Another mature tree (if not more) is to go in order to make way for more concrete plinths and car park. This time at Princes Park. The cost to ratepayers (at this stage anyway) is $388,000+ according to the response to a public question at last council meeting.
We are not decrying the need for upgrades or improving areas that need it. What we are decrying is the potentially wanton waste of public money without justification. This section of Princes Park HAS been ‘redeveloped’ in recent times – a new pavilion, 3 new car parks, plenty of yellow brick roads, and ‘landscaping’.
More importantly, anecdotal evidence suggests that this Dover St car park is never full – even on weekends when sport is being played. Residents have not been provided with any data that would support the potential expansion of the car park or its surrounds. What surveys have been undertaken? What monitoring has been done in the past 5 years? Where is there any quantifiable ‘evidence’ that ripping out more trees, and putting in more paths is ‘essential’? And if a new yellow brick road is about to appear parallel to the existing roadway, then what does this say about that recent argument of ‘safety buffers’ that justified the ripping out of countless trees in Caulfield Park, since the proposed new pathway will be running close to current sporting grounds. The arguments put up in defence of the Caulfield Park carnage would appear to be cancelled by what we assume is about to happen at Princes Park. And the final clincher, – how much further open space will be lost to bitumen, concrete, and car parks?
Nor does any of this explain why the public cannot be privy to ‘consultation’ and access to the actual plans or designs. Have councillors ever clapped eyes on the plans? Have they really done their fiduciary duty and considered whether such ‘developments’ are worth the cost, much less needed? Or have they simply bowed their heads and said ‘yes sir, whatever you say sir! How high should we jump sir’?
Here are some photos taken in the past few days of the area.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 7, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Pilling will go out there and chainsaw it down personally, and a few more whilst he is there, thats his style.
February 7, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Bailey reserve car parks twice, centenary park, koornang on the books, lord reserve, now princess park. I wanna work for council as a concrete mixer and get paid a zillion and never be outa work.
February 8, 2014 at 10:15 AM
Good choice Aleck!!! The last thing you’d want to come back as is a tree in Glen Eira.
February 8, 2014 at 11:51 AM
Residents around Caulfield Park and the Caulfield Racecourse are hoping that the tree reincarnation honour is reserved for Pilling, Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz.
February 8, 2014 at 7:29 AM
My god! we have two greens running the show, that’s the joke of the year, do these guy ever do anything? conservation, tree retention, no hope, what type of greens have we got here, the brown greens of glen eira, more consevative that Lipshutz, Hyams, and McGoo put together.
February 8, 2014 at 8:20 AM
It would be interesting to know how much money has been spent on Princes Park over the past 10 years on so called improvements – pavilion upgrades, repeated oval re-grassing, plinths and car parking etc. Seems to me every time you turn around another mill or so goes to Princes Park. I’m beginning to wonder who either lives there or has close family nearby.
Council admits that Glen Eira’s current need for open space far exceeds that provided for either passive or active recreation and that it has already maxed out the potential to increased active sport usage via regrassing/irrigation.
Despite this (not to mention the long standing, well documented, very vocal community demand for increased open space – up there in the top 5 for the past decade) Council has done little other than seek government handouts and then taking years to do anything with them. Council ignores the purchase option (aside from paying over the top for 2 house lots in Packer Park) to increase open space – opportunity after opportunity has been let slip by and been lost forever to strata title multi-unit developments. Instead Council continues its myopic and expensive parkland “tinkering” and rather than embarking on a active purchase program. Council has the funds either from the open space levy (paid by developers) or simply switching its focus.
February 9, 2014 at 5:07 PM
Open space leview are more than likely used to build new large pavillions and of course accompanying car parks, roadways (usually black bitumen) and of course many kilometres of the yellow brick road are all seen by the administration as an improvement to the lanscape. They don’t seem to see any value in a natural setting of green grass which we all usually crave for as we live in our boxes such as these.
February 10, 2014 at 6:57 AM
Council acknowledges that the community places a high value on trees and that’s all it takes for Council to claim the same while continually adopting a tree = chainsaw approach.
February 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM
To me Princes park is still a fairly unattractive park. It offers no areas of peace and quiet, the park area is large but is dominated by tree less wide open spaces, carparking, and far to much concrete, if this is the best our council can do, after spending millions, it’s a very poor outcome.
February 10, 2014 at 5:03 PM
One councillor was elected on a camapaign to keep away a skateboard facility for the youth in the area and now I question if that very person participates in all the decisions which are made concerning the improvements to the park… therefore assumed capital improvements to nearby properties?
February 10, 2014 at 11:38 PM
Wow! One mature tree to be cut down in a municipality that has planted 1000s of new trees in the last few years. STOP THE PRESSES! 🙄