. I will focus on a couple of issues. In my speech at the Mayoral debate statement I said that Botanic Road Wastewater project cost $900,000. According to Warren Yates the gross cost was $775,000. He then alleges that either I did not adequately chase up the facts or it was a deliberate misrepresentation to score a political point and he follows this up with snide comments implying lack of honesty and competence. In fact in May 2009 I requested Council to provide me with the facts about the wastewater project and I received a letter from then Mayor Lopez dated 11 June 2009 which stated that “The capital component of the project is $929,403”. I assume that Mayor Lopez sought the best technical information from the staff. There is no reason why Councillor Yates should have known this. But the polite behaviour would have been to ask me for the source of my information rather than to rush into defamatory and unjustified print. Moreover, even after taking out the Commonwealth and State grants, of which I am well aware, and allowing for Council’s optimistic projections of yield from the wastewater project, the estimated cost of the untreated water per kL is well over twice the price of drinking water from Sydney Water.
Secondly, Councillor Yates states that I “slammed” the Mosman Rider. This is a misrepresentation, and one has to suspect a deliberate one. What I said was that the Mosman Rider provides many valuable services but that some of its services are underutilised and could be provided more cost-effectively by community transport. I am a very strong supporter of community transport. But it is the outcomes that matter, not the means. If outcomes can be achieved more cost-effectively there is an unambiguous win for the community. All outcomes are achieved and some resources are freed up for other services.
Peter Abelson
August 31, 2012 at 1:41 am |
This quote from Ross Gittins critique of mainstream economics in “The Happy Economist” Allen and Unwin 2010 is apt.
“Economics is too narrow. It’s narrow in the sense that it is concerned with only one aspect of our lives: the material, meaning it has nothing to say about the social and the spiritual. Economists specialise in studying the production and consumption of goods and services all of us need to live our lives. Even more narrow, they focus on those aspects of life that can be traded in the market place. They tend to ignore all factors not reflected in market prices and all factors that cannot be measured in dollars”
For Peter, the benefits of being able to water during water restrictions, of providing leadership in sustainable use of water and of cutting carbon emissions, cannot be measured in dollar terms so they are ignored.
Similarly with the Mosman Rider. To Peter providing transport for the elderly via community transport looks is a better option because it would be cheaper in dollar terms. He gives no value to the independent mobility that the Rider gives to the young and the elderly, to say nothing of the value of encouraging people to get out and about, of meeting each other, of walking and using public transport, of creating more parking and less congestion.
I don’t consider it either nasty or rude to clarify the facts when a claim has been made.
And as far as nastiness and rudeness being endemic in the current council it pales into insignificance compared with material that I have in my possession (bumper stickers, cartoons, newsletters) put out by the No Meters group which subsequently morphed into Mosman Ratepayers and Residents Association which in turn spawned Serving Mosman and Residents for Mosman
September 1, 2012 at 5:41 am |
Yates’ Ross Gittins’ quote may apply to some economists who work in the financial markets but it is a gross misrepresentation of mainstream economists.
To understand how economists view the search for well being, Warren Yates should read the 292 page “Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress” by Economics Nobel Laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi. The Commission members included 22 other highly eminent economists including Nobel Laureates Kenneth Arrow and Daniel Kahneman as well as Nick Stern (Stern Report). This report is a comprehensive rebuttal of the uninformed Warren Yates Aunt Sally view of economics. One third of this report discusses the limitations of gross domestic product as a measure of well being, one-third discusses the quality of life, and one-third discusses sustainable development and the environment.
And, if Warren (an engineer) wishes to pontificate about my views on economics, I invite Warren to read my economics text (“Public Economics: Principles and Practice”, 3E, published by McGraw Hill). This 658 page text is a comprehensive discussion of the role of government in the economy. In my Preface I quote Arthur Pigou, the father of welfare economics, who remarked 100 years ago: ”The complicated analyses which economists endeavour to carry through are not mere gymnastics. They are instruments for the betterment of life” and I observe: “This view motivates many of us who work in the field of public economics. Our fundamental goal in studying public economics is to understand how the arrangement of economic affairs in a country, whether by markets or by government affect the welfare of the individuals that make up society and how these arrangements can be improved,” In my book, among the 34 chapters there are separate chapters on the nature of social welfare, the multiple failures of markets, the role of government in the provision of public goods, the environment, the provision of education and health care, the measurement of poverty and inequality, and the principles and practice of delivering social security to the less well off in our society,
I have spent over 40 years of my professional life working in the field of welfare economics including environmental economics. Warren makes misleading assertions about my views and his derogatory comments on the nature of economics and economists (also asserted recently to several people at pre-polling who have passed on his comments to me) are uninformed and unwarranted.
September 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
Peter thanks for your comprehensive response to Ross Gittin’s critique of economists. Much to my relief, you have distanced yourself from those with a neoliberal bent in your profession who would argue that there is no such thing as market failure and that the smaller the role government plays, the better.
However, I am still at a loss to understand why you use the increased cost of water as the reason for condemning the Botanic Road project. Such statements implicitly dismiss as worthless the positive externalities I have outlined in an earlier response.
Do you not acknowledge that providing these environmental and other benefits is a valid objective for a local Council? If you accept that it is proper for Councils to provide environmental benefits, but think that there are more cost effective ways of providing these benefits, surely it is incumbent on you to indicate what these might be.
I leave the last word to you, should you wish to respond
September 14, 2012 at 9:04 am |
Warren the people have voted and unfortunately your services as a councillor longer required.