April 2, 2013
The Leader & Racecourse
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
[11] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- April 2, 2013 at 11:02 AM
- Category :
- Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
- 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
April 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Well done to the mayor for saying this. In the last few days I had a look a the middle and it is a joke. I doubt they spent 100,000 on it let alone 1.2 million. It is miniscule. I think the park in Rosedale Avenue in Glenhuntly is bigger !. The boardwalk where the old pier used to be looks good. There are a couple of bbqs and a covered area with no table. There is one piece of fitness equipment that is not finished. The soccer pitch is tiny and it does not have astro turf or goals (they are lying on the ground). Guess what it is fenced!. Who on earth will be using it? To walk accross this new training track made up of plastic and sand to get to the middle is a disgusting experience. I think the whole idea is to discourage people from going to the middle. I think Pakula and Southwick should go for a romantic walk to the middle today and see it before I imagine they will put on a lick of paint for the fun run. Im sure it will look desperate soon after. I was a bit worried that our council representatives would not voice there opinions to the racecourse trustees but noone look at this park could say it was anything other that Shit!. No wonder the council have come out so strongly this is an embarrassment to them for entering this agreement.
April 2, 2013 at 9:11 PM
Did you happen to walk through the tunnel because if you did you probably had to hold your nose the stink is that bad. It’s dark and no one in their right mind would want to wander up the badly named pedestrian path. That’s not a path but a narrow dirt and badly laid bitumen track that you can break your neck on.
Council had better start coming clean and explaining why they have done bugger all to make sure that 100% of the agreement is being carried out. If not then fine the bastards. They can fine residents at the drop of a hat so the mrc shouldn’t be an exception.
April 2, 2013 at 4:21 PM
Lucky you could get there every time I’ve tried the gates are locked!!!!!!
The new track for the use of the sport of kings is 65 tennis courts large with a specially manufactured synthetic surface for the precious anomals but yes the track for the humans is as the MP says synthetic and if I mayso it is siful that he is advertising it as a running track when the humans using it will end up with many injuries. Maybe he or the mRC could be sued for damages which they suffered when running on his yellow concrete brick road!
April 2, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Southwick must be on a retainer from the MRC. Can’t wait to see who pays for his re-election campaign next year.
April 2, 2013 at 6:22 PM
Hyams is pretty good with the weasel words. Nowhere does he explain why he, as a member of the notorious racecourse special committee and involved in the negotiations backed right down from the 2008 agreement and signed on for the 2011 watered down version. For him now to claim that there was no difference between 2008 and 2011 regarding training and some other things is pure baloney. If he and his fellow gang members were really serious then they would have made this kind of statement eons ago and definitely not betrayed the spirit of the 2008 agreement. Far too little too late which I think is all part of the grand plan anyway to give the mrc whatever they want.
April 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM
What is Andrea up to? There is no stoush. Nothing has changed. The MRC continues to control the entire precinct through its dominance of the Trustees, and it can continue to use land that it has not leased for its commercial activities. There is no redeveloped park, since there was no park to redevelop. Council has very limited powers to affect David Southwick’s community day, let alone jeopardize it. Its not Council land, its public land, which happens to be under the exclusive control of the MRC. The biggest risk to the event is if the MRC locks all 4 entry points, which it can and does. Still no word from Andrea about Martin Pakula misleading parliament concerning the Agreement in which the MRC has acted in bad faith. Martin hasn’t been able to identify a single element in the Agreement that Council had responsibility for and failed to implement. I’ve read several of the responses that Andrea characterises as being in favour of training remaining at Caulfield—none are aware of the purposes of the Crown Grant, or of the lack of public recreation opportunities in the municipality, or just how few hours training actually occurs while totally compromising land use.
April 2, 2013 at 8:39 PM
Of course the trainers enjoying cheap rental rates as opposed to the trainers up until 1960s actually owned their own land and just imagine the comparative cost compared to camping on our CROWN LAND paying full rates and at least $50,000.00 for each site for land tax. Some clever traqiners have already bought acreage at Tynong and good luck to them and I hear extra stables are being built at CRANBOURNE. Where they go iss not our problem our problem is only to have our land returned to us as the rightful proprietors for a walk in the park.
IRONICALLY THE TRAINERS WHO WERE AT EPSOM BEFORE COMING TO CAULFIELD SAID THE DSAME THINGS ABOUT EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY LOSSES THERE BUT AFTER EVERYONE MOVED OUT PROBABLY THE SUBURB IMPROVED, MAYBE, WE WONT HAVE INDUSTRIAL BINS EMPTIED AT THREE IN THE MORNING, heavy vehicles transporting horses round the continent day and night in large transports and a traffic jam at 4.00 am as jockeys and track workers race on our roads on their way to work.
April 2, 2013 at 9:49 PM
The trainers have always known they were on a good thing and it could end any time. They would be stupid not to have a fall back position. The repatriation of the land will cost plenty, when and if it happens.
April 2, 2013 at 11:14 PM
Hi folks, instead of whinging you should get organised and send a message to ALL politicians regarding the lack of a proper park, ready access to it, removal of fences and training. Should get a petition, faxing and texting to each individual politician. And indeed come to the run with placards to get a picture on the front page of the Leader or Age. A question for the next Council meeting to get a report from the Trustees would also be useful.
April 3, 2013 at 2:18 AM
Yes this is a great idea. I have personally written 90 letters to our polies and drawn only 6 replies, owever I NOW FEEL WE NEED TO CALL FOR A BI-PARTISAN WORKING PARTY TO SET THINGS STRAIGHT.
YES THE DEMO. IS A GOOD IDEA TOO. ANYTHING TO BREAK THE CONTROL OF THE PRESS!!!!!!!!
April 3, 2013 at 7:43 AM
Unlikely as it is I completely agree with the Mayor over his comments on removing training from Caulfield. The removal of training is long over due, as is focussing on the publics right to use all Racecourse Reserve land as a public park and recreation area.
That being said it is indeed “unfortunate” that every 2-3 years this issue raises it’s head and Council and the MRC make empty appeasing promises/statements then nothing happens until the next round of empty appeasing promises/statements is made.
It is also equally “unfortunate” that
. when residents raised this issue during the C60 approval process (2008 – 2011) Council decided to ignore the residents and listened instead to the MRC despite their long history of empty promises.
. if, during the past 2 years, Council had bothered to review the centre’s landscaping works then the amount of fencing and training tracks would have provided a sure sign that removal of training is not an MRC priority (despite MRC claims in it’s 2009 VEAC submission).
. this current instance is simply another addition to the empty promise merrygoround. Yet again a timeline for removal of training is missing – without a specified date it’s all, once again, non-enforceable and meaningless.