About a month ago the Caulfield Leader featured a story on the VCAT objection to the centre of the racecourse development. The alleged ‘culprit’ in all this was one woman, who through her objection was singly responsible for holding up the entire project. We’ve learnt the facts about what really happened. In chronological order, they are:
- The resident was phoned up by The Leader. An ‘interview’ time was arranged
- The reporter plus photographer duly arrived and were taken by two residents on a visit to the racecourse
- Discussion revealed that The Leader had been contacted by none other than Jeff Akehurst and told that there was one objector holding everything up.
- During the tour the reporter found that her shoes were totally unsuitable for wandering through the mud and manure filled tunnel at the top of Glen Eira Rd. The stench was also remarked upon as were the numerous locked gates
- Both reporter and photographer were appalled by the condition of the racecourse once they viewed it
- The argument was put, and seemingly accepted by the reporter that given the inaction by the MRC and council for the past decade, another few months in order to get it absolutely right would scarcely make a difference
So what happened between the visit and the publication of the article? What pressures might have been brought to bear to produce an article that basically laid all the blame at the feet of one resident and absolved the MRC and Council from all responsibility? What role did Akehurst and Hyams have in this whole affair? Does this in any shape or form constitute harassment (maybe bullying?) and the attempt to possibly exert undue pressure on a resident exercising her legal rights?
What also needs to be noted is:
The resident had previously met with the MRC and outlined her objections and thinking. She has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide the MRC with scientific research on the issues of concrete versus softer surfaces, standards for wheelchair access and other aspects. The understanding was that the MRC would go away, consider this, and organise another meeting. She is still waiting for this to occur! It is also worthy of mention that Hyams was present at this only meeting. His first words to her were: ‘Why are you holding up the development’?
Numerous readers have commented in the past on the ‘unholy alliance’ that appears to have been forged between the Leader, its editorial policy, and this Council. We are just staggered that what a reporter saw does not feature at all in the ensuing article. We also find it concerning that a council officer calls a newspaper and points the finger at a resident. This is technically legal since objectors’ details are freely available, but it certainly isn’t ethical when combined with the (probable?) intent of finding a convenient scapegoat for a poorly conceived plan, the acquiescence of Council, and the simple fact that the MRC has for years been a law unto themselves.
To what extent the MRC are a law unto themselves is evident by the sudden frenzied erection of hundreds and hundreds of metres of plastic white fences within the racecourse centre WHICH DID NOT FEATURE IN THE PERMIT! This again just makes a mockery of the MRC claim that one resident is holding up development when work is (perhaps illegally?) progressing. It also looks like (yellow) concrete is the preferred option since stacks of reinforced wire mesh is lying alongside ripped up sections of turf. This couldn’t possibly be an attempt to pre-empt the VCAT hearing could it?
After nearly a year of total silence on the Racecourse issue by this Council, residents have every right to conclude that their interests are far from being looked after by Council. It is surely not too much to expect that the likes of Newton, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling find out exactly what is going on and report back to the community. It is also not unreasonable to expect this Council to enforce the conditions of the so called ‘agreement’ in a timely, transparent, and open fashion.
May 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM
Council has now removed the MRC agreement from its website. Rather than provide an explanation as to why the MRC have not undertaken the removal of fencing and the $1.8m of “improvements” to the centre of the racecourse, they are now saying the agreement never existed! The authors of this agreement, Councillors Pilling, Hyams, Lipshutz and Esakoff and the MRC have a lot of explaining to do to residents. But when?
May 11, 2012 at 5:58 PM
The documents are still up on the website but like so much, well hidden. They are not “referenced” from the A to Z index, although plenty of other nonsense is still up there.
See: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=1817&h=1
May 11, 2012 at 7:13 PM
It was on the front page until Glen Eira debates started questioning what was happening. Keep up the good work and if you can’t keep the bastards honest, at least make them accountable.
May 11, 2012 at 5:43 PM
Glen Eira wrote:
“Numerous readers have commented in the past on the ‘unholy alliance’ that appears to have been forged between the Leader, its editorial policy, and this Council. We are just staggered that what a reporter saw does not feature at all in the ensuing article.”
The obsequiousness of that paper is an utter disgrace.
There are people at Whitehall who refer to it as their PR arm.
And a former journalist once told me they can’t go too hard on the Council because they rely so much on it for content.
It’s a pseudo newspaper.
