February 28, 2013
From A Concerned Resident
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance[24] Comments
[24] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- February 28, 2013 at 11:40 AM
- Category :
- Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
- 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
February 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM
I don’t understand all the ins and outs of this and its implications. Everybody needs to come clean and tell residents what the hell is going on. There’s been too much secrecy and back room dealings.
February 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM
My reading of this letter is that the land swap which was meant to be a public park for use by the community will now become a soccer pitch for Maccabi which they will not pay a cent for.
February 28, 2013 at 1:33 PM
Southwick, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff , Maccabi.
February 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM
I think it’s very clear a certain particular community is bring looked after here thanks to Southwick, Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz. Don’t worry about the rest of the community we will just feed of the left over scraps.
February 28, 2013 at 3:19 PM
You are talking about the liberal party?
February 28, 2013 at 6:52 PM
An email we’ve received –
The letter is confusing in parts. Basically, the Trustees control the land despite the fact that the MRC wants to snaffle it. The Trustees control about 65 hectares of public land including the “triangle” which was reserved in 1858 as a public recreation ground and public park plus racecourse. The Leader has featured stories over the last year where Magee argued strongly that the public was being short-changed by the land swap and that we weren’t getting value for money. He would have also been worried that the land was not being returned to the Trustees for preservation as public park and recreation ground.
Some people might recall that at the time of the land swap the Council refused to accept this new 6.26 hectare park, suggesting that the Booran Road land was worthless as a “public Park”. They based their decision on the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s “Safer Design Guidelines”,
Click to access saferdesignguidelines%5B1%5D.pdf
which are endorsed by Victoria Police’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
https://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=10444
The letter from the DSE indicates that the Member for Caulfield now thinks this land would be suitable for a Maccabi junior soccer pitch and playground. I ask him has the danger suddenly subsided? or does he intend to lock the park up behind a fourth high fence when it is not used for soccer? Exactly how does Southwick intend to mitigate the well-documented threats to the safety of users of the new park?
Finally, the racing industry’s contribution ($383,500 less ‘routine’ holding costs) would not even build a shack for players to use as change rooms. Who will pay the remainder?
February 28, 2013 at 7:14 PM
WTF? Sue Pennicuik moved an Amendment concerning the land swap back in 2009, fearing that the MRC wouldn’t deliver on the various promises the MRC had made in order to secure support for C60. The LibLabs did not support her amendment, and now, sure enough, yet another undertaking is to be broken. Still, the MRC arranged for @leisure to prepare a concept plan for the Park to explain why the land swap was appropriate. There was no mention of active sport or junior soccer or Maccabi.
Now DSE has revealed that there have been secret negotiations taking place between the Minister, DSE, Maccabi, MRC, David Southwick and council staff. The letter very pointedly makes no reference to Council or councillors in the negotiations. Council is being told that in order to be appointed as Committee of Management of the land, they have to agree to support the secret negotiations, which is to establish a junior soccer field for Maccabi, using the money available from MRC.
Somethings is really weird about all this. The MRC opposes ball sports anywhere near the horses, and this parcel of land comes very close to the racetrack. The land has established mature trees, a feature that the @leisure report heavily emphasized. There will be no carparking (its less than 1ha after all). I’m very uncomfortable at the thought of any religious organisation dominating the control of public land. Its not obvious what the costs of establishing the park will be, but I’m guessing a soccer field may be much cheaper than some other alternatives, hence tempting, and the Booran Rd Reservoir site has already been deferred indefinitely due to cash-flow problems at Council. The site keeps shrinking too. The land swap was to be for 7229 m^2. The letter mentions 6260 m^2, minus 676 m^2 for a lease back to MRC for 10 years (minimum).
Should Council be appointed to be a Committee of Management on the terms outlined? They do have a history of selling off or building over open space and regarding open space as an unaffordable luxury and opposing skateparks near where influential councillors live. If Council does want the role, it should be on the understanding that a junior soccer field is just one option, and not be committed to it as the outcome. After all, Council has admitted publicly that there isn’t a single piece of public open space or parkland in the entire municipality that is suitable for the activities of non-religious youth-oriented organisations like Humans vs Zombies.
February 28, 2013 at 7:31 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/jewish-sporting-body-to-accept-nonjewish-players-20111203-1oci4.html
February 28, 2013 at 10:51 PM
Off topic, but the tradition of doctoring history continues. We are referring to the minutes of the last council meeting and the item on the petition. Here is what is claimed –
“A petition co-signed by 23 signatories was tabled which read as follows:
“This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the
attention of the Council the recent nomination of 3 Councillors (Crs Hyams,
Lipshutz, Esakoff) as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. We do
not believe that these individual are suitable candidates to adequately
represent the interests of the community. Your petitioners therefore pray that
Council writes to the Minister requesting a revision of this decision and the
appointment of different Councillor representatives.”
Crs Delahunty/Magee
That the Petition be received and noted.
The MOTION was put and LOST.”
