Delahunty moved to ‘note the report’ and added that council seeks information about the money that was paid by the MRC to the government and that this include ‘advice’ from the Valuer General about the ‘reasons’ for the landswap and the amount paid, when the money was received, how much and ‘the Department that received the funds’. She also asked for a ‘copy’ of documents that the then Minister Gavin Jennings spoke about in parliament at the time. If necessary, council should use FOI to get the information ‘if required’. Sounness seconded.
DELAHUNTY: Began by saying that the landswap was before her time but clearly something that’s grated on people. Said she was surprised that the money paid was so large when it was claimed to be ‘compensation’ for the ‘inequity of the swap itself’. She wanted to know more ‘about that money’ since the MRC’s last 3 annual reports writes about $8 million being set aside for the buying of land and this could be the buy out of private properties but also contain the money paid to the government. Therefore no one knows how much they actually paid and what they thought it was for. Hansard mentioned this several times in response to members asking questions. Said that David Davis was asking whether the swap was equitable and he referred to the panel he was chairman of and that he was ‘still uncomfortable’ about the Trust and land swap. Sue Pennicuik has also been a long time advocate and been a ‘great help’ for the community. She also asked ‘a lot of questions at the time’ from Gavin Jennings and wanted to ensure that the community could ‘derive’ some benefit. Jennings answered that the land would be valued, and that this then would be approved by ‘the Government Land Monitor’. This would ‘ensure’ that the government isn’t ‘disadvantaged’. Jennings then went on to say that the swap was contingent on the approval of these bodies and that there would be commercial rates paid for the land. The act was then passed. Delahunty then said if these assurances ‘were given’ but the public still doesn’t know the details such as ‘where the money went’ and ‘what it should have been used for’ so that when the vote was taken in parliament they voted on the assumption that things would happen, but none of this has happened. She ‘presumes’ that the money went into general revenue. Thought that ‘this money should come back to provide the community’ with the ‘equity it was supposed to deliver’. Said that council was ‘more than happy’ to move the depot to the Booran land site which ‘we never wanted in the first place’. Council would need to spend ‘residents’ money’ or ‘get residents’ money back’ from the landswap. Summed up by saying that want to restore Caulfield Park, and get the ‘best use’ out of the Booran site and for ‘the money that is owed to the community’ to be returned. Thought that 2012 was when the money was handed over and that it was intended for ‘the people of this community’. They want all the information to ‘inform the public debate’ and that people should know ‘where their money has got to’.
SOUNNESS: said the the whole issue including racecourse, c60 etc. can ‘fire up’ people and that the best option for getting to the bottom of things is to ‘follow the money’. Pennicuik tried this. Said there was ‘still a long path to go down’ and they’re trying to find ways to ‘move the depot’ and find ‘better array of services’. Good that council is trying to ‘achieve a better outcome’ for residents.
MAGEE: said this would be ‘win-win’ for everyone in that the depot would be moved, and that so far there ‘is no community benefit’ from the landswap and the money which was paid by the MRC. This money could be used to achieve this. Said that government’s job is to ‘assist the community’ and for Glen Eira with the least amount of open space, that the government should ‘give it to us’ (the money). SAid this was a ‘great opportunity’ to get a good result and ‘banging on forever’ about the landswap, trustees is useless. This is positive and they will ‘keep the pressure on’ both government and Southwick. Wanted everyone to ‘work together’ for a ‘community benefit’.
OKOTEL: reiterated that this was an ‘important issue’ and that Pilling had already met with government and that council would continue to ‘agitate’ on the issue.
HYAMS: said this was a ‘mess’ from the start and council wasn’t happy from day one but that both sides (Liberals and Labor) voted the landswap in. The Trust also voted for it and of the 3 council reps ONLY 2 VOTED AGAINST IT, which is ‘disappointing’. Council never wanted it and from the start they wanted a depot but the MRC said ‘no’ they didn’t want a depot and the department put it aside for ‘recreation’. Buildings also went which is ‘unfortunate’ because they ‘might have been useful’. Said that now government has given permission to put the depot there and that for once it’s ‘good to see that the MRC’ isn’t having it all it’s own way but, that council ‘needs the money’ for this to occur. Asked Delahunty what she ‘expects’ the ‘legally binding document’ to contain. Delahunty said ‘I don’t know’ and that this was mentioned in the actual debate in parliament but that she expects to find ‘some wording about the exchange’ and whether the money was to ‘come back to the community’.
