It appears that Lipshutz and Magee (and some councillors) are at it again with the request for a report on the ‘feasibility’ of extending the car park at GESAC – that is, converting open park land into more concrete. We find it exceedingly strange that after spending over $2million dollars on ‘design’, and one presumes some understanding of projected needs, that at the last moment council decides that it simply does not have enough car parking space to accommodate its anticipated 600,000 visitors to the complex. We must therefore question once again the competence of planning in this council. Caulfield Park pavilion also resulted in the ‘relocation’ of two ovals when the project was nearly complete. Why can’t they get it right first off? Why do such issues always seem to crop up at the eleventh hour? Is it intended to put pressure on councillors through the ruse of ‘if we don’t have this, the project will fail’? Below are the details of the ‘debate’ –
LIPSHUTZ: The request for a report was for officers to report on the feasibility of constructing a ‘multi level carpark’; and extension of existing carpark – but watching out for trees! ‘One of the concerns with Gesac’ is car parking and ‘need to increase that car parking to meet demand’…..at previous council meeting it ‘was discussed about having a multi level car park’ and he ‘seeks a report as to feasibility’….
MAGEE: ‘GESAC is going to be so successful ….there will almost never be enough car parking’ around GESAC ‘. ‘With the influx of…somewhere around 600,000 visitors per year parking is certainly going to be a premium…parking is something that should be increased….multi storey car park….interesting to see how that would look…..something I believe is needed….will fit nicely with the success of GESAC….
TANG: ‘some realisation that you’re never going to be able to accommodate enough people….regardless of how many extra car parks you put in…..(Lipshutz spoke about the concerns of car parking, it) ‘was a concern at the outset ….when council (supported GESAC) it knew that car parking was one of the key factors that would affect the attendances …..(visited other aquatic centres)…’planners determined that car parking was one of those big factors’…came to a balance – the site that GESAC is at ….is in a park, got to remember that…next to soccer grounds, cricket grounds, ….particularly playgrounds….and council has to minimise the impact as much as possible…as against those other uses there….think what we’ve got is an appropriate balance ….(shouldn’t use officers’ time and their workload to focus on this. There’s other important things that they should be working on such as the childcare in Elsternwick)…’I’d be seeing that as a waste of their time’….
HYAMS: although he ‘couldn’t agree more with Cr. Tang’ it’s important to remember that ‘when cricketers or soccer players….roll up to play their sport on Bailey Reserve….they won’t have anywhere to park….(and bad especially if they are carrying heavy cricket equipment)….
PILLING: ‘two bites at the cherry….I don’t agree…we seem to be trying at the 11th hour to get something up….
LIPSHUTZ: surprised that the two councillors are so ‘aggressive’…’the fact is that things change….(Tang is right in that) when we planned GESAC parking was a problem….we have now found that …demand will be greater…..and we can’t sit there and say’ (there won’t be change)…’we won’t pull down trees’…’I’m not suggesting that we build a car park….I’m suggesting we get a report to determine whether it is feasible….(I’m sure they can do the report very quickly)…we may look at other alternatives….(car parking is a problem) we need to look at it and not ignore it’.
MOTION CARRIED – TANG AND PILLING VOTED AGAINST
Gazing into our crystal ball we predict: (1) next council meeting will see the Officers’ Report ( as usual bereft of facts, details) recommending the construction of an additional car park. (2) Councillors will then be required to vote on this and hey presto, GESAC will have its car park. BUT: where will the money come from? Is it budgeted for? how much extra will this cost?
Glen Eira Debates 
June 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM
The car park issue was raised at the outset. It was quickly pushed aside as all the hype of the day was coming from Bob Hudson the Bentleigh politician trying to ingratiate himself to ensure his re-election. Same thing happened with the Federal Gov. health plan. They worked out how much it would cost to build the hospitals but never factored in the car park both for the employees and the visitors. Seems like a public servants trick. This one should be a sacking offence. Big mistake. No car park, no customers. Ask the people that own Chadstone.
June 30, 2011 at 1:44 PM
If carparking was raised at the start then it should have been dealt with then, not at the end like it is now. This council can’t do anything right. They can’t even get a bus route to run past the thing. As for 600,000 people coming a year, that’s really pie in the sky, especially with the prices being charged. 7 bucks for a casual swim compared to 4.40 elsewhere. Just watch – people will come at first to check it out and have a look. But they will refuse to keep paying exhorbitant prices when they can get pretty much the same thing a few km down the road.
June 30, 2011 at 5:09 PM
Waves prices. ADULT SWIM $ 5.50
CHILD/STUDENT/CONCESSION $ 3.90
SPECTATOR $ 1.90
FAMILY SWIM $ 16.50
Kingston Council are at an advantage as they did a nice deal with the owners of Southland and in return they got cash for their pool. Should not comapre prices with them. I also think 600,000 is incredulous or b/s.
June 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM
I’d argue that integrity is linked to principles and consistency in supporting those principles. On this basis, then our councillors are all lacking. It’s quite ironic that Pilling and Tang can now get up and bemoan the fact that parkland will be lost to a car park. Yet on the Duncan McKinnon pavilion development there was no such argument, even when it was known that parkland will also be lost there to expand the car park. Even though gesac and mckinnon are two different sites, with probably different problems, the argument should still hold – parkland is parkland wherever it is and arguments should be consistent. None of our councillors exhibit this quality. Lipshutz’s pronouncements continually contradict what he says at the previous meetings and Hyams just plays his little semantic games. Consistency, integrity, logic, and accountability are not words that these councillors seem familiar with.
June 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM
Seem to remember that there was one small sentence in the Marlborough reserve redevelopment that also said that the “footprint” of the proposed pavilion would be bigger. If this keeps going then every single park will turn into concrete and there won’t be a blade of grass anywhere – except for the sporting ovals.
June 30, 2011 at 5:38 PM
More concrete in our parks, valuable parkland being turned into car parkland.
This GESAC gets more and more expensive. The up keep gets more expensive as well. And a children’s playground get bowled over to make way for Newtons ego-trip. I trhought we had the lowest parkland in Melbourne. Let hope the councilors see through this desperate push to steal more parkland.
June 30, 2011 at 9:36 PM
I would like to know the relationship between every individual Councillor and the Mc Kinnon Basketball Club?
July 1, 2011 at 7:20 AM
….they all vote!
July 1, 2011 at 4:38 PM
What about a council bus to take those from Camden, it is too far, some cities in the world have free commuter buses and by the time we take into account all the savings on crammed roads and the loss of actual parkland a bus on some days of the week may not be such a bad alternative.
The minister for transport and even the Bank of Bendigo Bank bus, donated by teh Murrumbeena citizens could be scheduled in for this purpose. All green grass must be preserved forever as those who live in the concrete jungles of Glen Eira need more open space not less.