We urge all residents to peruse the so-called revamped Community/Council Plan and the proposed Budget to be decided on Tuesday night. After all the submissions, community forums, consultants’ reports and public presentations, nothing but nothing that residents highlighted as major concerns, has been adequately addressed and rectified. Projected increases in rates and charges remain the same; expenditure on vital infrastructure such as drains, roads, footpaths remains unchanged. All that has changed is some token motherhood statements about ‘investigating’ the possibility of introducing a Development Contributions Levy (!!!!!!),a Tree Register, and a Community Garden. The ‘measures’ of course basically entail a ‘report’ or ‘investigation’ or ‘review’ back to Council. We don’t need a crystal ball to know that these reports will state that:
- These things are too expensive to (re)introduce, or
- There is no available land in all of Glen Eira suitable for community gardens, etc.
What residents need to note in regards to rates is that in 2011/12 we were charged 3.0932 cents in the dollar. This year (to accommodate the 6.5% increase) this has jumped to 3.2425 on each property. Funnily enough, the MRC continues to receive a very handsome subsidy for all its land and occupied property. They are charged “a rate of 76% of the General Rate in the dollar which would otherwise be payable in respect of the land”. Ratepayers are therefore subsidising the MRC to the tune of 24%!!!!!!
These redrafted documents make it absolutely clear that this administration and its councillors have no intention of listening to residents and acting upon community views in a responsive and responsible fashion. Consultation has been, and is, nothing more than an empty, and costly, public relations exercise.
PS: we’ve decided to go into a little more detail to illustrate precisely what’s wrong with this ‘new’ “Action Plan”. We will examine some of these in the order they appear.
Added: “Review and update Council Policy “Exclusion of Specific Developments from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme” to implement measures to ensure multi dwellings provide adequate on-site car parking.” The listed ‘measure’ is: “Report a revised policy to Council.” Please note the vagueness of the language – “measures”, “adequate”. How “adequate” will be ascertained and evaluated is of course unstated. Further it remains nothing more than “policy” rather than full integration into the Planning Scheme.
Added: “Implement capital program including traffic calming measures in local streets informed by the Transport Strategy, Road Safety Strategy and the Local Area Traffic Management Priority System.” All well and good. But if the budget has actually reduced expenditure on these areas then all the policies in the world remain useless documents. 4 speed humps per year for the past 6 years does not fill anyone with confidence that traffic management is a high priority for this council.
The action proposed is: “Actively plan for a mix of dwelling types underpinned by the Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy and also by encouraging a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings in larger medium density proposals”. The ‘new’ measure reads: “Ensure Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies are working by directing most dwellings to Housing Diversity.” Apart from the fact that the ‘measure’ and the ‘action’ are not integrated, there is no intention in this to even consider the possibility that the Housing Diversity/Minimal Change policies are ineffective, if not straight out discriminatory. We’ve already been told that nearly 50% of new dwellings do not go into housing diversity!
Added: “Refuse under Manager Delegation all applications which are deemed non-compliant with Council’s Minimal Change Area Policy”. Well, hallelujah! Does this mean that previously applications that weren’t ‘complaint’ were actually given permits? And what about Housing Diversity Areas? These are, as per normal, totally ignored in the Action Plan.
Added: “Investigate the feasibility and applicability of introducing a Development Contributions Plan Report”. The stated measure is: “Report provided to Council.” Reminds us of a wonderful ethnic expression – “only donkeys go backwards”!
Finally, there is much, much more that we could have included but the result would be pages and pages. We again urge residents to find out for themselves how their views and aspirations have once again been totally ignored or watered down so that they become meaningless. Spin and inaction remain at the top of the list for Glen Eira administrators and councillors. All the issues which residents highlighted – planning, traffic, open space, governance, etc. – are untouched and unsolved, whilst the same old agendas of pro-development, more and more taj mahals, and increased rates are very much alive and well in our municipality.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM
I’m laughing my head off. First they get rid of the developers levy less than a year ago and now because it’s likely to come back via the government there’s the push to reintroduce it. They’re pathetic and a laughing stock all round. What they should be doing is hiking up the levy for open space and make it the same across all of Glen Eira and spending this money on buying land not more pavilions and rotundas and putting new grass on sporting ovals.
