LIPSHUTZ moved to accept recommendations and Option A. ($600,000 Gardener’s Rd revamp) Lobo seconded.
LIPSHUTZ: “We are the victims of our success”. They did not ‘in any way imagine’ that there would be 9000 members and ‘probably growing”. He thought that by the ‘end of summer’ there would be over 10,000 members. Gesac was ‘visionary’ but ‘unfortunately’ success brings ‘car parking problems’. The car parking has been ‘extended somewhat’ but they are realising that it’s ‘not sufficient’ so ‘the appropriate course’ is to increase car parking. Best way is to do it is through extending Gardener’s Rd because this won’t have an impact ‘at all’ on residents nor the park itself. Admitted that in the end council might have to build an underground car park or above ground car park but ‘that’s for the future’. Said that ‘if people can”t get in, they won’t go’ and the ‘more car park space we have the more GESAC will be a success’. Said that Option A is the ‘appropriate way to go’. Said that $600,000 is ‘little’ and would be recouped through increased patronage.
LOBO: ‘fully agree(d)” with Lipshutz. Went on to say that currently there’s an ‘inherent risk’ for children crossing the carpark to get to the facility and also at Bailey Reserve for the soccer players. ‘We cannot afford to have a tragedy” and “delay this any more”. Went on to say that ‘someone’ has written in the newspaper that consultation should be done. ‘You can’t do community consultations all the time”. When there’s a risk, and ‘council knows there is a risk” things have to be done. Therefore he supports Option A.
SOUNNESS: Said that council is very proud of it’s ‘risk profile’ but that ‘it’s completely got car parking wrong for GESAC’. Admitted that his ‘weakness’ was that he doesn’t know the ‘history of the site’ but after 3 council meetings that he’s attended if ‘you still have to go back to the drawing board’ and it’s still not right then ‘somewhere the sums have gone wrong’. He doesn’t doubt the success of GESAC but ‘why is it that car parking was so grossly miscalculated?’. Compared GESAC to MSAC and the fact that they’ve got heaps of car parking around, plus public transport, cycle paths, etc. Said he knows he will be in a minority but that ‘somewhere in the background there’s been a miscalculation’. Stated that many things are unfeasible such as railway line and even cycle paths won’t make much of a difference. Said he’s got real doubts and wants more information and that the community can rightly ask whether the park is now ‘just a sea of asphalt’.
MAGEE: challenged Lipshutz’s statement that people didn’t envisage that GESAC would be that popular and that ‘there was never any doubt in my mind”. Talked about the 7000 signature petition and that he had “many, many” more sheets that were signed by people who now might also become members. GESAC is an ‘outstanding success”. It won’t “please everybody” but does please thousands of people. “I’m very happy to see this parking go in” and that “this is not the end of the parking”. Saw a “need” for parking in “the centre of East Boundary Rd” and hoped that Vic Roads would grant permission for this. Saw this as a “great opportunity for a staff car park” and this would ‘free up another 30 or 40 spots” in the main car park. People shouldn’t “ignore the fact that GESAC is such a success” and all that’s happening is “taking away a bit of nature strip” in order to get “a much needed car park”. Concluded that he was “happy” to debate this with “anyone who wants to take this up with me personally”.
DELAHUNTY: Said that she liked Option A and that her husband was present to “make sure” that she voted for more carparking. She particularly liked the “drop off zone” and that this would “ease congestion”. GESAC “is an incredible success” and thought has to be given to how to get 9000 people there efficiently, safely and also thinking about the environment. Urged for more advocacy to get a bus route.
OKOTEL: in favour of Option A but still did share the “concerns’ of Sounness and Magee in that “further car parking will be required”. Said that in relation to Options C and D that these were “under study” and that she would welcome the results.
HYAMS: asked the movers if they would consider adding to the motion that Option D be continued to be considered (ie median strip parking in the centre of East Boundary Rd). Both Lipshutz & Lobo agreed.
OKOTEL: if the new amendment was accepted whether there might not also ‘be support for Option C?” (ie time restrictions on East Boundary Rd). Again accepted by mover and seconder.
HYAMS: asked Burke that if time restrictions come in on East Boundary Rd and already in the Bailey Reserve carpark whether this would be a problem for those cricket administrators ‘who spend all day’ there when the teams are playing?