DELAHUNTY: said it’s a mess and was ‘outside the control’ of council. But the ‘opportunity’ is now due to Media Release by Southwick where he claimed that he was ‘excited’ to be ‘able to reinvigorate’ Caulfield Park. With this there’s Hansard where Davis ‘sought assurances’. So ‘there’s no better time’ to get things done than ‘right now’. To succeed they ‘need to understand all the information’. All this can ‘put to rest some of the ill will’.
Delahunty then went on to say that the letter published in the agenda which was sent to Southwick ‘some time ago’ had as yet ‘not reached his office’. On Twitter, Southwick claims that he first saw it with the agenda.
MAGEE: asked that if council doesn’t get the money ‘can we still afford to do the landswap’?
NEWTON: according to the Strategic Resource Plan ‘there’s no money in any of the ten years to do this’ and the ‘only way you could do this is to lower the priority of some other projects’.
MAGEE: summed it up by asking ‘No money, no move’?
DELAHUNTY: answered and repeated ‘no money, no move’.
MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
July 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM
We are all sick of the time and effort spent by all parties on the Racecourse. It’s really boring.
July 3, 2014 at 10:11 AM
I can’t imagine govt forking over 4 million. This win them any more votes in an electorate they are going to win anyway. The 4 million could pay for all the sports fields in the racecourse. A much better outcome
July 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM
Who wants to lay bets on Staikos voting for
July 3, 2014 at 12:42 PM
After Staikos. Magee and against and Tang for. Hyams once again whinge with forked tongue.
July 3, 2014 at 6:32 PM
Hyams whinging with forked tongue calling resident a Bitch. he he
July 3, 2014 at 11:35 AM
well played by the MRC! looked like community would get access to their own racecourse reserve but we should all be happy with this. Govt spending money from gambling on encouraging more gambling. Win Win for MRC and not spend a cent
David Southwick @SouthwickMP · 46m
Pleasure to rep @Vic_Premier to launch #CharityRaceDay at @MRCTrackNews providing $64k to support #Caulfield Race Day http://img.ly/zl5a
Replied to 0 times
Retweeted by David Southwick
MelbourneRacingClub @MRCTrackNews · 2h
Thanks @southwickmp, @Jacquifelgate, Mr Peter Norman, @lydiaschiavello & all for supporting #CharityRaceDay! pic.twitter.com/kbD4zxoImu
Embedded image permalink
July 3, 2014 at 11:45 AM
check out new Caulfield Heath video. At the 4 minute mark of the video it says you have access to the fantastic racecourse reserve!
July 3, 2014 at 2:49 PM
There’s a moral here. Never let the truth interfere with the prospect of making a lot of money.
I’ve watched the promo and don’t know whether to laugh or simply rush to the toilet and be sick. Fancy that I never knew that Caulfield is “boasting abundant open space” or how lucky we are to have “enviable green space”. The best lines come about “natural light” and the clips of apartments are sure to be all those hundreds and hundreds of ones who are no bigger than a car parking spot. I’m so glad that I will get a private shelf to store all my grog. That is the real clincher for me on this.
How they can get away with such false advertising is beyond me but they try and that’s why there’s this disclaimer sentence “no representation or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness and or relevance of any information contained in this video”
I hope that Lavinia is happy with what she got paid for this bit of crap. She should come to work for Council. Their crap is no different to this crap so she will fit right in.
July 3, 2014 at 2:59 PM
HYAMS: said “3 council reps ONLY 2 VOTED AGAINST IT,” so who voted for the land swap? And is he still a councillor?
