March 23, 2015
The MRC Screen: Public Land For Private Profit
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[7] Comments
[7] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- March 23, 2015 at 2:12 PM
- Category :
- Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
- Do More :
- Both comments and pings are currently closed.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Glen Eira Debates
%d bloggers like this:
March 23, 2015 at 2:45 PM
The screen is undeniably huge and incongruous if it is in a park park or public recreation area. The permit was granted before the Auditor-General released his report that was so critical of CRRT and DEPI, and he was under the mistaken impression that GECC councillors appointed as trustees represented GECC. DEPI no longer exists, and we’ve had a change of government. This latest monolith helps to remind us there’s a still a stench surrounding the governance regime.
March 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM
In case readers have forgotten what occurred regarding this decision to grant a permit, we repeat the following facts:
1. Esakoff and Hyams declared a conflict of interest
2. Lipshutz remained in the chamber, spoke to the motion and voted – this despite the fact that council’s ‘interpretation’ of the role of a Trustee is that they are NOT Council reps, but their first allegiance is to the Trust!
Here is what he stated at the time:
LIPSHUTZ: began by declaring that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest in this item ‘because I am not a member of the MRC’ and that ‘when I look at this (application) it is appropriate‘. Since one of the purposes of the racecourse is ‘racing’ and the screen isn’t any ‘bigger than the one in NSW’ and that racing brings in a ‘lot of revenue for the State’ and ‘I think it’s important’. Said that this doesn’t mean that it’s ‘more important than the other two purposes’ (ie park). This is ‘appropriate’ and won’t have any ‘impact on houses nearby’ and isn’t an ‘amenity issue’. He saw ‘no reason to refuse it’.
March 23, 2015 at 4:17 PM
It was very charitable of Cr Lipshutz to lobby so hard for CRRT’s major tenant at the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. On the face of it he did have and continues to have a conflict of interest when it concerns MRC development activities on Caulfield Racecourse Reserve land under LGA s.78B(1). Might be time to dust off the “reasons” Andrew Newton used to justify the creation of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee. If Cr Lipshutz thought the reasons were specious he would surely have opposed the creation of the committee and refused to become its chairperson.
March 23, 2015 at 3:32 PM
Bloody ginormous. Picknickers will have a fabulous view looking at the back of this monster.
March 23, 2015 at 6:00 PM
This is surely the fault of the three wise Councilor trustees. When are the new trustees going to be appointed? Why did these guys not declare conflict of interest?
March 23, 2015 at 7:43 PM
This height stuck in a public park is going to be an eyesore. Council’s subservience to the mrc must be investigated.
March 25, 2015 at 10:38 PM
Readers may be interested to know that the BIG SCREEN cost $3,650,000. Around $850,000 was a grant from the Victorian Racing Fund. Another $1m was spent resurfacing the track. Public ‘facilities’ such as the barbecue, etc. were $2.8m from memory.