The minutes from last Council Meeting have finally made an appearance. Two questions were asked in relation to the initially proposed pedestrian ‘refuge’ in Alma Rd. We find these queries particularly informative – especially when they are compared to the announcement in the September Glen Eira News which stated:
“Alma Road, Caulfield
pedestrian refuge
Council sought submissions regarding a proposed pedestrian refuge in Alma Road, Caulfield North.The pedestrian refuge is planned to be installed just east of Wilks Street and is designed to facilitate walking and improve pedestrian safety in line with Council’s Towards Sustainable Transport 2011–2014 Strategy”.
The ensuing public questions were –
Subject: Pedestrian refuge in Alma Road
“What, if any is the justification for Councils proposal to put a pedestrian refuge in Alma Road Caulfield North? What if any investigations have been made with regard to the need for such a pedestrian refuge in the suggested position?”
The Mayor read Council’s response. She said: “Following public consultation Council’s Transport Planning department has decided not to proceed with this pedestrian refuge at this stage.”
Subject: Pedestrian refuge in Alma Road
“How does council justify spending money on an unnecessary pedestrian refuge in Alma Road North Caulfield? What if any evidence does Council have of any danger posed to pedesrian traffic which might outweigh the justification of denying residents adequate access to their homes? What evdience does council have to justify the comment that there is no demand for parking in the area? How does council justify written promises made to residents that parking in the area would not be affected by the addition of new bicycle lanes and then 6 weeks later write to resident with a completely opposite proposal? How does Council justify the inconsistancies in the implimentation of its own Glen Eira Road safety strategy?”
The Mayor read Council’s response. She said: “Following public consultation Council’s Transport Planning department has decided not to proceed with this pedestrian refuge at this stage”.
COMMENTS:
- Residents reading the Glen Eira News could be forgiven for thinking that the refuge installation was a fait accompli.
- Second question on ‘evidence/research/statistics’ remains typically unanswered
- Residents are no clearer as to WHY Alma Rd was first chosen, and now, why it has been disgarded.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 27, 2011 at 2:47 PM
The questions don’t seem to match the answers….now if we ‘dumbed’ them down a bit!
September 27, 2011 at 5:56 PM
The day when public questions are answered will be the day that residents can rejoice. The day when public questions provide real detail and evidence for decisions will also be a glorious day. The day that a mayor refuses to put his or her name to the arrogant junk that parades as ‘answers’ will be pure heaven. Response to public questions are just that ‘responses’ – they in no shape or form represent what most people would see as ‘answers’. They are spin, and evasion to cover the mistakes and botch ups.
September 27, 2011 at 10:31 PM
These sound like perfectly sensible and reasonable questions to me. Any decisions should be based on more than a whim and if things change then residents deserve an explanation as to why they’ve changed. This isn’t what happens in Glen Eira obviously. Decisions are ad hoc, unplanned, and often, disastrously wrong. Only when residents kick up a fuss is there the remotest possibility of a back flip – without explanation though. It’s an appalling waste of public money, officer’s time, and residents’ energies.
September 27, 2011 at 11:39 PM
One night at council there was a large group waiting of Alma Road ratepayers waiing to hear their questions read out in the chamber some time ago and as happens quite often they did not hear them read, because now one can see the answering process was delayefd for this amazing outcome. The council and the 1,000 odd show seems to be only on the road for their own whims and wishes and the time of sensibility for theGlen Eira ratepayershas trully left this municipality yonks ago
September 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM
Heaps of other councils have public questions at the start of council meetings. This gives residents the opportunity to ask and possibly comment on things before they are voted in or out. It also means that more people get to hear the public questions and therefore the matters that concern people. In Glen Eira the opposite happens. Public questions are at the end, when most people having heard their application or whatever, have already gone and the gallery has been bored silly by the tediousness of the discussions, so many are half asleep. Then there’s Burke mumbling at supersonic speed the actual question and reading out his written response, or handing it to the Mayor to read out. Deliberate I suspect. We can’t have public questions heard by too many people and actually invite questions. That would be too much like caring about what residents have to say and ask. Leave it all to the end and the manufactured and arrogant responses. That’s the only way to go.
September 28, 2011 at 1:50 PM
Council’s home page says Bailey Reserve – Open Space Improvement. That about replacing the playground and moving it elsewhere because of the new car park going in. The headline open space improvement is laughable when open space is being replaced with more bitumen as a car park that they couldn’t get right from the start. Oh and don’t forget the trees that’ll be chopped down. Reckon my award for the most shonky headline goes to this Burke effort.