Council's Cable Car Capers

Further shenanigans for the Mount Wellington Cable Car project:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/query-over-hobart-lord-mayor-damon-thomas-letter-backing-mt-wellington-cable-car-plan/story-fnj4f7k1-1226924676869

Despite his public assertions over the past few weeks the council would not provide in-principle support before the lodgement of a development application, Ald Thomas, right, has written to cable-car proponent Adrian Bold providing his personal backing for the concept.

Lord Mayor Damon Thomas is either getting ahead of himself, or he knows something other Aldermen don't:

Ald Jeff Briscoe obtained a copy of Ald Thomas’ letter to Mr Bold through a Right to Information request.

At least they're aware of the letter.

Yesterday, Tuesday the 20th of May 2014, it was reported:

Hobart City Council meets today to decide what information it needs from Mr Bold before considering whether to give landowner consent for the project.

Yet in the comments on this article, written after the Hobart City Council's meeting, Ald Jeff Briscoe states:

Today, I received the 50 page document that contained the request to the HCc by Mt Wellington cable car company - only minutes before the HCC meeting on the issue. Mr Bold stated on abc radio he had given the document to the council to consider. 

I only gained the document thru’ a right to information request following external legal advice that I was entitled to have it. Strange days when an HCC alderman cannot have the materials required to make decisions and needs to revert to the law to gain it. 

This whole current cable car process needs more transparency. The document itself lacks detail - a significant part of it are letters of support including one from The Lord Mayor. I have called tonight for Lord Mayor to consider his position. 

Posted by (ALD) Jeff Briscoe on 20/05/14 at 08:39 PM

So has Bold already decided what HCC need? Or was he just handing over a bunch of supporting letters?

I imagine the next step is HCC stating exactly what they need from from the Mount Wellington Cable Car company to be able to offer "in-principle support", whatever that actually means.

Some related reading: Cable car company to be sold to Canadian investor

Update: Commenting on the comments of the most recent article: It seems some people are still labelling anyone who questions the business case, backers or approvals processes as "anti-everything" and/or "NIMBYs", often attacking the aforementioned "dinosaur" based on any irrelevant attribute without adequately addressing any of the points. 

Should there be development at any cost or no development ever? I don't think anyone is advocating either of those viewpoints, so why accuse them of it?