Glen Eira Debates

July 10, 2012

11 Responses to “Letters To The Editor”

1. Anonymous Says:

   
   July 10, 2012 at 11:15 AM

   Two very good letters which pinpoint the agenda and the mechanisms for implementing that agenda. The idea of structure plans is now as old as the hills. Most councils have them. They involve local research and analysis and wide community consultation – both of which are missing in Glen Eira.

   It should also be borne in mind that the release of the latest census figures indicates that the previous population projections for Glen Eira are well out. Yet, our target “projections” and hence numbers of new dwellings were met years ago resulting in rampant overdevelopment. This hasn’t abated one iota despite reaching these unrealistic figures. Either other councils are more prescient, realising what is around the corner, or far more community minded in their determination to devise and implement structure plans that at the minimum attempt to regulate and protect local areas. Glen Eira has repeatedly refused to have a bar of structure plans – despite the funding and expertise available from government sources. They have preferred to see the municipality over-run with little boxes, no infrastructure, and no urban design frameworks. Adding further injury to insult has been the dropping of the contributions levy across the board so that developers now need not worry about even paying a cent. The open space levy also works to developers advantage. Whereas Port Phillip for example has recently introduced a 5% levy across the board for all municipal areas, Glen Eira continues to impose miniscule percentages in most housing diversity areas and comes nowhere near the 5% permitted by the legislation.

   Mr Gatoff is absolutely correct in his statement that every single planning policy and amendment introduced by this council is a further erosion of lifestyle in Glen Eira and totally detrimental to residents. If councillors can’t see this, then they are fools. If they do see this and nothing has changed in their 4 years, then frankly, they do not deserve the title of “representative”.
2. D.Evans Says:

   
   July 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

   There has been a flood of amendments over the past few years. Each one has set the scene for increased development and further deterioration of our suburbs. Little if any publicity has accompanied these amendments and certainly no adequate public information campaign. The important bits such as increasing housing diversity areas with the C87 and the latest Glen Huntly Rd one setting the scene for another 5 storeys at least, have been hidden away in the verbage. The familiar line that all these amendments are simply the “first step in a process” is wearing very thin when all of them (apart from the Hawthorn Rd heritage debacle) are ultimately accepted by councillors. Too often, whatever residents say, has been totally ignored. Developers however are given full hearings. This must stop.
3. anonymous Says:

   
   July 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM

   Mr Gatoff seems to have suddenly taken quite an interest in council affairs. I note he asked a number of public questions at the last meeting.
   He wouldn’t by any chance be planning on standing for council, would he?
   1. Macca Says:

      
      July 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

      Newton Gatoff announced his intention to stand for election many weeks ago via another letter to the editor. I say good on him! At least he is ensuring that he acquaints himself with council policies and asks pertinent questions that should stand him in good stead if he happens to be elected. The shame is that other candidates are not doing similar things – or perhaps the stooges are there only to give their preferences to Hyams and co. and therefore have no real interest in council politics but are just helping out their mates. These people do not need to write letters and ask questions and possibly show up to council meetings.
   2. Smart Aleck Says:

      
      July 10, 2012 at 6:25 PM

      Can’t help yourself can ya? Anyone who asks decent queries of this lot is automatically a target for put down cos they just, just might upset the apple cart of the gang and Newton. Sicko stuff.
   3. Anonymous Says:

      
      July 10, 2012 at 7:43 PM

      Thanks for clearing that up – I thought Penhalluriack had an ironic name change. We need new blood on this Council. I am ashamed that sacked Councillors are our last two mayors. What a disgrace.
      1. Anonymous Says:

         
         July 10, 2012 at 9:47 PM

         Go back a little further and you’ll find that all the recent mayors have been gang members – Tang, Esakoff, Hyams – and all having their puppet strings pulled by Newton and Lipshutz
4. anonymous Says:

   
   July 10, 2012 at 9:51 PM

   Gee whiz Aleck, you really do like jumping to conclusions, don’t you?

   One of the things I look for in a candidate is some history of community involvement and interest in local issues. Does Mr Gatoff have this? I don’t know – I’ve never heard of him before.

   It’s a smart move to get yourself some publicity before an election – but I have found that doesn’t necessarily make a good councillor.

   Mr Gatoff may make a great councillor – who knows? I might even find myself handing out how-to-vote cards for him. I hope I see you there Aleck.

   I don’t want to vote for any of the sitting councillors – but we need community-minded people to put their hands up and time is running out to get an organised campaign running.
   1. D.Evans Says:

      
      July 10, 2012 at 10:13 PM

      I’m generalising, but I would think there are 3 main reasons why individuals choose to stand for council.

      1. a stepping stone to a perceived political career (Hyams/Lipshutz/Pilling)
      2. a one issue candidate who is passionate about “making a difference” or correcting a perceived wrong
      3. and the least attractive characteristic – sheer ego and an inflated sense of self importance

      Most of our councillors would fit into one or more of these categories. Whether or not they have a real concern about local issues, or even for a feeling of “community” is arguable. I don’t think you necessarily need councillors who have a history of community involvement in order to be good candidates or councillors. The most recent examples are Forge, Robilliard, Feldman and Spaulding. They were deeply involved in local politics before they stood for election but they have not achieved anything worthwhile. In fact, each has been a real disappointment. Hence I agree with you anonymous that we need new candidates with some nous and political awareness. We in fact need only 5 such people. I am hopeful that with these new 5 councillors things will turn around 180 degrees.
      1. anonymous Says:

         
         July 10, 2012 at 10:36 PM

         Nice comment D. Evans.

         But I’d take issue with you lumping Forge, Robilliard, Feldman and Spaulding together.

         Forge came out of SOS (Save Our Suburbs) and it seems her main concern was preserving the Camberwell-type tree-lined streets with large houses (like her own).
         Robilliard had a long history of local community activism and spoke out against the likes of Lipshutz and Esakoff. Her lack of impact was mainly because she had little support within council.
         Feldman was a Liberal Party candidate who used the swimming pool issue to raise his public profile. He was much more interested in self-promotion than the community interest.
         Spaulding came from local sporting groups. He was a decent bloke with good intentions but couldn’t really come to grips with being a councillor.

         But if anyone like Robilliard or Spaulding stood for council, I’d vote for them.
5. Anonymous Says:

   
   July 11, 2012 at 8:51 AM

   Another event is being advertised for this weekend at the racecourse. Not a day free of extra traffic and possible noise.

Comments are closed.