We’ve received the following comment, which we believe deserves to be featured as a separate post.
“I know the objector and the lengths she has gone to in order to try and ensure that residents get a fair deal. Unlike so many of us who are prepared to sit back and whinge, this lady has put her money where her mouth is. At the vcat hearing on the subdivision she hired a barrister which probably cost her thousands of dollars. She didn’t have to do this, and god knows, she’s not flush with funds. But she was determined to at least try and get some justice and a decent hearing. She lost of course.
Then there was the centre of the racecourse. I’ve seen her objection and to me it made plenty of sense. She did her homework, running all over Melbourne to see how other councils dealt with pathways. She took photos of these alternate tracks, costed them, and backed this up with medical journal articles that showed how jogging on hard concrete injures people. She met with the MRC, and they were supposed to get back to her and organise another meeting. Of course they didn’t but literally ploughed ahead, with the acquiescence of this council to create their yellow concrete monstrosities throughout an area that is supposed to be a recreation and park land.
It’s incredibly easy to blame one individual as Hyams, Esakoff and now Southwick have done. Just because there is only one objection, doesn’t mean that the rest of the municipality accepts what is happening. I certainly don’t. But I was too lazy, and despondent, to write up a formal objection.
Ultimately she did withdraw her objection. Not because she thought she was wrong, or because the fire had left the belly. I suspect it was simply that the threat of paying out the mrc’s legal costs, which I’ve no doubt they would have tried, was a risk too great to take. Idealism and a social conscience can come at a great cost when you’re fighting unscrupulous councils and a mega industry who don’t care one little bit about who they want to crush and how much it will cost. For council, they simply put their hands into our pockets. For the mrc, well they got Napthine and the whole damn government supporting them.
Southwick’s, Hyams and Esakoff’s attacks are totally without foundation and tell us more about them and their dirty tactics, than they do about the objector. She should be awarded the Citizen of The Year!”
September 14, 2012 at 9:48 AM
I find it truly amazing that a person acting in consideration of others and excercising their legal rights gets this much adverse and slurring. That those who are elected to represent the community (both at the local and state level) have sold out to powerful vested interests and are using their positions to denegrate individual members of the community is appalling.
I actually supported Southwick in his election (“stop inappropriate development”, “I will reverse the land swap”) and I am disgusted that he wasted no time in switching sides once elected. To read his parliamentary comments, which are not factual, indicates a lack of integrity.
Hyams and Esakoff are tarred with the same brush and are not worthy of re-election. They no longer represent the community.
September 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM
There’s no mystery to any of this. To hide your own inadequacies and inability to control the MRC so that they fulfill their end of the bargain, you need a scapegoat. Attention is then diverted and there’s always the excuse that it’s not your fault. You also hope like hell that people will forget that it was you that got everyone into this quagmire to begin with.
September 14, 2012 at 12:19 PM
I have heard very strong rumours that the Barrister may have been paid for by a local .
September 14, 2012 at 12:23 PM
That’s right Anon – the local objector! We’ve checked the facts.
September 14, 2012 at 1:49 PM
An earlier post from a few weeks ago had two sections from the records of assembly that pertain to the racecourse. One was Forge saying that she thought the fences had suddenly become like rabbits multiplying, and the other was an attempt by Penhalluriack to organise a meeting. This didn’t eventuate and there was no answer provided to the Forge observation. My guess is that the Penhalluriack suggestion was stomped on very quickly and the Forge question was allowed to go through to the keeper. This would be entirely in keeping with a year of no information and laying the blame on one individual. I blame not one individual but many others. The administration and the lackeys who support them to the hilt and vote against the community.
September 14, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Mary says
Anyone who is interested in the new park within the racecourse are referred to the VCAT decisions in the following matters:-
Refer to the VCAT decisions on that site-
The ref.nos. are:-
P1692/2011
P1913/2011
This in my opinion was a very poor result for my partner in this issue and myself, especially when the Glen Eira Council and MRC came to an agreement between themselves to run two cases themselves and not notify the other parties.
That is the reason why I went to great efforts carrying out much research to reach some kind of compromise for this hard track, but the council and MRC did not want this and did not bother to call a second meeting as the CEO promised.
I waited in vain until I received a threatening letter and I worried about having to pay costs of the other organisations which may have been tens of thousands so I reluctantly withdrew feeling verY disappointed ever since.
September 14, 2012 at 8:11 PM
I feel very sorry for Mary and her story of a strong Glen Eira lady fighting for the community. If any of the Councillors had a heart and remembered why they got into politics in the first place, they may want to hold the MRC accountable for the contract entered with Council and open the park and remove the fencing. What a great story that would be for Glen Eira. A positive story finally. Can it happen? I still have faith in the current crop but we will see……
September 15, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Southwick could equally have used the infamous Esakof heritage example to argue an alternative case. I believe that in the heritage example two objections were lodged and the end result was an independent planning panel report which basically slammed Council and the building is now subject to a heritage overlay.
So what does Southwick say about this instance – where the current planning process and residents rights actually prevented the loss of building that a number of heritage advisors advocated placing on the heritage register – buggar all I expect!!!