BURKE: said ‘yes – it’s one of the concerns”
HYAMS: then wanted to move an amendment that the wording about Option C ‘be removed”. Asked for a seconder to the amendment. Lipshutz didn’t accept so Hyams moved it as a formal amendment. Delahunty seconded.
LIPSHUTZ: ” don’t say that we shouldn’t do it’ just needs to be seen if this is viable and therefore a report needs to be asked for – like he did with the Wi Fi request for a report.
OKOTEL: said that this study is already underway regarding Option C and that since the ‘study is already being prepared” that council should wait.
ESAKOFF: agreed with Lipshutz and Okotel that ‘this needs to be investigated’ and that there could ‘be a possibility of providing exemptions’ for ‘certain officials that require them’.
MAGEE: Said that ‘this is all about going backwards with GESAC’ since GESAC is ‘about encouraging people to come’. The amendment says that if you come for sporting activity like cricket which can go on for 5 or 6 hours so with timed restrictions ‘this is not a welcoming thing’. Said that as a ‘cricketer, I need somewhere to park, my children need somewhere to park’ and the ‘only avenue’ is Next we’ll ‘be pushed down’ to using the East Bentleigh shopping centre and local streets.on East Boundary Rd.
HYAMS: said that with Esakoff statement about certain officials, there are also cricketing, and other sporting groups so hard to ‘work out a system that would also include them’. Said that asking for a report is only ‘putting fear into the people that use’ the facilities and that ‘we don’t want to add to that stress’ when people are trying to park.
AMENDMENT PUT AND LOST: voted for: MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, HYAMS.
AGAINST: LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, SOUNNESS, ESAKOFF, LOBO
LIPSHUTZ: said that GESAC has ‘the best consultants in Australia’ and they came to the ‘conclusion that certain parking was required’. There was also a ‘cost factor’ and safety factor and they didn’t put in an underground/above ground car park because ‘women do not like’ to use these. ‘We are a victim of our success’ and no one expected to have 9000 members. They knew it would be a success but ‘not to this extent’. Half way through building they realised that there wouldn’t be enough car parking space. So, ‘there’s no issue here of poor planning’ just a ‘huge success’ and ‘we will probably have to deal with (more) car parking in the future’. Council has to choose Option A otherwise GESAC won’t have ‘sufficient car park’ and that Option C should be ‘explored’ so as not to ‘impact on cricketers and people who use the park’
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED: For – Lipshutz, Lobo, Esakoff, Hyams, Delahunty, Magee,Okotel.
AGAINST – Sounness
COMMENTS
Once again the lack of consistency and logic in these discussions leaves much to be desired. Please note the following:
- Suddenly there is an ‘inherent’ danger for pedestrians according to Lobo and that’s why he wants more cars on the adjacent street. Even better, he seems to have totally forgotten that on September 24th 2012 (less than 3 months ago!) a report was tabled on the ‘safety audit’ at GESAC which included the following statements:
“It is considered that the GESAC car park and Bailey Reserve provide a safe environment for pedestrians” AND
“The audit (May 2012) provided fifteen recommendations to ensure compliance. All of the recommendations have been implemented.” Lobo himself then moved the motion to accept the report’s recommendations.
There are 3 possibilities here: (1) either safety issues have suddenly cropped up which would of course make a mockery of the safety audit, or (2) the report was entirely inaccurate, or (3) Lobo’s memory is failing rapidly!
- We also take issue with Lipshutz’s statements that the problem with car parking is not a ‘planning issue’. Surely if a project of this size and cost is correctly planned then all contingencies are considered – from worse case scenarios, to best case scenarios? Further, what’s important is NOT the number of memberships, but the number of DAILY VISITORS. GESAC was stated to attract 500,000 visitors per year. We were told recently that the centre has 1500 visitors per day. That would mean that the yearly patronage still comes in at 547,000. Hardly a huge blowout from the original prognostication. Thus the question remains – how good was the original planning? Or is this ‘staged’ increase in car parking deliberate?
- There is not one single word in any of this discussion (apart from Lipshutz’s aside that there are no problems) about the traffic impact in Gardiner’s Rd, or any mention of the residents that live along this road. There have already been petitions from this group of residents as well as media coverage. We’re told that ‘consultation’ took place eons ago and that their fears were allayed. We wonder how ‘allayed’ their fears are now and whether they were even informed that this is happening?
