Paul Burke is dissembling once again. The consultation held prior to the adoption of the detestable Urban Villages policy did not support the vision that Council chose to adopt. At *no stage* did the community authorize Council to waive compliance with ResCode. The community has never accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive compliance. Council refuses to invest in the infrastructure necessary to support quality high-density living. People who read the policy will be aware that there are obligations on Council around not exacerabiting existing traffic congestion problems.
Council has never explained who or what a “pedestrian driver” is, or why some developers have been allowed to build without a Planning Permit. Even the recent pathetic response from Paul Burke about the loss of trees at Council reminds us that car parking for council officers is more important. This is despite them being located on 2 different modes of public transport. The hasty vote to expand the carpark at GESAC rather than provide adequate public transport reinforces the message that they simply don’t believe in their policy. The lack of Structure Plans for areas targetted for the highest densities is extraordinary considering the benefits DPCD claims for them.
We have crumbling infrastructure that Council can’t maintain. Developers don’t pay for the infrastructure needed to support their profits–we the community are expected to subsidize them. So what does Council do? It votes to remove Development Contributions Overlays. (If you can believe Council, $150K was inadequate, and it cost them more than that to collect.)
Even the way C87 has been handled shows contempt for us. Council has published an “Explanatory Report” which is supposed to answer why the amendment is necessary and what the benefits are. It claims its needed because a Planisphere report recommended it. The Planisphere outlines what Council told it to do, and it has done as Council has asked (and paid them to do). Note also that Planisphere was explicitly told *not* to consider any property outside of the Minimal Change areas. The benefits listed apply only to the chosen few residents and seem to undermine Council’s pro-development arguments elsewhere.
As Council has been forced to admit, the Objectives of Planning in Victoria include “to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use” of land, and “to secure a pleasant, efficient, and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”. It has failed to demonstrate in the propaganda distributed with C87 how it has met *any* of these Objectives. There’s certainly nothing fair about Council’s policies, very little that’s pleasant about the consequences, and its failure to provide open space within safe walking distance of the urban ghettos its encouraging, despite collecting money to pay for it, is simply insulting.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM
This is the best account I’ve ever read of why those in charge at this council deserve to be sacked immediately. I hope that this is read by many many people and that they all remember this when October comes around.
February 2, 2012 at 4:37 PM
The well paid for consultancies to “recommend” what Newton wants goes even further when you read the nonsense about the community plan. The questions are rigged by the very order in which they’re placed – environmentally sound water usage, or something similar, appears first. Of course when you ask people “do you think it’s important to be environmentally conscious” they’ll say yes and put this as a priority. The other questions are as rigged as this one. Questions about consultation methods and practices are just mentioned once.
Even given all this, the survey couldn’t hide the fact that parking and traffic management, as well as overdevelopment and the lack of consultation were the things that really got up people’s noses and that they thought were most important. You don’t need to pay a fortune for a consultancy firm to come up with these results. It’s staring everyone in the face – except dumb and yes men councillors. Of course, it looks fantastic when the spin takes over and Burke can claim that there’s been “extensive consultation”. Looking at the figures again, it sure isn’t “extensive” when you’re only asking thirty people from one suburb for example and only 50 people overall from one age group. That’s not a survey. If they were fair dinkum there would be other methods. But with consultants Newton can control everything and get the results he wants – regardless of how much it costs, because he isn’t paying for any of this. Residents are!
February 2, 2012 at 7:18 PM
Well! you can keep voting the Liberal and Labor parties into government and get more of the same bull.
Or you can change the game.
I will be voting for the Greens.
February 2, 2012 at 9:03 PM
Why vote for any “party”. They only look after themselves and not the residents, eg Pilling and his unconditional support of the gang and C60. No, I will not be voting for any party, just the best candidate.
February 2, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Hmm! The old “best candidate”. Just wish there was a way of foreseeing who that will be. There are so many I’ve thought would produce the goods but who quickly lose their appetite for change. Falling into line shortly after they garner enough votes to assume the moniker ‘Councillor’. It doesn’t take long for Newton and his toadies and the old guard to train them up.
February 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM
Remember Anonymous that the Greens Party support development – check their policies and don’t count on any support from them when it comes to opposing development in your street
February 2, 2012 at 9:25 PM
Since when does the “community” have to allow Council to do anything. You vote in Councillors then the so called “community” hands over the controls to those that were elected. If you don’t like what they are doing you vote in a new lot. I don’t understand what sort of a society lives in your head. The Urban Villages were discussed for years and under went many changes along the way.
February 2, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address answers the question of authority comprehensively. I have never voted to hand over control to any politician. Like most of us, I am obliged to rank candidates in order of distastefulness, bizarrely without a means of ranking two candidates as being equally obnoxious. Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem has a lot more to say about the weaknesses of voting systems.
February 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM
You appear to be out of step with most Australian voters. Quoting any US politician appears odd. Over there they have a disfunctional set up where they elect a person that can override their parliament. That ain’t democracy.
February 2, 2012 at 10:47 PM
We’ve received the following email from a reader and endorse the comments.
“Greetings,
Really enjoy the blog.
It would be great if you would encourage regulars to get a username. It’s a tad frustrating with so many just using ‘Anonymous’ as it’s very difficult to determine who you’re having a conversation with at times. Not sure whether it’s laziness or a misinformed view that it in some way depletes anonymity. Which, of coaurse, is wrong. It’s the only sizeable blog I’m aware of where usernames aren’t part and parcel of the process.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
‘A’
Anonymity can still be maintained – simply choose your own favourite moniker. It may be anything you like!
February 2, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Choose the best candidate, with independent right next to his/her name of course. Not so simple. Mostly that will get you a Liberal or Labor sleeper that is to dishonest to put the truth of where they come from and who they represent next to there own name. That has to be a great start
Start with a lie and get worse from then on
Like I said at least the Greens are totally upfront about who they are. The rest are almost without exception part of the system that keeps all you guys completely baffled. Its time to wake up and see what’s happening to you, year after year.
February 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Some more ‘happy customers’ from the online Leader:
Sarah writes:
Posted on 2 Feb 12 at 02:12pm
Mr Burke- the council spokesman talks of extensive public consultation. Can the residents of Bentleigh see the report and process of this consultation? How many representatives did they have from each of the affected streets? Godfrey St, Vickery St, Oak St, Mavho St, Loranne St, Burgess St, Daley St, Bendigo, Robert, Mitchell, Nicholson, Hamilton, Bleazby, Blair and Bent streets? Was it a notification or a consultation? The residents right to privacy, a sense of living in a community is being overshadowed by short sightedness and greed.
Jet writes:
Posted on 1 Feb 12 at 07:31pm
I say enough is enough – I have lived in Bentleigh for 18 years and a suburb that was so wonderful to live in has is now slowly losing it charm to these boxes that they call houses that are being putting up. My street has had a lot of new builds and I am now subject to the lot across the street being done and the one next store – which was rejected by council – went to VCAT and rejected due to the over development of the land is back at council with another set of plans now. Within the last several months a site at the end of Nicholson street has been approved by VCAT and one on the corner of Rose and Center road. When does it end – I SAY NO MORE DEVELOPMENTS IN BENTLEIGH!!!
Kirat writes:
Posted on 1 Feb 12 at 12:04pm
As a resident of Bentleigh, living within the impacted area, I don’t recall any notification or consultation. Residents of Mavho Street were not consulted and some of them have been there for 40 years! These developments impact on residents, privacy and do not promote a sense of community. They are not in keeping with the character of the streets.