Three items at tonight’s Council Meeting produced ‘revolutionary’ results by councillors. Now whether this is mere electioneering or genuine, it is definitely a welcome sign. Our only regret is that it has taken nearly 4 years for councillors to assert themselves and to do what they were elected to do!
The issues we are referring to are:
- The deferment of Amendment Non-Residential Uses which we analysed several posts ago. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/chip-chip-chipping-away/
- The rejection of an officer’s report and the demand for the information in the original request to be included
- The strong implied criticism of Paul Burke and the manner in which sporting allocations are done.
It should also be noted that Lipshutz and Forge are on extended leave and that Penhalluriack was absent. Newton was also absent. We will deal only with the first item in this post – the rest will follow in the days ahead.
Amendment C102
Tang moved that this item be deferred. Esakoff seconded.
TANG: Started off that the two amendments on the agenda came out of the Planning Scheme Review and that for the previous Amendment (rezoning) he was ‘satisfied’ with the ‘strategic’ justification and ‘merit’. Although ‘there may be some strategic merit in the suggestions’ for C102 there are also come ‘concerns’ and Council should be ‘prudent’ in ‘trying to address those concerns before proceeding’. Said that a resident had pointed out the ‘blog’ and that the moderators ‘were certainly very dedicated’. Tang went on to state that he was concerned about the ‘accuracy’ of the blog and ‘balance of the views expressed’ but in a ‘democratic society’ people are permitted to express their viewpoint. He then went on to state that as a ‘community representative’ he was happy to ‘review’ those views and if they had support to ‘bring them to council’. Said that he wanted to be 100% ‘satisfied’ about the concerns raised ‘in relation to the watering down of restrictions’….’expansion of the breadth of the policy….’and descriptions…..around significant trees’. ‘Council should consider what else it can do….before proceeding’.
ESAKOFF: Agreed but with ‘slightly different reasons’ to Tang. ‘ I would like some more time to work on this….’
LOBO: ‘it is a good idea to defer this’….’many (of the changes) are in favour of a developer’
HYAMS: Said he understood the ‘aims in redrafting in making it more streamlined….(claimed he hadn’t read the blog) ‘for some time’ and that he’d come to the conclusion himself that ‘there were concerns with this’ such as putting in Housing Diversity as ‘preferred’ locations. Stated that he would be ‘more comfortable with some further consideration’.
TANG: ‘acknowledged’ that Hyams brought up ‘similar concerns’ to his own. Said that the only reason he mentioned the blog is that ‘it is so often used ….as a vehicle for hate…spreads innuendo….or inaccurately assesses council’s performance….without checking the veracity of the underlying information’. Went on to state that ‘in this instance….the blog has done a good thing’ in comparing past policy with draft suggestions. ‘That’s fine and in fact very useful in the democratic debate’…..’regardless of how councillors have come to the conclusion I just hope they will take on board concerns’.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Glen Eira Debates 
July 3, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Congratulations GlenEira moderators. For a blog site that councillors claim to never read, it’s astonishing how many times the site is mentioned at council meetings. It is clearly a major thorn in their side. At least Tang had generally the good grace to acknowledge the validity of the argument presented by the blog. The worry though is that when the report resurfaces councillors will meekly fall into line having made the gesture of seeking further explanation and detail. I’m assuming that Newton can now sit back and wait the few months until after the election and then regurgitate the same report to the next council. He will have lost nothing but 3 months.
It’s a crying shame that this same degree of conscientiousness is not applied across the board to all amendments and all policies that remove community input and erode councillor powers. Waiting until the election is far, far too late to curry favour with residents.
July 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Well done Glen Eira. What about the centre of the racecourse? Was timing discussed?
July 3, 2012 at 11:23 PM
The only time that the Racecourse was mentioned occurred when the VCAT decisions were reported on. All blame was placed on the one resident who had objected to the centre of the racecourse development and who has now withdrawn her objection. No a single word (apart from denigrating this resident especially by Hyams and Esakoff) was said about fences and about safety concerns. We will report on this in greater detail shortly.
July 4, 2012 at 5:16 AM
As far as the dealings with the MRC over the racecourse agreement is concerned, it’s not the whiff of revolution but the stench of corruption.
July 3, 2012 at 11:36 PM
I’d like to add my vote of approval to this site. It’s the first time that I can remember that an amendment has been knocked back at this early stage. The point is that it should never have got this far. I’d presume that such items would be brought up in briefing sessions. Councillors should have knocked it on the head then. It shouldn’t be up to residents to do the homework and show up all the glaring mistakes and hidden agendas.
The same set of arguments that Tang used would also apply to the recently amended Child Care Policy. Minimal change areas are protected and Housing Diversity is fair game. A terrible shame that the blog didn’t do a number on this amendment. Maybe the same result could have been achieved.
I think the real lesson out of all this is that residents need to be ever vigilant about any new policy that the administration trots out. It is certainly not going to enhance the social, environmental, nor economic amenity of our neighbourhoods given the appalling track record of this council.
July 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM
“I think the real lesson out of all this is that residents need to be ever vigilant about any new policy that the administration trots out” You’ve summed it up perfectly Mr Evans. I would extend this warning to councillors themselves because I’m convinced very few of them, if any, have a true grasp of what is happening. Nor do they think about the long term implications of their decisions. Our elected people are nothing more than tick-the-box followers or too easily duped by the rubbish that they’re fed.