October 22, 2012
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- October 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM
- Category :
- Miscellaneous
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates %d
October 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM
I’ve only commented once before on this blog, but this makes me so mad that I have to say something. How dare this pompous clown claim credit for so many things that are totally untrue. He “delivered” gesac 5 months late and with more secrecy than has ever happened before. I’m still waiting to find out how much all the legal battles will cost.
The next extraordinary claim is over “delivering” more open space at the racecourse. It has always been open space. It’s access that’s the issue and this has not improved one single bit.
He’s supposed to have personally “delivered” over 4000 trees. I’d love to see him get his hands dirty on some real work for once. What he doesn’t say is how many of these trees have died because they have been so poorly maintained and 2 years later we’re still waiting for a tree register when he’s the chair of the local laws.
The one claim that gets me is the lie about rates being kept low when they’ve spiralled up each year and horrible increases in charges have accompanied them. Overdevelopment is the greatest lie when he can vote for 20 storeys in the c60 and try to shut people up all the time.
This is just typical. I don’t expect the full truth ever to come out of his mouth.
October 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM
I have just received the Forge, Penhalluriack leaflet and I am as mad as hell. In my opinion the leaflet is dishonest and untrue. My question is does anyone know where to report this matter.The 2 Councillors concerned should be ashamed of deliberate obfuscation.
October 22, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Its far more accurate than Lipshutz. He and his frisbee throwing son should be ashamed of the lies on the ad. What park at Caulfield Racecourse? The agreement that he signed off with the MRC has never been actioned. He allowed inappropriate 20 story development through passing c60 and Caulfield Park has gone backwards over the last four years. How can he write such rubbish?
October 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Council move on questions
Larissa Ham
326 words
19 April 2006
Moorabbin Glen Eira/Kingston Leader
MOORAB
1 – MGV
409
English
Copyright 2006 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved
SHUT your lips if you are a councillor trying to ask surprise questions that is the message from Glen Eira Cr Michael Lipshutz.
At the April 10 council meeting, at the instigation of Cr Lipshutz, six out of nine councillors voted to ban themselves from asking each other questions at meetings unless three days’ notice is given.
An angry Cr Nick Staikos described the move as “nothing more than a gag”.
The councillors have decided to form a local laws sub-committee to review council laws.
When establishing the committee, the council approved a new councillor question policy in which councillors can question their peers at meetings only if the query relates to council business.
Questions must be received by chief executive Andrew Newton the previous Friday and no discussion on answers is allowed. Cr Lipshutz said the new policy was to prevent a dysfunctional council where councillors used meetings to “score cheap political points”.
“This forum is not one where we ought to hit each other over the heads,” he said.
“Council meetings, if they’re going to be meaningful, if they’re going to be effective, have to be run in an appropriate fashion.
“It’s fine to bring along a question, but not to ambush.”
Councillors Staikos, Jacquie Robilliard and Robert Spaulding voted against the policy. Cr Staikos said the proposal had “come about only because certain councillors are nervous by one concept, and that’s transparency”. He said councillors did not want to answer whether they would support a 10 per cent rate reduction promised by Mayor David Feldman if it meant cutting council services.
“What we have seen is councillors doing everything in their power to avoid answering questions,” Cr Staikos said.
Councillors Lipshutz, Robilliard, Kate Ashmor and Steven Tang have been appointed to the committee, along with the Mayor and other council staff yet to be decided.
October 22, 2012 at 6:29 PM
This says it all and it’s got worse since then.
October 22, 2012 at 9:43 PM
One of Lipshutz’ first priorities after elected to council was to revise the local laws to protect council from public scrutiny and accountability. He was very successful. Remember his “no surprises” policy which somehow became the council’s guiding mantra?
I also note that on the 2006 council we had a “gang of six”. Crs Staikos, Robilliard and Spaulding were a minority speaking out for residents’ concerns and questioning the rule of the other six.
They had varying backgrounds – one a keen young Labor Party member, one a long-term resident activist and the other with a long history of involvement in local sporting clubs. They were the sort of councillors we need to elect on Saturday
October 22, 2012 at 7:36 PM
There’s nothing here that promises change or improvement. It’s all about the past. No recognition apart from a token mention of drains and roads that could be improved. I’m therefore assuming that Lipshutz believes everything is perfect as it is and that it’s full steam ahead with the same mentality and culture that has besmirched this council for years.
