August 21, 2013
Letters To The Editor
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[8] Comments
[8] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- August 21, 2013 at 10:29 AM
- Category :
- Councillor Performance, GE Planning, 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
August 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM
Mr Mellor has nailed it in one. The Leader’s reluctance to tackle anything that might be perceived as critical of council and any investigation and reporting on what impact the zones will have on residents. The easy option is to reprint council’s version of events which on most occasions is as far from the truth as possible.
August 21, 2013 at 2:35 PM
The buck passing between council and various other authorities on numerous matters is becoming tedious and predictable. Years have to pass before anything is achieved but, in the meantime, the community suffers. With Glen Eira Council’s continuous employment of staff I don’t see that it would be too difficult to direct that one staff member merely check the tapes at certain time spots when requested to by the police. If money can be found to employ extra staff numbers year after year then employing someone to do this task would not be earthshattering, after all it is councils who are responsible for maintaining local streets and amenity. That’s why there are road stategies and safety strategies. Like much in this council, mere words on a page.
August 21, 2013 at 3:36 PM
Unfortunately Cr. Lobo’s touting of the Council’s line on refusing to accept a grant unless the Police do the monitoring does little to explain why other Councils are lining up to collect the grant yet Glen Eira is not.
It also does little to re-assure residents that Council actually means what it says when it claims to place a high priority on the safety and amenity of residents – particularly when Council has consistently refused (for years) to declare Centre Road it an alcohol free zone.
August 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Hang on a minute- Mr. Anonymous and Mr. D. Evans – What has the Leader or even council got to do with the decisionaken directly by the Minister – Mathew Guy who is all powerful and can call the shots on planning and development as he deems fit. Why don’t you and those disgruntled residents write to Mr. Guy or better still go and visit him in his office?
Regarding CCTV, – Council’s job is to maintain local streets and amenities and not crimes committed by some notorious people or for that matter druggies on rehabilitation who are seen roaming in the Bentleigh shopping centre. Do you really believe that policing should be the job of the Council?
If so, you may need to visit the doctor for a prescription to cure you of your
illusion.
August 21, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Come off it Maggie. Council asked the minister to put his name on c110. Councillors are planners are up to their necks in this. Council does its own policing when it can grab some dough off people like traffic inspectors for starters. Anyway, staff don’t arrest people they just sit there, watch the tapes and pass it on to the cops. Simple, easy peasy, but too hard for you to understand.
August 21, 2013 at 7:22 PM
Actually Margaret Council has a hell of lot to do with it.
Point 1 – Council applied, under section 20 of the Planning and Environment Act for exemption from public consultation on the planning and reform zones and the ministerial raising for planning scheme amend C110. Without this application, Mathew Guy would have had to do a Ministerial Call In which he decidedly did not do. No where in the Minutes of any open Council Meeting or Records of the Assembly of Councillors is there any mention of Council applying for the exemption from community consultation. All Councillors spent much time at the last Council Meeting praising all the work of Council’s planning staff and the Mayor, in particular, didn’t see the point in consulting residents. So tell me Margaret why is Council busy taking the praise for the height limits but letting the Minister take the blame for the expansion of the Housing Diversity areas?
Point 2 – As you say maintaining safety and amenity is a Council responsiblity. So tell me Margaret how does continual refusals to make Centre Road and alcohol free zone – the declaration of an alcohol free zone is a Council responsibility and enhances policing as it enables the police to stop the consumption of alcohol before it gets way out of hand. As for CCTV cameras (handed to Council on a platter), they are a well documented deterrent to graffiti, vandalism and actual crime because the event is recorded and the apprehension and conviction is made much easier. No I don’t expect Council to police but I do expect them to work together with the police and adopting a not my job attitude does qualify as working together.
Back over to you Margaret (or should I use your proper Councillor name).
August 21, 2013 at 8:54 PM
Hang on a second—Council has claimed that the Minister’s decision is (mostly) a neutral translation of Council’s existing policies into new Zones, and the Minister expressly thanked Council staff for helping him do it. The fact that Council’s policies are *not* well understood, and have *not* been subject to as wide consultation as Council states, are reasons for why these changes should be extensively publicized. Council surely agrees since it has participated in the Minister’s media event, has put out its own Media Release, and has published other supporting documents such as maps. How it could do this is truly amazing since it claims it doesn’t have a copy of C110.
August 22, 2013 at 8:01 AM
Annonymous – August 21, 7.22pm What the hell are you talking about? Have you lost your marbles or better still did you have them in the first place? Your arguments are just foolish – Go and have a long snooze..