- It is surely most comforting to have Hyams so concerned about raising residents’ ‘fears’ by asking for a report. Ignorance is bliss we guess!
- We congratulate Sounness for at least having the courage to call a spade a shovel. There have been major ‘miscalculations’ and all the spin, smoke and mirrors, and plain old propaganda cannot hide or disguise this self-evident truth.
- Finally, we have to ask why oh why if GESAC is so successful is there still a need to place full page colour advertisements in the local newspapers on a weekly (and expensive) basis – especially given the financial report’s continuous urging for frugality?
Glen Eira Debates 
December 20, 2012 at 8:02 AM
So much for focussing on sustainable transport options (that only applies in high rise residential developments) and undertaking planning that considers all aspects then comes up with an appropriate long term solution.
Instead, it’s time for another expensive ad hoc decision that will not resolve the issue.
Having already cut the park in half with the carpark and now turning Gardiners Road into a carpark, the next step will be relocating the skate park, then what?
December 20, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Bye bye skate park. Good knowing you but we need the space for more cars.
December 20, 2012 at 8:05 AM
That GESAC parking was screwed from beginning is well known to residents (who told Council so) and Council. Ex Cr. Tang admitted this when he argued against the recent GESAC car park expansion and ad hoc planning – he said that the Council knew the GESAC carparking was “miscalculated” at the planning stage and that rather than applying expensive short term fixes Council needed to re-assess GESAC parking requirements and develop appropriate plans to resolve current and future requirements.
Well said Tang – unfortunately Council is still not listening or caring.
December 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Spending money hand over fist on concrete isn’t a concern for this council – in particular when this money is used to cover up gigantic errors. If $600,000 is only a “little” then we’ve really got a councillor who has no idea of his electorate. Any way, it’s not his money in the end so there’s no issue for him. This puts everything into perspective. Money can be spent on concrete to arguably make more money but they can’t go out and hire a lollypop person to make sure that kids are safe for a couple of hours a week.
I keep asking myself what kind of people have we got running the show. They’ve got no idea about anything and for sure don’t come close to common sense and listening to what people need.
December 20, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Tang.I remember him. Feldmans mate who put himself through Uni on a Councillor’s Allowance , appears to have gained articles with Council’s
solicitors and shot through when he started to earn some real money. What a joke he was.
December 20, 2012 at 3:50 PM
Smart bloke. Mayor twice and left with plenty of respect from all that dealt with him. His wisdom was often beyond his years.
December 20, 2012 at 3:58 PM
You come across as one of those angry lefties that dislikes successful and smart people. Tang was both.
December 20, 2012 at 5:12 PM
What a pity this “smart bloke” didn’t show the basic courtesy of responding to courteous email questions. Unlike Esakoff and Pilling. A big head who was in it for his personal advancement for mine.
I’ve said from the get-go GESAC will be a millstone around ratepayers necks for years. Despite all the spin. Added to which, although Lipshutz is attempting to grab the limelight (typically) for his perception of success it was Magee who was from and centre when it came to pushing GESAC. Though I’m quite happy for Lipshutz to cop the fury of the ratepayers as the cost to us becomes more real.
December 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM
Feldman was the main proponent of GESAC. He camapigned on it and became mayor and straight away headed a committee to kick of the whole thing. Magee lost that election. He was no where around. Magee has you fooled.
December 20, 2012 at 6:11 PM
How about moving on from the past. That’s dead and buried. What’s happening now in the present is far more important and will affect everyone in the city – not just the poor buggers that live around gesac. We’re going to be paying this off for an eternity. Next there will be more car parks and further expense. Third traffic will make East Boundary rd a nightmare as well as the local streets. There is no traffic plan as there wasn’t anything decent for gesac. It’s all planning on the hop. A little fix here and a little fix there and the result is pure chaos and additional expense which means higher and higher rates because they are totally incompetent. That’s the present and the future under this lousy regime.
December 21, 2012 at 6:53 AM
Sure go a head, shoot the messenger and ignore the message.
Tang (who, like us all, had his faults) was spot on with his comments on GESAC parking.
GESAC parking is a major Council stuff up and adopting a bandage approach will not only not work but will cost more than going back to the drawing board and doing what should have been done in the first place – PLANNING!!!!
