GESAC car park
Lipshutz moved a motion that the $450,000 extension to the existing car park be approved. Seconded by Magee. In favour of the motion were: Lipshutz, Magee, Hyams, Esakoff, Forge. Against: Pilling and Tang. Lobo and Penhalluriack were absent. The ‘arguments’ were:
LIPSHUTZ: ‘GESAC has been a success’ beyond our dreams….’at this stage there are 1,200 members, GESAC website has 80,000 hits per week,….given that one can say there is going to be a huge demand for GESAC….One of the things we didn’t envisage (at the start) was the carparking’. Originally there was planned 43 spaces ‘it’s clear that is not going to be sufficient….it is clear that GESAC will be very heavily used and there is the need for extra car parking….(I asked for a report from officers and whether underground parking would be feasible) ‘and it is clearly not the way to go ….would only add 60 (spaces and cost a lot) whereas the proposal that I have proposed would add 75 car spaces. (The drawback is that) it does take away sections of the park at the rear but (need to look at the big picture of the park as well as GESAC) ….what we don’t want to have is the car parking all over the streets ….and we want to ensure that GESAC is a success….so it’s important to have car parking …..(this proposal brings) carparking to 118 spaces.’
MAGEE: ‘It’s never easy to give up open space especially in a really nice park like Bailey Reserve…..(there’s a rotunda, playground) …..one thing that offsets that is …the northern end of GESAC …used to be a big car park which has now been turned into open space….so we’re not actually losing ….we have pciked up a large area of car park that has been converted back into grassland or open space…..GESAC….is going to be so successful….and we do have to cater for parking….the last thing we need is people driving into GESAC ….driving around and not being able to park ….we want everyone, not just in Glen Eira but outside of Glen Eira to come and enjoy GESAC with the rest of us….we do have to make sacrifices along the way….(not happy about losing parks) but we have actually taken back …….in the long term we will see if for instance the car park isn’t used (we can turn it back into parkland)….
PILLING: Has ‘problems with this item…..(everyone wants GESAC to succeed especially when you spend so much money but there are problems with the process) ….’it hasn’t even opened yet and we’re already taking open space away on a hunch….several years ago (car parking) was worked out by the architect and that was deemed to be appropriate….what we face now is an 11th hour ad hoc, knee jerk reaction….a couple of statistics. The proposed car park extension is 1400 square metres, two houseblocks, (land prices make this worth 1.5 million) …in Packer Park we bought two houses to convert back to public open space and now we want to take it away….(listed statistics about amount of public open space in Glen Eira compared to other councils)…we haven’t got that much and to be actually giving it away in such an ad hoc manner …..I’ve a few other issues with it….this to me defines why we do need a new open space strategy…..if this was a football field or a designated sports ground, I doubt we would be doing this….it’s a playground, it’s a passive area it seems to be up for grabs …..this is not valued….(that’s why we need a strategy in place….I don’t see (this) as a win….Maybe one of the reasons why Glen Eira does have such a low amount of open space is because of ad hoc decisions like this…..(APPLAUSE FROM GALLERY)
TANG: Wholeheartedly agreed with Pilling….’I don’t think councillors are going out of their way to take public open space away….we’ve got an item on the agenda tonight (naming a new reserve – Nina reserve)….I think council should think about naming a new reserve, the one to the north of the carpark because you’ll have two separate parks (as a result of this carpark)….we’ve taken sensible approach (looked at Duncan McKinnon and others) whether it would add to the park and the overall utility of the park and we’ve come to the conclusion that (there) it would…..but in this instance I just don’t see how we as a council could (see this) as adding to the park in any way….and breaking up two separate (areas)…..I don’t think you’re (going to enjoy the park) unless you play organised sport and I don’t think that that’s all that Bailey Reserve is there for….We’re proposing to spend $450,000 at a time when (at the budget discussions people were worried) rate rises weren’t as much as they would have liked, concerned that council needed to tighten its belt ……and now we’re proposing to spend another $450,000 just to get a few more car parks…after the budget’s passed, after the SRPs passed…. proposing to spend another $450,000 to break up a really good park….do we really want to do this?…..Magee (talked about turning the carpark back into parkland if it didn’t work out)…maybe council can look at turning the park into car park later on if it really feels it still needs to later on….(Asked an officer a question about construction time. Answer 6 to 8 weeks)
FORGE asked a question about the plans and the provision for buses and disabled car parks. Was answered that buses would be accommodated at the main car park and disabled car parking was also there.
HYAMS: ‘ I am in favour of this’….’important to emphasise (that this is going to cater for all users of the park and there are lots of users apart from GESAC visitors)….’who will find themselves displaced from the park’ ( because their car parking spots will be taken up)…’We don’t want GESAC to displace these people in their parks….this is far less disruptive to the park (than to wait for GESAC to be built and in operation)…’this could be said to be enhancing public open space….what we’re doing here is actually helping people enjoy the public open space….you may feel it’s not worth it….if we were putting in a tennis court or something like that there might be less objections….this is to help the use of the park…..there is no doubt that we will need more parking than we originally held. I think that was always a concern….it’s better that we get it right later rather than later later….
ESAKOFF: ‘I’m going to support this….I’m not a supporter of loss of open space by any means….but we are spending a lot of money….we are going to be providing facilities in GESAC for every sector of our community….I do not want to see those people having to park as far away as North Rd or Centre Rd or way down East Boudnary Rd because there’s nowhere to park close to the facility…..(families, babies and aged) would not manage under those circumstances….we need to provide places for them to park within a fairly reasonable proximity….