June 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM
The biggest landowner sitting on the most valuable land gets the biggest compensation for screwing residents. My sister who sold her house because of c60 should be really happy knowing that this is going on whilst her rates kept going up and up. Pensioners are sure to be thrilled too. Terrific job council.
June 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM
I actually feel sorry for the Councillors. It is the MRC who is ignoring the Glen Eira racecourse agreement. In doing so, the MRC are making a mokery of our elected representatives in particular Cr Lipshutz who was the primary signatory to the agreement but also Crs Hyams, Esakoff and Piliing who were also signatories as well as State MP David Southwick. If the MRC ignore our elected representatives in an election year, what hope have the poor mug voters got?
June 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM
The Council is complicit with the MRC. I presume it is Paul Burke who has removed the racecourse agreement from the main page on the Council website. Other Councils would have the lawyers in to seek a specific performance order on the MRC. This one just wishes a legally binding agreement would just go away.
June 22, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Why do we struggling ratepayers have to subsidise the Melbourne Racing Club? 730 gaming machines not enough? Multi million dollar acquisions like the Munday Gaming chain not enough? $1billion property deal of the Racecourse parking not enough? Fat Cat executives on mega salaries and bonuses not enough? They couldn’t even be bothered to give residents a rusty old BBQ to chuck a couple of snags on in the centre of the racecourse. The MRC are parasites of Glen Eira ratepayers and provide nothing back to the community.
June 22, 2012 at 12:53 PM
You will also be please to learn that our friendly MRC is also receiving a “RATE CHARGE” at a far lesser percentage then we all do for the area which is worth billions. As well as this they are now intending to allow the installatoion of another mobile tleephone tower which willaffect the people who if they are stupod buy the units which are planned. They are well in line of the EME RAYS which of course will only effect us if all the lines are being used at once. This is a second tower there so does that me3an each one gove a dpouble dose. The story oif this will probable be avaiilable on ge W/S. tHIS WILL BE A FEW MORE DOLLARS FOR THE POOR OLD MRC/VATC.
June 22, 2012 at 1:20 PM
It is because the Joe Soap’s dont make money running Circuses and building huge apartment buildings that they are not entitled to a rate discounts.
June 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM
Glen Eira doesn’t know what ‘real’ community consultation is. They use their shams as an opportunity to ‘educate’ ie. indoctrinate the community.
There is a fear of the community they are in place to represent. So, asking for their input does not happen for real!
June 22, 2012 at 3:29 PM
FYI – Michael Danby’s recent parliamentary speech –
Michael Danby
Federal Member for Melbourne Ports
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (11:55): Today’s Financial Review reports that the $1 billion Caulfield Racecourse development will take up to 10 years to complete. Approved by the Victorian state Liberal Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy, in June 2011, this development, a crass monstrosity, is in the very heart of my electorate. Caulfield, with its various delis, bakeries, schools, bars, restaurants and parks, will be completely engulfed with a skyline not unfamiliar to those venturing into the canyons of the city of Melbourne. These disruptive planning developments impinge on the nature and identity of the quiet residential streets of Caulfield. Frankly, this $1 billion so-called Caulfield Village is over the top, does not have enough open space and will eventually turn the area into a desolate slum like the overdeveloped parts of the Gold Coast.
During the 2010 election, the Liberal candidate for Caulfield, David Southwick, told a Liberal rally at Caulfield Park Pavilion that the proposed development of Caulfield Racecourse and its surrounding areas—in developer’s newspeak, the Caulfield Village with its 20-storey tower—was a ‘monstrosity that would destroy Caulfield’s amenities and identity’. But, after the election, Mr Southwick changed his tune, lauding the $1 billion Caulfield development. The member for Caulfield and the Baillieu government should be embarrassed by this reversal. Despite the concerns of local residents and the revelation today that the project will be a building site for 10 years, the state Liberals have approved this project. Many locals have spoken out against it, concerned that the ugly Caulfield Village will fundamentally change the nature of the suburb.