October 22, 2012 at 8:14 PM
Unbelievable. Literally. Cr Lipschutz makes some extraordinary claims about his contribution, but the one that I find most egregious is his claim that he has “maintained opposition to inappropriate development”. This is on top of the porky from Margaret about “protecting you from overdevelopment, preserving your amenity”, and Jamie’s misguided belief that he has “opposed inappropriate development”. If you believe all this, you’d believe that VCAT opposes inappropriate development too.
The problems start with State Government (as so many problems do), when they published the sloppily written and poorly edited Melbourne 2030. At the back it named *entire suburbs* as Major Activity Centres, leaving all the implementation problems to Councils to resolve. Our Council ignored most of the requirements of Major Activity centres and government promises about increased density not causing loss of amenity for traditional residential suburbs. Instead it introduced the horrendous “Urban Villages Policy”. Bad as the policy was and still is, it described constraints on development, as does the Municipal Strategic Statement (Clause 21 of GEPS). These constraints are universally ignored.
What Crs Lipschutz, Esakoff, Hyams, have actually voted for is large developments in and around “Activity Centres” that fail to comply with the Standards in Clause 55 designed to protect the amenity of existing residents. The reasoning goes that the more people you pack in to activity centres, the less pressure and consequent loss of amenity there will be for people who live outside those areas. The policy is blatantly, explicitly, discriminatory. These areas contain many single-storey dwellings, the same kind of dwellings that Council decided to protect through its Neighbourhood Character Overlay change.
However they’re not entitled to protection of their amenity according to VCAT *and* Council, simply because they’re within the crude 400m circles Council drew around clusters of shops. This has meant 100% overshadowing, overlooking, dwellings walls too close to fencelines, 100% site coverage and consequent loss of permeable soil along with moonscaping, flooding, traffic congestion, accidents, and crime. Nor is this list exhaustive. There is simply too much involved in planning for healthy communities for naive policies that focus exclusively on increasing density to be successful. I’m being generous when describing the focus as being “increasing density”, as clearly, based on testimony at VCAT, the focus is actually developer profit. That literally is the reason given for why developments don’t comply with ResCode.
Increase density? Sure. But invest in the necessary infrastructure too. That’s right—upgrade drains rather than overload them. Establish pocket parks so people *do not* have to drive several kilometres for open space. Place a moratorium on large scale development if State Government repeatedly dodges its own responsibilities concerning State arterial roads and level crossings. Require development to contribute a net increase in ongoing employment so *fewer* rather than *more* people have to drive each day to their place of work. Stop spending open space contributions on places that already have open space, and provide it where it is *really needed*. Question dodgy officer reports that describe an area devoid entirely of open space as being “well-served”. Require developers to contribute to the provision of infrastructure to support their developments instead of voting to remove Development Contribution Overlays.
All of this is beyond the current incumbents, who are largely responsible for the ongoing degradation of the planning system. Sure, there are many others who share responsibility, but I can’t vote for or against them. And for all those who live in areas currently zoned RZ1, be mindful that Jeff Akehurst has flagged in a recent report how he intends to apply the Government’s proposed new Zones, and as the election material reveals, he has the support of Crs Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams should they be reelected.
October 22, 2012 at 9:53 PM
How can a person like Lipshutz who supposedly breaks the law with his dog run the laws committee?
October 22, 2012 at 10:24 PM
“I” is Lipshutz’s favourite word. His inability to see beyond self and include “we” is now legendary. Not the ideal candidate I would say and past record on so many fronts confirms his unsuitability.
October 22, 2012 at 10:53 PM
Jesus, no end to the bloke’s talents. A real superman able to leap the law in a single bound. So bloody multi talented that he can do it all himself – heritage advisor, town planner, forensic accountant, legal eagle, and personal expert on bullying. Best of all, the behind the scenes manipulator and arch enemy of residents. Yup let him stand and fall on his record.
October 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Lipshutz is not interested in the basic service delivery a council is set up to deliver-
He’s only intersted in building grandiose infrastructure such as the GESAC & putting us the ratepayers in debt for years to come & increasing rates to pay for it, at the expense of basic services such as traffic calming measures (so badly needed in this poorly traffic managed traffic gridlocked/congested municipality).
REMEMBER the Council approved 12-13 budget allocation has only 4 calming measures for the whole municiplaity!
DONT BE FOOLED- VOTE HIM OUT THIS SATUTURDAY!