March 15, 2016
The Racecourse
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[12] Comments
[12] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- March 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM
- 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 15, 2016 at 9:43 AM
yes my bet is the price of getting training removed will be super dooper developments of the stables plus a night racing track making the middle unusable for sporting grounds. Has anyone observed how beautiful Flemington is with fantastic mature trees compared to Caulfield which is a dump!
March 15, 2016 at 9:58 AM
I can’t understand why Pilling says that council thinks it is better to work with the trustees instead of the mrc. They should be working with both. Anyway since the mrc controls the trustees this is splitting hairs.
March 15, 2016 at 10:14 AM
because the MRC plan is about residential and racecourse development not sports and recreation.
March 15, 2016 at 12:26 PM
Off topic – Skyrail & compensation – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/premier-daniel-andrews-opens-up-prospect-of-compensation-for-sky-rail-20160314-gnizr5.html
March 15, 2016 at 12:55 PM
This is crazy stuff. Government “co-funding” the Melbourne Racing Club and the trustees funding their own. Not a hope in hell then that the trustees one will get up.
March 15, 2016 at 6:44 PM
6 months since the Patrick consultations on the land management plan. About 2 years since any minutes of trustee meetings went up, 18 months since the auditor general report, and things keep rolling along like they always have. Only thing that’s gone up real quick is the oversized buildings for the Caulfield village, outdoor cinema, four storey screen and pretty soon is my guess the thirty nine radio towers so people can bet a little better and more.
March 16, 2016 at 9:39 AM
An absolutely incredible attempt to re-write history by both the MRC and Pilling (who, as a member of Council’s secretive Steering Committee, well knows)
The history of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, particularly over the last 20 years, has been one of gross mismanagement by the land managers (The Trust, which includes three councillors) and the landowners (successive State Governments) that has allowed and aided the Reserve’s tenants (ie. VRC/MRC) to
. take full control of 54ha of primely located Crown Land valued at $2bn for the princely sum of $190K pa leases and $250K pa ground maintenance costs. This “Trust income” then being predominantly returned to the MRC to be spent on racing related “ïmprovements”
. ignore two of the legally defined separate yet equal purposes of the reserve ie. racecourse, public park (passive usage) and public recreation ground (active sports usage). Currently, not only is less 12% of Reserve’s land currently available for public park usage (ie. 66% the legal purposes), severe restrictions are applied to that usage. The available parkland is hidden from view, difficult to physically access, only available at certain times and the comprises facilities that are not worth the effort of accessing.
Check out the Auditor General’s 2014 report if you doubt the above.
With a public park management track record such as this, it’s a pretty sure bet that current VRC/MRC land management plans will continue to benefit only one of the three purposes.
As for the VRC/MRC’s, “financial investment” in the proposed Glen Eira Road park (6,000+ sqm), what complete and utter bullshit.
. Again aided by gross Trust and Government mismanagement, this “park” was a major component of the MRC free hold land swapped for the Reserves crown land known as the Triangle. The VRC/MRC gained more than the public did as they offloaded a smaller, poorly located parcel of free hold land that road configuration makes it difficult to develop and, as per police advise at the time, makes it unsuitable for use as a public park. In return the VRC/MRC received primely located Crown Land (a larger parcel, well suited for use as parkland) to be incorporated in to the Caulfield Village Project and totally covered with 12-22 story buildings.
. with no oversight provided, the Trust gave authority for the VRC/MRC to negotiate the Infamous “landswap” with the State Government.
As for Pilling’s comment that the MRC had never offered the “swapped land” to Council, it is gobsmackingly reliant on a technicality. The land was not offered by the MRC, it was offered by the State Government. Council was offered management (similar to that offered for the current Booran Road Reservoir re-development) of the swapped Glen Eira Road land with the cost of rehabilitation to parkland being born by the VRC/MRC. Council refused, primarily because the ongoing parkland maintenance costs associated with a 6,000 sqm park, do not yield the same economies of scale opportunities that larger parks do (even though a larger park was not in the offing).
Council’s refusal means that
. the land, cleared by the VRC/MRC, now sits in limbo while the State Government figures out what to do with it (and the Trust and VRC/MRC argue that it should be incorporated in the Reserve), and
. Glen Eira is now focused on closing roads to create parks of 500 sqm.
March 16, 2016 at 1:49 PM
By the time the State Government made an “offer” to GECC to manage the Booran Rd land, the cost of rehabilitation to parkland was no longer to be born by MRC. Instead MRC was to pay a flat $300K to discharge their obligations, and there was supposedly an ongoing revenue stream to be made available to assist with maintenance of the land. $300K sounded inadequate to establish a park, and Council did not pursue it. DELWP could still implement the concept MRC proposed if it wanted to.
March 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM
The Urban Analyst has commented on one of our ancient posts – https://urban.melbourne/culture/2016/03/16/calcutta-here-bentleigh
What this article neglects to mention is:
1. The number of new applications that have come in for these streets
2. Apart from height restrictions, the lack of protection(s) in the schedules for RGZ
3. The questionable population stats
4. Since January 2014 Glen Eira city council has had 70 subdivision applications for more than 10 dwellings per development. Prior to the zoning there were barely 25. This of course doesn’t include all those subdivisions of 2-9 and there is a multitude of these.
We do however thank Urban Analyst for spreading our ‘fame’!
March 16, 2016 at 11:49 AM
Pilling just repeats what he is told, if he was half decent, he would have quit council admitting he couldn’t cope. The Greens woke up to this years ago and tossed him aside, releasing what a liability and embarrassment he had become.
March 16, 2016 at 12:32 PM
Pilling has repeatedly said he is not interested in racing or the grounds the sport occupies. Such is the quality of his thought processes and powers of analysis that, despite currently serving his 8th year as a Glen Eira Councillor and second term as Mayor, all matters pertaining to horse racing or the Caulfield Racecourse, are summarily dismissed as being a waste of time and effort.
This is truly a remarkable achievement on his part. Unfortunately he, and only he, sees the achievement in a positive light.
March 16, 2016 at 12:09 PM
In addition to the relevant points made by “Give us back our parkland” the “community benefit” of the whole Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is available for only one third of the hours of a whole year (approximately (2,500 hours), yet MRC has all availoable for most hours of every
day of year (7,5000). We are aware the gambling and restaurant area are open until 3 or 4 in the morning and then training commences until 9.30 am. The industrial bins visit too and produce their suburb shattering noise at about 3 am and then there’s the raves until 10.00pm. Most of these events occur during hours when the poor old public is banned form entry with a simple ball as the horses may be disturbed!
And then speaking of the maintenance, $250,000, what a joke that figure really is. Is the maintenance generally carried out for the benefit of the MRC’s commercial training industry and racedays? The whole area, including the miniscule public area, certainly looks far more presentable when a raceday near.
Why should we believe that this figure is for the public benefit at a huge to cost to the poor old MRC when our area only represents 12% of the total area? Then if we come up with a more appropriate maintenance figure we arrive at around $30,000 annually for the 12% of the land for a third of the hours per year to the public. This includes a lake used for the MRC’s irrigationn system and roadway into the trainers’ tower. . This represents an amazingly expensive cost for a bit of mowing and cleaning which are carried out only spasmodically.
Maybe the maintenance figure was more ap[propriate prior to the MRC’ unofficial land grab for the many inner tracks constructed over the last two decades and the parkland robbery at the expense of the general public(and very little rental if any is paid on any of this.
As for our mayors, past and present they fail to represent/report to us in council and absent themselves when big decisions are needed on the CRRT so the figures suite the MRC interests. According to council they act as individuals only… how can we expect any solution with this situation??