March 24, 2011
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- March 24, 2011 at 10:46 AM
- Category :
- Caulfield Racecourse/C60
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates %d
March 24, 2011 at 11:14 AM
Congratulation Council for not just talking about Public Consultation but actually doing it in such an open and public manner.
March 24, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Well if you can call this consultation. My term is sham. Real consultation should have started years and years ago and if this council was really interested in protecting the rights of residents they would have done this. But, oh no! All this is there for is to create the illusion of consultation. As Lipshits often says – we listen, but then do what the hell we like.
March 24, 2011 at 1:59 PM
Council are to be applauded for finally producing a brochure informing residents rather just trying to cover up issues and hide them. I have not yet received this brochure but hope they circulate it widely. Maybe we are finally getting through to the administration now that they have developed such a fine flyer.
March 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM
We trust that this comment is made with tongue firmly in cheek!!!!!
Just so that there is absolutely no confusion, Glen Eira Council, certainly DID NOT PRODUCE THIS FLYER. It was devised, printed, and paid for by concerned residents. But your idea is interesting John. That’s what a real council might have done!
March 24, 2011 at 5:58 PM
Full credit to the folks that produced the flyer. Hopefully residents of Glen Eira will register their opposition with Council by requesting an opportunity to speak at the Conference. We all know real consultation does not exist in Glen Eira … this is your chance actively participate and send the message that the residents want changes to the way Council operates. If you don’t stand up and be counted you will only get more of the same.
March 24, 2011 at 9:08 PM
Agree totally Ben. We all need to get out there and send a message to Council that we want to be heard. It is much more than the racecourse (although it is a significant issue alone) but how we want planning to be conducted in Glen Eira. Whether you are in Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Bentleigh, Elsternwick, Ormond or Caulfield, the issue remains that one day you could have a 5 storey building next to you peering into your backyard and Council will not support you and don’t expect a favourable hearing from VCAT.
March 24, 2011 at 9:45 PM
The whisper is that there is now a FOURTEEN storey application in for Glenhuntly Rd, Elsternwick
March 24, 2011 at 11:13 PM
If the Melbourne Racing Club is allowed to build this 23 storey building then, there will be a proliferation of buildings just like that around here. The main reason being that there are many one and two storied buildings in Bourke Street, however, they are protected by Heritage overlays and will be restored and maintained as they are appreciated as important fabrics of our society. We seem to miss this appreciation in the City of Glen Eira, however, and we are fast becoming an area which if this series of buildings on 5.5 hectares which will have about 10,000 persons living upon or visiting daily then we aim for a crowded area something like Hong Kong or inner London, however in London there are a few parks where residents,shoppers,travellers, tourists or office workers can take a break!
This area as planned will not offer one square metre for any such thing as a breath of fresh air let alone a little green grass for me to look at or stand upon as I puff my cigarette!
April 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM
Hello,
I am starting an investigative piece about the issues of the use of this crown land.
Obviously I am aiming to write a balanced piece (both from the Glen Eira community stance and the Melbourne Racing Club stance) for Monash university but I understand there have been concerns over the use of land for many decades now.
As I have heard…and please inform me if i am incorrect, but the issue is that Melbourne Racing Club are using the crown land and public are not gaining access to the land as much as they would like to.. is this correct? But I have also read that the MRC own parts of the land and I presume that would mean they are able to use it as they see fit?
The crown land is supposed to be used for three purposes….
1- a public park
2- a recreation facility
3- a racecourse
Can someone will detailed knowledge perhaps inform me of what they know about the use of this land?
I am really interested to find out if in fact the land is not being used as the Crown envisaged or the MRC are in their right?
Many thanks,
N
April 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM
Yes, the Racecourse again.
I have just received a leaflet in my letterbox. More junk mail I thought, except this turned out to be notice of a council ‘special meeting’, to discuss proposed changes to the racecourse. Why don’t people advertise these meetings properly? The notice I got was so small my magnifying glass almost missed the fine print. Three councillors, it says, were elected to represent me. Pigs trotter. Esakoff Pilling and Tang don’t represent me. I expect the Camden ward councillors to do that. Lipshutz is a failure, but I expected more from Forge and Penhalluriack. At the elections both Forge and Penhalluriack were promising us our land back. Penhalluriack was even on television saying Queen Victoria gave us the land, before it was pinched by the racing people.
Well, now I challenge Penhalluriack and Forge to give us our land back! Why don’t they tell the other councillors WE WANT OUR LAND BACK! For once stand up in council and ‘sock it to them’.
And what about ‘bright boy’ Tang, who is a trustee of the racecourse, and supposedly representing the people of Glen Eira. Yet when the racecourse comes up in council, Tang scampers away saying he has a conflict of interest. If that is really the case, his course is clear, he should step down as a councillor, or step down as a trustee. Gee, I hate this under-performing council and its administrative failures. As for that bureaucrat Newton, don’t get me going on that one.