LIPSHUTZ: Stated that in any major development there are always ‘variations’ ….that happens because as you build it you find things that need to be done or you haven’t anticipated or whatever….this is one 9variatiion)….we anticipated there would be x number of car spaces….now we believe (we need more car spaces)….we’re not taking away the playground we’re relocating the playground….the bigger picture here is that we’re building a development that is (the biggest this council has ever done…(it’s costing a lot and if we wait until it’s finished we’ll find) ‘that you do need more space’….far better to do it now….and be opened properly….If it’s popular people will come to it and GESAC will be popular….and now even before it’s finished we’ve got 1000 members….place (will be chocka block once it’s finished and in summer)….let’s do it right.’
TANG CALLED FOR A DIVISION
Glen Eira Debates 
July 20, 2011 at 11:12 AM
This is a disgrace. Councillors continuously refer to the shortage of open space in our City and what do they do to overcome this situation? They build a monstrosity which robs us of valuable open space.
July 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM
I’m amazed at the arguments put forward both for the support of the carpark. I’m even more amazed that supposedly intelligent people can sink to this level and still pretend that they’re doing the right thing and that the public will buy the contradictions and spin. I’d be ashamed to put my name to any of the above. It would have been far more honest if councillors apologised for the error of their ways and admitted that there’s now possibly no way out. But to be told that this is only a “variation”, or that by losing park land this is helping people to enjoy park land is pure and simple, an insult. The only honest assessment is Pilling’s statement that passive open space is expendable in this council and that if this area was a football field it would never be touched.
July 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Never let a few contradictions interfere with convenience. Now we’re supposed to buy the story that all of a sudden there’s a concern about streets being full with cars parked along them and that babies and little old ladies might have to walk 30 metres to get to gesac. This wasn’t a worry when the gang passed c60. Then it was perfectly okay to have all surrounding streets flooded with cars and hells bells it was okay for racing patrons to walk a mile to get to the racecourse. How pathetic these councillors are and they all keep a straight face to boot. My prize for total bullshit goes to Hyams. His line should make Wisdom’s world record for sheer gall and duplicity.
July 20, 2011 at 1:25 PM
This is part of the price we pay for bad planning. First build the pool a long way from PT, and then nick OS to add more car parking. My feeling is this is just the beginning of the land grab in this area for the pool complex, and the same old tired arguments will be trotted out. The next, will be the car park is over crowded and dangerous and more land will be needed to avert this perilous situation. I wonder if they will place any bicycle parking area.
July 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM
Can’t agree more Glennie. The culprit is planning. Right from the start the spruiking on gesac claimed that there would be about 300,000 visitors. It’s now I believe gone up to 600,000 per year. Even with 300,000 though the provision of 40 odd spaces should never have been approved. If there was “always a concern” as Hyams claims then it should have been planned for correctly right from the start and funded appropriately. We’re now in the ridiculous situation of a budget that is in tatters. No one it seems from these notes actually asked nor answered the question of where this extra half a million is coming from. This is planning on the run and a sure fire recipe for disaster.
July 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM
The extra half mil will come from child care that could have been. If I were the folk with children in Tucker Ward in need of C/care, I would shove the bitumen right up Hyam’s and Mcgee’s jumpers. Because they care more about cars than people in the end. With Esacoff and Lipshutze …. phew … complete air-head I think.
July 20, 2011 at 7:41 PM
No, this isn’t correct – its some sort of a joke. Of course, car parking was a planning priority in this day and age!!! As part of the basic planning:
– we’ve known the predicted visitors as thousands per week;
– we’ve known there was little or no public transport;
– we’ve had a Committee’s overseeing this project;
– we’ve engaged architects who surely considered car parking;
– we’ve surely had feasibility studies by Council officers and others …
– and the list goes on and on.
Also the laughable views attributed to the Councillors approving this ‘upgrade’ indicates they’re in on the joke (some being on the GESAC Committee). This is one time when surely GE debates web site must have got it wrong. Yep, I’ve convinced myself that this is all so absolutely ridiculous that the jokes on us, the ratepayers!
July 20, 2011 at 8:47 PM
Sarcasm is good particularly when close to a few million has been spent on designing this eye sore. They probably spent two bob on the car park issue. All the rest went into non existent aesthetics.
July 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM
On the evidence to date, I just hope they didn’t overlook to put a swimming pool in there.
July 20, 2011 at 10:01 PM
If Hyams arguments are nonsensical then Magee’s are even worse in my opinion. The let’s do it and if it’s no good we’ll turn it back into parkland is outrageous and pinpoints exactly why he and the majority of other councillors are either plain stupid or don’t give a damn about spending the public’s money. The idea to do something and then rip it up if it doesn’t work completely ignores the issues of planning at the start and costs. Glen Eira is really in poor shape with this kind of profligacy and waste. I won’t even talk about the intellectual dishonesty of the arguments.
July 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM
At the “consultation meeting” with long suffering and paying ratepayers the councillors were told by informed appreciators of the parking requirement for the six hard ball courts but as usual, just like the swimming pool consultation meeting I attended in the |McKinnon location it was all just an opportunity for the ratepayers to sound off their views into empty and unreceptive heads of councillors and administrators!!!
July 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM
Even the current councillor form Bentleigh said at the meeeting he did not want anythoing other than a repair for two pools!!!!