December 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM
Very true, but if money is not available now, should we have to wait for additional parking? I believe the option taken will assist for short term, perhaps even saving a life or two.!!! I believe the money being spent is to ensure a safety option, and I applaud the Council for taking this stance. If the budget for the GESAC Complex had of been any higher at the time, the Complex would not have gone ahead, and the rate-payers really would have kicked up a stink!! It is a magnificent Complex for the Community to enjoy, so we have to make the most of the parking fiasco, and assist the Council with ideas and alternate solutions to overcome any safety problems that needs to be addressed.
December 21, 2012 at 1:12 AM
Why not run a council bus (on a trial basis) to and from the Town Hall once in the morning to give swimmers a two hour swim and once in afternoons. There may be a grant which could be found. It may be cheaper than setting aside more land for parking and it would give those who live in the area of highest rates (paing higher amounts for GESAC) than in Bentleigh East and they may use facility rather than travel through two transport zones and walk about an hour to East Boundary Road from station.
Would the Bendigo Community Bank Bus be available?
December 26, 2012 at 11:56 AM
There are different ways to skin a cat and the most coward way is to put a mask and endeavour to skin it. (MODERATORS: sentence deleted) He is well known to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. All that he did was either to sit on the fence or hide behind his famous quote “Reasonable Laws Reasonably Enforced” . (MODERATORS: sentence deleted) Like few others on the Council he was known to be selfish and had two faces like a cat. He and his friends on the council think that Mayors position was their inborn right. The time will tell who the next Mayor will be. Any guesses?????
December 26, 2012 at 5:01 PM
I find the current GESAC carpark a nightmare, especially if only to drop off a youngster. When the soccer season was on, training nights were a complete nightmare. One night sitting in my car waiting for training session to finish, a young girl of about 10 missed being hit by a car by a breath…not one week later a child from the soccer club was almost run over. Two near misses that I witnessed….(so lucky they were misses). The drop off idea for Gardeners Road actually came from me…..Sorry Residents, but I as a parent did not want to go around to the front carpark so drove my car up to the Gardiner’s Road entrance and let my son and his mates out to walk through the opening and follow the path leading to the front door of GESAC. Whilst parked in a no parking spot, I thought how good it would be if there was a cut-in to allow a drop off and pick up spot on the Gardiners’ Road side. Also with the Children’s Playground I feel it is very unsafe for parents to park cars on opposite side of Gardiners Road only to have to walk across. The cut -in carparks look to be very sensible. I would however make a suggestion, that perhaps on the opposite side of Gardiners Road, { Resident parking only,} be permitted, freeing up the parking on that side of the Road.
December 26, 2012 at 6:09 PM
Thanks for your comment(s) Kay. A few pointers in response:
1. The current ADDITIONAL expenditure on car parking at GESAC now totals approximately $1.5 million. The original argument against an underground/ multi storey car park was that it was too expensive – ie. $1.5 million. So now we have the situation that this money has been spent and there is talk of further car parking requirements. What does this say about original design and planning and good management?
2. Safety should always be a concern. Yet, less than 3 months ago council reported that their investigations led to the conclusion that all was perfectly safe. We find it amazing that in the space of 3 months there is suddenly a ‘new danger’. Again, what does this say about planning, about initial concerns with safety, and overall professionalism?
3. One drop off point in Gardener’s rd is fine. However, if you look at the plans the entire one side of the rd is about to become additional car park. This is far more than a concern for ‘safety’. It is to expand car parking pure and simple.
4. What does the future hold? Will more residents be inconvenienced? Will there ever be thorough consultation? Or will everything continue to be ad hoc and for a council that is supposed to be very careful about its unbudgetted for expenses, we ask where is this money coming from and what other projects might be in the process of being sacrificed to create more bitumen and concrete and still call this ‘open space’?
December 26, 2012 at 11:38 PM
As Cr. Lobo clearly said, some urgent issues cannot wait for consultation. The buck stops with Councillors and they have the prerogative of weighing the risks versus money. You are proving Cr. Lobo’s point on “negativity” and frankly you Gleneira and the birds of same feather (posters) have nothing better to do than to be whinging Pomee’s.
The sooner smart people realise that there is life outside this forum the better for them. Alternatively, get on the community consultation and be a solution to a problem which is only in your heads.
Let 2013 be a year when most of the gutless people on this forum truly identify themselves in their posts. To earn respect one has to be fortright.