This development will be built on a five-hectare car park adjacent to the racecourse and will attract 2,000 residents and burden the area with 35,000 square metres of office and retail space. Presumably, on race days, even more cars will be pushed off onto residential streets due to the lack of the spaces they now use in that car park, which was gifted to the Melbourne Racing Club. This represents a huge loss of open space in the area adjacent to the Caulfield Racecourse. With plans by the Victorian government to cut the number of car spaces allocated to new apartment blocks, this development will cause further traffic chaos for an area already overcrowded with cars. Where will the race crowd park when the parking spaces that are already there are converted into a new precinct? This area is already known for traffic congestion due to the Caulfield train station being directly across from the racecourse and Monash University’s Caulfield campus, which houses over 1,300 students, being located mainly on the other side of the train track but nonetheless causing lots of traffic congestion in the area.
Caulfield Racecourse is already under construction with a $1.8 million revamp in its infield parking space. The proposed so-called Caulfield Village, far from being like Elwood Village, which by contrast has low-rise residential buildings, will fundamentally change the suburb. Caulfield will be transformed with the active support of conservative state members and councillors aligned to them and approved by the man agitating to replace the comatose Mr Baillieu, Matthew Guy, the state Liberal Minister for Planning. Mr Guy, along with his offsider, Mr Southwick, in conjunction with the mysterious machinations of the Melbourne Racing Club, have greenlit a project that will be characterised by traffic gridlock and prolonged construction et cetera. Why the Victorian government and the Glen Eira council is continuing the privilege and sweetheart deal with the Melbourne Racing Club is beyond me. Do the quiet streets of Caulfield really need to have a virtual half casino development with all of the traffic, drunkenness and loutish behaviour that will be attendant to such a development?
The Liberal government has had the habit of giving the green light to various planning developments in my electorate, including several in St Kilda and Albert Park. As the state member for Albert Park, Martin Foley, has stated, the Victorian Liberal government is seeking to turn parts of our electorate into their version of the tawdry Surfers Paradise.
The Liberal government has approved a massive 26-storey, 272-apartment building in St Kilda and took the decision away from the City of Port Phillip against the wishes of the local community. As Mr Foley has said, the Baillieu government has paved the way for developers to plan high-rise buildings in the heart of St Kilda’s residential areas. Now Mr Guy, the man who would like to replace Mr Baillieu, and his friend Mr Southwick, who probably will be rewarded with some position for his support for Mr Guy, are paving the way for sky risers in Caulfield.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It being 10.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
June 22, 2012 at 7:42 PM
Danby is no more than a time serving seat warming back bencher who is a fully paid-up member of the Lipshutz/Hyams fan club. I take what he says with a grain of salt.
June 23, 2012 at 8:20 PM
At least someone is talking about the injustice the MRC places on residents. I am still waiting for an update on the racecourse agreement from our own Councillors who signed the agreement, namely Councillors HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF and PILLING. Waiting, waiting, waiting…….
June 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM
C60 was set up by the Brumby Labor Government. The outcome would have been the same with Brumby as Premier. Danby smells defeat. He relies on paid union members to man his polling booths as many Caulfield ALP members will not help since he is preceived to have used unorthodox tactics to defeat Tim Pallis in his preselection. Tim had hair in those days.
June 22, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Danby is a head kicker but boy he has easy game with Matthew Guy and David Southwick. If something positive was happening as contained in the Caulfield Racecourse agreement, then residents would be far more supportive. However, the MRC is riding roughshod over Council and the residents and no-one but Danby is questioning the MRC no longer abiding by the agreement. Danby is on a real winner here and will keep whipping it to the finishing line – as good as bet as Black Cavier tomorrow night if you ask me.
June 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM
Danby looks at the polling and is frightened that he will slip into opposition or he may lose his seat. All of a sudden he has interest in State issues which he has never had since he was preselected over Tim Pallis many years ago. First it was the Grand Prix and now the Caulfield Race Track. The buzz is that as many ALP pundits have long ago worked out that they will lose the next eloection it is a good time to start the rebuilding process by replacing Danby before the next election. He needs the support of the locals that will vote in the preselection.