May 11, 2012 at 10:17 PM
You’re being extremely kind in calling it a “newspaper”
May 11, 2012 at 7:26 PM
How could our elected representatives and their administration have gone so bad to now deliberately work against residents. Why have Hyams, Pilling, Esakoff and Lipshutz and key staff of Newton dropped Glen Eira Council to a new low. As a resident of over 60 years in Glen Eira/ Caulfield I am appalled of what we have become…an incipid branch of the Melbourne Racing Club. Deliberate inaction by the MRC and Council favors the MRC over an elderly lady resident trying her best. No doubt VCAT will support the MRC but that does not clear the Glen Eira Council of their role to ensure an agreement they signed off on was implemented.
May 11, 2012 at 7:43 PM
Mmmmm who has a son who is a property developer who stands to benefit from the development at Caulfield Racecourse proceeding ASAP. Anyone…letters of the developer are RA?
May 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM
I understand you may need to be careful but can you please give a first name?
May 11, 2012 at 10:36 PM
The mrc couldn’t give a damn about Council or residents. Recent street closures are perfect examples of how they operate unilaterally. Council is nothing but a pimple on their backside and residents don’t even warrant a scratch. Now that all the secret deals have been done and dusted they couldn’t give a stuff and our stupid lot of councillors just let them get away with everything. When it comes to the October elections people just keep these four names in mind – Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Pilling. Tang can also be tossed in with this motley group.
May 11, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Tang would be at the top of my list to catapult out of Council. The most unresponsive arrogant Councillor I’ve encountered. At least the other two in his ward respond to requests/questions.
Sad to say the overwhelming majority of ratepayers take barely a passing interest in municipal matters. We here are not reflective of the vast majority of somnolent ratepayers. Sad but true. Consequently all three are likely to be re-elected.
May 12, 2012 at 10:28 AM
I wouldn’t underestimate the power of word of mouth. When this is combined with the hip pocket nerve and people get sick and tired of continual unexplained rate rises then those who vote budgets in become the target. Then there’s the c60 lousy traffic management and a whole lot of other issues.
May 12, 2012 at 7:48 AM
This is an example of the current Lazy, do nothing state government. David Southwick (MODERATORS: word deleted) to residents just to get elected then dumped them once he was. Now he couldn’t care. Mind you, he is probably under instructions from the Planning and Racing Ministers. Hyams support of the MRC over residents is probably more about future political aims in the Liberal party. Only problem is that residents do the final voting on election day .
May 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM
This is probably the end for any political ambitions that Neil Pilling may have held. Lets face it, he was sold a lemon by the gang but he still took it. Now that the MRC have torn up the agreement (despite getting what they wanted) he was last seen in foetal position under the kitchen table.
May 12, 2012 at 1:29 PM
Council staff, which includes Jeff Akehurst, are covered by Council’s secret Code of Conduct for Council Staff, and the general conduct principles for staff listed in LGA. It would be debatable if JA has acted impartially or with integrity if he contacts the Leader only when its suits the political needs of the Administration. We do know that no member of Council staff accepts accountability for results.
The Leader’s choice of articles and slant taken in them is definitely a concern. I’ve not tried asking the Editor [Fiona Sexton] and Editor-in-Chief [John Trevorrow] for an explanation, but at least we have here [literally!] a concrete example. The Leader does publish critical comments, as reflected in the number of comments that were critical of Council and The Leader over the article featuring Mary Healy’s stance concerning the MRC’s proposed linear carpark.
During the process for the MRC Planning Permit, Council expressed a view that only some of the things the MRC wanted to do required a Permit. There was also some dispute about fences, with councillors taking a different view to that of council officers. Ultimately, developers can build without a Permit, even when one is required. Its a question of whether anybody could be bothered to enforce the Planning and Environment Act.
With all the shonks in the development industry, it should come as no surprise that there have been repeated instances in Glen Eira where a developer has built something without a Permit or without complying with the Permit. In a number of those cases, where enforcement action has been taken, the developer has simply obtained a retrospective Planning Permit from VCAT. Few people can afford to take the financial risk embedded in PAEA S93 to seek an Order to stop development of something being done illegally.
There is very little to regulate the MRC. The Government, through DSE, has ensured that. Neither DSE nor Trustees have met their responsibilites concerning the management of the Crown Land—its all been outsourced to the MRC.
May 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM
do you find it interesting that humans will be forces to walk through dirt in the tunnel (as well as horse shit) because it would hurt the horses feet to walk on concrete. Yet human runners will be forced to run on concrete which can only cause injury.