Totally untrue and incorrect! There were 64 signatories as clearly read out by Paul Burke in presenting the petition. We find it hard to believe that this could be a typo since the figures 2 and 3 are far removed from the 6 and then 4 on a keyboard!!!!
We certainly expect that this inaccuracy in the minutes will be corrected at the next council meeting!
March 1, 2013 at 1:49 PM
Maybe Cr. Lobo can have that point corrected before he before he votes to accept the Minutes at tghe next meeting.
February 28, 2013 at 11:29 PM
The lib supporters on this blog have suddenly gone very quiet. What’s up guys? The truth to hard to swallow? Everything makes sense now about appointing these trustees.
February 28, 2013 at 11:35 PM
“The letter mentions 6260 m^2, minus 676 m^2 for a lease back to MRC for 10 years (minimum).” Does that mean that MRC is going to have its lease on the racecourse renewed for at least 10 years together with training?! Trustees – is that in the bag for MRC? And what are the condition for the lease? And what happens after that? Note that in 10 years time Caulfield Village will be built and Caulfield to Murrumbeena rail line to be revamped. Open Space Strategy survey being conducted now is a total waste of time if the racecourse open space is not part of it. YUK
February 28, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Our post of 8th February contained this small gem from Burke –
“OKOTEL asked whether the open space strategy review will be looking at the ‘actual uses’ of that open space. Burke answered ‘not in relation’ to the racecourse. It also won’t ‘go into detail’ because it’s not land that is ‘directly under council’s control’. Okotel repeated and clarified her original question asking whether the open space strategy would look at the ‘potential uses’ of open space. Burke then said ‘It will’ but not necessarily ‘in relation’ to the MRC site.”
Our guestimate on the ten year lease is that it also includes training. Hence what we have is an ‘agreement’ that keeps changing the dates for the ten years of horse training. Further, c60 will take far more than 10 years to complete. Bec in their media release have upped this to 15.
March 1, 2013 at 8:28 AM
The proposed Booran Rd park is separate to the land under the control of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees, and is likely to have its own Committee of Management. Past and present governments don’t know what decisions a future government might make about training at Caulfield. The MRC knows that interest in horse-racing is dwindling, hence C60, and that it is losing money on the racing part of its operations. It has already flagged that it expects the government to pay the costs if it has to relocate training. Not that they could relocate to Epsom, since that was closed by the Government over the protests of the trainers based there. The MRC does have Sandown and Mornington available to it. Despite DSE’s comment about 10 years and that the lease won’t be extended, I don’t believe it—but if relocation is seriously being contemplated by the government and industry then somewhere there should be a plan. At this stage nobody has been able to point to one.
March 1, 2013 at 7:24 AM
More shonky backroom dealings, more favouring of vested interests and more handouts from the stretched public purse to those who already receive generous subsidies. All accompanied with absolute disregard for the wider community who are the ones to foot the final bill.
I add my voice to the outrage being expressed.
Oh and by the way – just when does the 10 years start?
Every time the infamous landswap and the 10 years is mentioned, the start or end date of the agreement is resoundingly missing. The absence of such basic info points to the MRC getting their 23, 15 and 12 storey buildings (built and occupied) on the triangle while the public still waits for the 10 year period to start running on the 691 m2 that is currently stabling.
March 1, 2013 at 7:57 AM
(MODERATORS: comment deleted)
March 1, 2013 at 9:55 AM
The thing that’s escaped comment pretty much is how could Esakoff Hyams and Lipshutz take part in the vote when they were named in the petition. If that’s not enough reason to declare a conflict of interest and leave the room then I don’t know what is. It breaks every rule in the book and the way Hyams answered Lobo shows what a nasty nasty so and so he really is. I don’t think hes fit to be mayor and to run meetings in a fair way. Not the first time that Lipshutz refuses to declare a conflict and has a say in the results. Without them the petition would have been accepted.
March 1, 2013 at 1:55 PM
Politics is such a dirty business. I wasn’t originally going to comment on the petition, which I don’t support, but “conflict of interest” is getting thrown around carelessly. In short, Conflict of Interest is defined in LGA, and I don’t think any of its definitions apply. There is also the Councillors Code of Conduct which adds advice about avoiding perception of conflict—but that’s more about ethics than legality. CoI has been used to justify some viscious acts of bastardry in the past, and I didn’t agree with that behaviour either. Remember the committee of 8 for reappointing the CEO? Or the Racecourse Reserve Special Committee? Or Andrew Newton’s frank admission that the Racecourse Committee may no longer be necessary, depending on the outcome of the (then) upcoming election? We know who he was referring to, in a matter where no conflict of interest was involved. But we also know who supported Andrew in his pursuit. The targets of the petition may well be indignant, but so should anybody else who has been the target of their behaviour. The way forward is to return to fundamental principles of governance, based on transparency and accountability.
March 1, 2013 at 4:40 PM
Here’s one for the lawyers. The Racecourse Special Committee still exists if only on paper. Ergo, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff are on that committee and are nominated trustees. That’s at the very least a technical and legal conflict of interest.