June 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM
This makes me see red. People make the effort to show up and think about issues, to write submissions and this is all the thanks they get. Bullshit and more bullshit whilst the mrc gets handed everything it wants on a silver platter. I’m sick to death of subsidising these venues and watching the waste and incompetence of Newton and staff while I keep paying more and more for less and less.
June 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM
This contract or lease with the Yarra Yarra golf club is another bit of behind the scenes goings on. The rates that this club pays has always been kept secret. I want to know why? We’re not even told what their discount is. All the budgets have ever said is “For land owned or occupied by the Yarra Yarra Golf Club, an amount determined in accordance with an agreement between Council and the Yarra Yarra Golf Club”. More cloak and dagger stuff and we’re kept in the dark.
June 24, 2012 at 9:28 AM
You are wrong. the discounts are clearly shown in the budget for both the MRC and Yarra Yarra. Under the LGA they must be declared. Look at the budget more carefully. Discounting rates for gold course goes on all around the State and Glen Eira is in line with all other Councils. Look at Baysides budget they have afew big clubs. RMGC and Victoria.
June 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM
Yep, once more residents are ignored – the only difference is that this time they haven’t even bothered to pay lipservice to residents concerns.
Take a look at how good the strongly referred to “living” Road Safety Strategy is – written in 2006 and based on 2005 data – this “living” document is as defunct as the Community Plan
June 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM
The Glen Eira Road Safety Strategy reveals how little Council knows about parts of its municipality. Appendix B lists locations of casualty crashes with Princes Hwy/Grange Rd Carnegie at the top of the list [23]—not much of a surprise there. But further down the list is Princes Hwy/Darling Rd Carnegie [12], and Princes Hwy/Koornang Rd Carnegie [12]. Yup, its one and the same intersection, which should be at the top of the list with 24. It is on the fringe of the municipality though, which may be why that whole area has been so badly managed, especially the Spotlight Centre. You have to wonder why we have Planning Permits if Council doesn’t expect developers to comply with them.
June 22, 2012 at 10:57 PM
There’s a letter that’s gone out to all those folks who put in a submission from the mayor. It says thanks basically but what’s got up my goat is this sentence – The adopted Community Plan must be submitted to the Minister of Local Government by 30 June 2012 in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.
This is so typical of the weasel words and deception that this council practices that it’s unbelievable. The legislation says not one single word about Community Plans. It’s only Glen Eira that states that the Council Plan is the Community Plan. There is no legal requirement for the Community Plan to be submitted by the 30 June this year. They don’t even have to have one according to the law.
Everything that this council does is designed to hide the truth and keep people ignorant and not questioning what is going on. People are fed lies after lies and if not straight out lies, then sentences like the above. Hyams as a lawyer should know better. He’s signed this and that tells me the kind of person he is.
June 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM
In this case it is a straight out lie. Councillors are well aware of the requirements of S125: “A Council must prepare and approve a Council Plan within the period of 6 months after each general election or by the next 30 June, whichever is later.” If the Community Plan is not the Council Plan then there is no statutory requirement. If The Community Plan *is* the Council Plan as Council has stated, then its not been prepared in accordance with the Act.
June 23, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Please note that part of Section 125 of the Act also states: “At least once in each financial year, a Council must consider whether the
current Council Plan requires any adjustment in respect of the remaining period of the Council Plan”. This is undoubtedly the ruse under which the entire disaster is being rushed through. What is entirely misleading is the claim that the Community Plan is in fact the Council Plan. Legislation does not demand nor endorse this. It is the convenient and deliberately misleading “interpretation” that owes nothing to the legislation and everything to spin and obfuscation.
June 25, 2012 at 7:09 AM
Lucky the Act doesn’t mention the Community Plan. This something that was invented by Newton to fit his own headspace.
June 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM
The LGA does not mention Community Plan. It is a Council Plan. Using the word community is part of the spin. Don’t you get it. be better to stick with the law instead of trying to be PC.
June 23, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Sorry Glen Eira. I jumped in without reading your last post. You are spot on. Thanks.