This is a first for Glen Eira Debates in that for this particular post we only feature the final summation by Lipshutz on the tree register issue – the report on the full ‘debate’ will ensue. We simply ask readers to contemplate the following words and to pass their own judgement.
LIPSHUTZ: Said that on Heritage ‘how many times has it come back to council because we don’t necessarily agree with the Heritage advisor?’ This is like ‘someone coming along and saying that tree is significant’. Then someone will appeal that decision and then it will be ‘red tape and a bureaucratic issue’. Whether something is a significant tree ‘is in the eyes of the beholder’. As an analogy Lipshutz said that clients going to court are told ‘to settle because it is in your control’. When the judge decides ‘you’re gambling’ as to the decision. ‘This is exactly the same thing here’. People ‘gamble on somebody saying this is not a significant tree’. Stated that those claiming that a tree is significant won’t be the owner of the tree but a neighbour. ‘It’s a matter of property rights’. Agreed that ‘trees do add a great deal to the community’. Hyams has spoken about asking the community what they think on the issue but that’s a ‘very cute argument because we all know’ that when you ‘consult with people that ‘the vast majority’ ‘don’t give their view’ and it’s only those people ‘who have a strong view about the issue’. Those who give their view are the voters and it’s those people who ‘will in fact say yes or no’. Going to community consultation means that ‘you will get’ the views of ‘activists and who have strong views’ and the ‘vast silent majority don’t care’. And ‘they don’t care’ because they are ‘satisfied’ about the ‘way council operates’.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 22, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Lipshutz is wrong, wrong, and wrong again, the man is a walking disaster in thought and logic and speak, “silence is not consent” and it seems everybody in the whole wide FREE WORLD know this except for your truly Cr. Lipshutz.
Here’s just a few reasons why; “silence is not consent”
People could be and are intimidated into silence
People could be ignorant of the issues and or the process to agree or descent
People could be to busy to partake
People may or could have just plain old given up, after years of fruitless head against wall banging, with personally types like Cr. Lipshutz
So his logic is: … only a small number of resident partake in any community consultations process, and because these people are a minority I can ignore them, counting the silence of the majority as consent for the pre-consultation position.
It’s twisted and it’s perverted, and this may also sum up the man
March 22, 2015 at 10:58 PM
The use of the word “consultation” when it comes from the mouth of Lipshutz is obscene.
March 23, 2015 at 9:09 AM
What a load of crap. There are plenty of guidelines that add up to saying that a tree should be saved if its healthy and got nothing to do with the eye of the beholder.
March 23, 2015 at 9:56 AM
I always thought that you vote in councillors who will in future be your representative. They can’t be your representative unless they have taken the trouble to find out what you think about something. Only then can they advocate on your behalf. Council has never asked people directly whether or not they want a tree register. It’s got into the community plan because the planning scheme includes some paragraphs about trees and it has regularly cropped up in the news and it makes council sound so very up to date and “progressive”. That is the entire extent of this sorry saga.
Lipshutz’s comments are both silly and hypocritical. On the very rare occasions when there has been what council refers to as “extensive consultation”, then the views of constituents have been overlooked, over-ridden and completely over turned. The Caulfield Park conservatory is the best example of this. Two “extensive consultations” and the building is now gone despite overwhelming support for its maintenance and retention. That signifies Lipshutz’s definition of “consultation”. If he and those of like mind do not like the outcome of any “consultation” then like a dog with a bone he will not let up until the outcome suits him and his ilk. The other effective alternative is that if the matter is really important and council can get away without legally having to consult, they will – as happened with the introduction of the residential zones.
March 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM
Hubris ain’t his strong point. Arrogance is. Would be great if that arrogance was based on some quality that others could respect.
March 23, 2015 at 8:59 PM
Can’t be sure, but I think Cr Lipshutz is arguing that Council’s “Community Engagement Strategy” is a failure and he is criticising the Community Engagement Advisory Committee. Maybe he just doesn’t agree with the goals in the Strategy. His attitude appears to be at odds with Council’s stated “commitment” to encourage the community to play an active role in the future of Glen Eira and to engage citizens in the democratic process. Wonder if his colleagues agree with him that the community should NOT be “given the opportunity to participate in a consultative process so that Council can make decisions that are more closely matched to the needs and aspirations of the community”.