An email from a resident regarding the MRC centre of the racecourse application and the closing dates for objections –
Dear Friends of the Racecourse Reserve,
All Victorian residents should note this seems a reasonable proposal to spend over a million dollars on the centre but when one tries to read the fine print of the displayed plans it is quite obviously yet another attempt to alienate another area from the people of Victoria from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for the folllowing reasons:-
1 The area promised as a park for our access is about 10% of total reserve!
2 There is no indication we will be able to play ball there.
3. The stated intention calls for approval to build a 25 car parking lot for us, however, it does not make it very clear that a plan for a “concretised path 2-3 metres wide” (sufficiently wide for cars) which in turn will provide parking for 1,200 cars.
4. Perhaps more objectionable will be the erection of black chain wire fences about 2.1 metres high, which will make park users feel as if they are in the former Villawood Detention Centre or a resident of a war time camp, but incidentally will assist the MRC in its horse training and commercial activities. Also the MRC will further obscure the ability of the public to see through the fence by using other screening material to be recommended by the trainers.
PLEASE FORWARD YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THIS WEEK OR EARLY NEXT WEEK. WE MUST MAKE OUR POINT FIRMLY ON THIS ISSUE!!!!!!
Glen Eira Debates 
July 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM
Hi have been out of touch for a while and are surprised that the point of Cr. Forge voting to turn parkland into the CESAC car park has not been mentioned on this blog site. Is she now showing her true blue liberal spots, and we now have a gang of five not four as this site often cries.
July 28, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Dear Glennie,
the vote on the carpark was reported (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/council-meeting-oh-to-be-in-the-concrete-business/). Included were the statements made by all councillors who spoke on the issue – included Forge’s. Our use of the term ‘gang of four’ often refers to the Special Racecourse Committee (Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling) and the ‘gang of five’ would also include Tang. Perhaps it is now time for a ‘gang of six’?
July 28, 2011 at 3:41 PM
Yes gleneira it was clearly there, as you said.
You miss the point as has the everyone, what on earth is Cr Forge doing voting for the car park and taking away parkland in doing so.
This was never in her psyche to cuddle-up to the CEO and the GESAC cover-up mob. We expect this type of behaviour from Hyam, Lipshutz, Magee, and Esakoff.
But I do think we could rightly expected more from Cr. Forge.
Like I said, this is a very disappointing development from Forge, and if this type of voting continues, add her to the list of conservative councillors that will have to sweep aside as being next to useless untrustworthy worthy and another brown-noser to the CEO.
July 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM
Correct, but also opportunistic. Penhalluriack and Lobo were absent, so of course the car parking was rushed through. It wouldn’t have mattered which way Forge voted cos Pilling didn’t have the numbers. Even if Lobo was there, it could have been four all, with Her Majesty as the casting vote. What’s even ten times worse is that noone had the guts to ask where the 450,000 is coming from and what this means to other services. Perhaps council should borrow another 5 million on hire purchase? Better still, feed us another line about infrastructure, surplus, and all the other wobbly accounts.
July 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM
The Minister for Planning latest media release .
“Thursday, 28 July 2011
From the Minister for Planning
Planning Minister Matthew Guy today announced that he will continue to work with the Surf Coast Shire Council on land supply issues, after the Council voted to continue with its 2040 strategy without development at Spring Creek.
“After the Council’s vote last night, I have today expressed my desire to the Surf Coast Mayor that we continue to work together to resolve land supply and affordability issues in Torquay, but given the Council is willing to consider other locations apart from Spring Creek, a ministerial amendment is no longer necessary and will not proceed,” Mr Guy said.
“The Victorian Coalition Government has repeatedly said we will listen to the community’s views and attitudes, and following the Council’s decision we have done so.”
The Coalition Government has worked with a number of regional councils in a proactive manner to solve land supply shortages in regional towns and cities.
“We remain committed to doing so to combat housing supply shortages and housing affordability issues,” Mr Guy said.
The previous Labor Government supported a development plan for over 6,000 homes in the Spring Creek area of Torquay, but the Coalition Government never supported this density.
Mr Guy said the Coalition Government’s preferred option was always less than 1,800 homes on the Spring Creek site.
“The Coalition Government is genuine in its commitment to improve housing affordability and land supply. We are also genuine in our offer of consultation with the Surf Coast Council,” Mr Guy said.
“We will continue to work with the Council to address supply issues but with all locations for future growth to be considered.”
The Coalition Government reaffirms its offer to work constructively with the Council and in partnership with the people of Torquay.”
July 28, 2011 at 11:16 PM
WordPress commentators …. SO far this has been almost a secret process. We must send in so many objections to “MRC’S GATE-LOCKING ABILITY) that no councillor dares to even think for a moment that this latest planned land grab is a possibility. You must all look forwards not backwards!!!!! wE MUST ALSO DMEAND A PROPER HEARING AT THE PLANNING MEETING BECAUSE TWO OR SO RECENTLY, WHEN CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS OF THE MRC/VATC, HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELYT UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!
ALSO DON’T FORGET TO NOTE THAT GLEN EIRA HAD STATED IT CANNOT DO ANYTHING FOR WE RESIDENTS IF THE MRC FAILS TO LEAVE THE GATES OPEN AT CONTRACTED TIMES.!!!!!
July 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM
The approach taken by the Minister in regard to Surf Coast is a good indication for the residents of Bentleigh as the Town Planning laws under go reform. The previous ALP Government were a disaster taking Bentleigh for granted. People want Governments and Councils that listen and rely on truth and not spin.
July 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM
Returning to the planning application for a moment, the draft agreement between MRC and GEC specifies post-and-rail fencing for other than Precinct 5 (off-leash dog area). There is no mention in it of 2.1m chain wire fencing. Guess I’m going to have to look at the planning application after all.
There is of course a strong historical precedent to be wary of: MRC gained absolute control of the whole area in the first place by illegally fencing it off. Successive craven governments first tolerated it and then later condoned it. Even recently, the Government continues to demonstrate its approval by confirming its intention to appoint racing hacks to the Trustees. The message is clear: the public reserve is to be regarded as MRC land, for MRC benefit. Any pretence that public land is for public benefit has been abandoned.
What are the terms of the lease that MRC must have signed to be able to do what they are proposing to the Reserve?
July 29, 2011 at 2:09 PM
You are almost correct about appointing racing hacks to the Race Course Trust. The Brumby Government appointed former Counciller Nic Staikos. This was seen by many as reward for service. As Council appointed trustee he sided with the MRC in deference to his fellow Councillors. After using the Council to get the life membership on the Trust he is now preparing to run for State Parliament. Nic loves the free lunches in the committee room, I have seen him in there. People usually only get biten once by the same dog.