July 3, 2014 at 7:18 PM
Forge & Magee against, Hyams mate and fellow gang member Tang for. No doubt Hyams told Tang how to vote.
July 4, 2014 at 2:44 PM
Whiteside and Tang voted against the land swap, it was staikos that voted with the MRC to give them what they wanted. The MRC got the land the community got nothing.
July 3, 2014 at 5:53 PM
I cannot work out why Council thinks it is entitled to any of the $4m and that the money is a prerequisite for moving the Depot from the crown land that is Caulfield Park.
Lets get the record straight –
The Triangle was part of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve (a reserve created to serve three separate purposes: racecourse, public recreation ground and public park) back in 1858. That the MRC (formerly VATC) have managed to gain a strangle hold on the Reserve to the exclusion and detriment of the public is a direct consequence of the failure of the Trustees (appointed to appropriately manage the reserve in accordance with its 3 stated purposes) to ensure that a no one purpose dominates. The Trustees (3 of whom are Councillors) management failure in no way entitles Council to a slice of the $4m received in part payment for the extremely valuable Triangle (even if Glen Eira has the least open space in Metro Melbourne)
Crown Land set aside for specific purpose/s (in this case the racecourse, public recreation ground and public park) reverts to the Government once it is excised. Once excised it is up to the State Government to decide what to do with it and any proceeds arising from any sale of crown land revert to the State Government. Unless undisclosed documented agreements exist there is no way Council is entitled to a slice of the proceeds (be it land or $’s).
Council raised no objection to the sale of the land to the MRC. Council’s only objection was to some of the land which was to be included as the form of payment for the highly valuable Triangle. That form of payment being part land (hence the term “land swap”), part cash (hence the $4m) and part landscaping obligations. The largest chunk of land proposed to the exchanged for the Triangle was the formerly derelict MRC freehold land at the Glen Eira Road/Booran Road roundabout which the MRC had no use for – this was proposed to be turned into a park. Instead Council wanted land near the Cnr. of Neerim Road and Queens Avenue so that it could expand Glen Huntly Park. The MRC won and the Glen Eira/Booran Road roundabout land was included in the exchange.
In 2013 Council was offered management of the Glen Eira/Booran Road land by the State Government.
In 2014 Council is claiming the $4m, paid by the MRC as part payment for the Triangle, as being required for moving the Depot from Caulfield Park. Council has no legal entitlement to any part of this money nor has it disclosed any previously undisclosed agreement supporting it’s claim for this money.
Why has Council made receipt of some $4m a condition of removing the depot from Caulfield Park to the Glen Eira/Booran Road site. The site is too small to house the depot, would require the removal of mature vegetation that has been identified as significant and does not provide appropriate access for park maintenance equipment and vehicles?
Unfortunately the answer is political point scoring and even worse it signifies an intention of never moving the depot. The stink (not from horse manure) that arose from the so called “land swap” hasn’t disappeared.
July 3, 2014 at 7:24 PM
Penhalluriack had proposed the triangle to be the new GESAC. What a fantastic idea scorned by Newton and the gang. Fancy having a pool near a train station and 30,000 Uni students. Would have also created more green public park space and less issues around the Actual GESAC site. Glen Eira had a gem of a Councillor in Penhalluriack and millstones in Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Newton.
July 6, 2014 at 1:54 PM
The place would have so many students the local ratepayers would not get in for a swim. Stupid idea. It is already packed out at the current location.
July 4, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Our councillor representative Cr.Tang did not bother to attend several of the bi-annual Caulfield Reserve Trust meetings to vote no, he stayed in the office eating his sandwich. This ensured the already too well represented MRC ANY AND ALL DECISIONS IN ITS FAVOUR!! This Councillor’s absence is a memory job s far as the date goes no minutes or reports made public these facts are hard to prove and as there are no minutes or reports given by our “councillor representatives
‘ at council meetings
July 4, 2014 at 5:37 PM
Magee has done well when he was the Chair at MRC compared to Tang and Hyams who are nothing but good actors..