Hyams jibe at Lobo is way off beam too. Tactics I’m sure he’s employed plenty of times even though dead wrong. Jamie should check the Act. He’ll find that there is no conflict of interest in the appointment process for a mayor or deputy mayor. But gee, it’s nice to be able to use this little innuendo of threat on the poor unsuspecting masses of councillors who never bother to read the act.
Expecting politicans to be ethical is akin to believing in extra terrestials. It doesn’t exist and for sure not in Glen Eira.
March 1, 2013 at 10:05 AM
this will be sold as a community facility but dont believe it for a minute. Im not sure of the club in Doncaster that was gifted the land in the same way and the public is locked out. So win for MRC as it is off there books plus they get to keep some land. Win for Southwick as 50% of his demographic will see this a good. Bad fo us cos we got nothing plus we will be paying for part of a another pavillion that we will not be using.
March 1, 2013 at 5:03 PM
I really abhor any vested interest getting hold of Crown land for their sole use. Maccabi unsuccessfully – to date anyway – attempted to do this at Princes Park. 👿
March 1, 2013 at 11:59 PM
Cr Karina Okotel advocacy plans
“It’s a huge challenge, but something I will keep striving towards,” Karina said.
During her time in office, Karina plans to advocate for continued investment in public parks, libraries, sporting facilities, meeting spaces and community hubs.
“I believe we need more support for families and youth, improved services for elderly people, people with disabilities and carers.”
She hopes to see more community participation and connectedness within the municipality, and that Glen Eira remains the best place to live, work and have fun in Victoria.
Good luck. It sounds terrific. And we need at least 5 Councillors like you to make it happen. More than that you will need co-operation and assistance from all government levels – several Local, State and Federal. Otherwise it’s a ‘huge challenge’ going nowhere.
Let me start with fundamentals – the population of Glen Eira is 140,000 from 115,000 in 1996, that is a 22% increase in 17 years. The same increase over a similar timeframe will result in minimum of 170,000 inhabitants in Glen Eira in 2031 assuming a similar pattern of growth. It does not include Caulfield Village, other designated growth corridors, increased pressures on minimal change area and removal of level crossings, which are seen as opportunities for further growth in dwellings and population.
The public open space and public parks was already lowest in 1996 in comparison to other Cities. Since then it has diminished. The traffic congestion has increased to unbearable levels, where the road users are angry and abusive on each other. The fun bit is definitely not the best in Victoria if you want to be outside. Other amenities and support services are also lacking in comparison to other Cities. Worse still planning seems to be lagging considerably behind the increased population forecast and reality. Glen Eira has exceeded all forecasts beyond 2031. Clearly, there has to be a focus on quality of living and lifestyle and NOT on dwelling and population growth, if Glen Eira is not to deteriorate.
The biggest government investment will come with the removal of level crossings. The critical issue is whether it will be done to improve public transport or road users? Is it to increase public open space or used for residential development? This is an opportunity to advocate to the State and Federal MPs. Kelly O’Dwyer, Higgins Liberal federal member, has urged Anthony Albanese, Labor Infrastructure Minister to put money into the Murrumbeena level crossing. By the end of this year she can advocate directly to Liberal Infrastructure Minister. But does Glen Eira Council have a plan what it wants? People have spoken on Murrumbeena (see comments on http://consult.vicroads.vic.gov.au/topic/1click-here-to-comment-on-city-of-glen-eira-rail-crossings-grange-road-carnegie-koornang-road ). Some of them suggested a ‘linear park’ if the rail line is lowered.
The North Rd level crossing workshop has also been conducted but the study not yet finalised. Can an open space ‘linear park’ be implemented from Oakleigh Rd, Ormond to Field St, McKinnon? It could extend the bicycle path and perhaps ‘community gardens’ be established, suggestion promoted for many years without any action. Karina Okotel lives in Ormond and it is her Ward, so she could initiate an internet Forum, email submissions and a blog. That is what “community participation and connectedness” is about. Karina can you do it?
March 2, 2013 at 12:48 PM
Okotel is an Esakoff clone. Expediency is Margaret’s guiding principle.
As for sticking to pre-election undertakings. Good luck with that! Wasn’t it Neil Pilling whose pre-election mantra was openness, transparency and accountability.
March 11, 2013 at 8:06 PM
Hi everyone,
My name’s Matt Johnson, a second-year journalism student at the nearby Monash Uni Caulfield campus. I’m currently in the process of collating info that will be useful for a story that I’m writing on the issues surrounding the Crown reserve on Booran Road and the various stakeholders involved. If any of you have relevant hardcopy documents that could be of some use to me (or any URLs for useful info that might be tucked away in the nether regions of the internet), would you be able to send them to mejoh7@student.monash.edu? Also, if you are interested in having your say on the issue for the article, you can contact me via the same address and I’ll get in contact with you re: interview arrangements.
Thanks,
Matt.