When it comes to winning an election it would appear that all notions of ‘fair play’, and individual integrity go out the window. Dirty tricks dominate and collusion makes for some strange bedfellows. Promises are nothing more than fairy tales or straight out fibs. All of this is made crystal clear with the publication of the ‘candidate statements’ that raise the question of who is the ‘right person’ and how much they should be trusted with the stewardship of Glen Eira.
In this post we will concentrate on Tucker Ward and ask readers to note:
- How the Libs have engaged in highly dubious legal and (un)ethical tactics by publishing their defacto preferences in these statements – something that the legislation forbids!
- How Magee (the once Labor) man is so anxious to be re-elected that he has joined this circus and preferenced the brother and sister act for the Libs. We are told that he intends to ‘rejoin’ the Labor party after the election. We sincerely hope that they show him the door in much the same way that the Greens have excommunicated Pilling.
- Statement after statement is either meaningless slogans or bare faced lies. For example, Okotel claims to have ‘fought hard against inappropriate development and striven to preserve the character of Tucker Ward’. Beside the point that she was previously a Rosstown Ward councillor and not Tucker, her ‘fight’ to preserve ‘character’ in Tucker does not bear up to scrutiny when we find she has voted in favour of permits for the following (and we only concentrate on her voting pattern in Tucker) –
8 Railway Crescent, Bentleigh – 3 storeys, 10 units
451 South Road, Bentleigh – 5 storeys, 12 units
261 Centre Road, Bentleigh – now 5 storeys, 31 units
674 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 3 storeys, 8 units
730 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 21 units
115 Poath Road, Murrumbeena – 6 and 7 storeys, 39 units
22-26 Bent St, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 36 units
670 Centre Road Bentleigh – 5 storeys, 50 units (later increased to 67 units & part of Brown’s Road)
14-18 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 55 units
817 Centre Road, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 24 units
23 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storeys, 34 units
10-12 Bent Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey, 35 units
15-19 Vickery Street, Bentleigh – 3 storey, 39 units (VCAT gave the developer his 4 storeys and 47 units)
So much for ‘preserving the character of Tucker’!!!!!!! We also remind readers that her record on tree protection, notice of motion, etc. is equally abysmal and that her presence in council was perceived by many as merely Esakoff’s clone!
We’ve uploaded the full document for Tucker Ward HERE but thought we would also highlight the following statements! Many should at least be good for a laugh! (Click to enlarge)
Glen Eira Debates 
September 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM
The motives of Pilling, Delahunty and Okotel don’t make them the right people to my mind. Each of them has had higher ambitions and failed so they come running back to local government and sit and wait for the next opportunity.
September 27, 2016 at 8:51 AM
Hey Hyams my boy, you say you work for all the community right?
Why don’t you disclose on your voting slip which club you were executive director for sport of, and which company you’re a senior policy analyst for?
You’re not embarrassed to show everyone how you’re working for all communities are ya?
Did you say on Gent Finger you’re an Independent hahahahahahaha
What year were you and Margie sacked from council again
September 27, 2016 at 8:58 AM
Magee was not sacked. He was elected first in 2008. Hyams was sacked in 2005
September 27, 2016 at 9:23 AM
Okotel’s desperately trying to get back on the ratepayer payroll, does she think she deserves a lifetime being paid by the public purse.
It looks to me Ho, Pilling, Hyams, Sounness and ex Cr. Okotel, are all using the council pay as their main income source, as they do not have employment elsewhere.
What does this say when more than half our councillors do not have the skills to be employed in the real world, and possibly are a councillor for the money.
September 27, 2016 at 9:31 AM
HO, we believe works for a development company as ‘project manager’.
Hyams works for AIJAC
Okotel has worked for legal aid
September 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM
Ho employment would be smoke and mirrors “he wouldn’t be managing anything” Hyams claims his position is unpaid hence voluntary, Okotel 4 hour a week at Legal Aid, 6 years ago.
September 27, 2016 at 9:37 AM
Evidently after 10 years, Jamie Hyams is now going to work hard to improve protection against over-development. What a hypocrite.
September 27, 2016 at 10:28 AM
Does anyone know what the AIJC which that mud flinging councillor Hyams works for? And mor importantly wjat is the aspiration of that organisation?
September 27, 2016 at 12:56 PM
Their website is: http://www.aijac.org.au/
September 27, 2016 at 3:05 PM
It’s a pro Israel propaganda organisation replete with professional dissemblers. Not afraid to intimate in pursuit of their aims.
Similar organisations around the western world. Biggest and most influential in the USA.
September 27, 2016 at 1:46 PM
Magee would sell his mother if it helped get him over the line.
September 27, 2016 at 3:38 PM
Couple of facts that seem to have escaped attention
1. In Jamie’s 2013 imposition of the zones, information obtained under FoI, clearly shows that to satisfy an estimated demand (12,000 new dwellings) over a 20 year timeframe Jamie actually unleashed, in one fell swoop, 87 years housing supply in residential zones which, if you include the commercial zones, becomes 105 years supply. The open slather commenced the moment the zones were imposed.
2. The forerunner to the zone implementation was the Housing Diversity (ie. High Density) Minimal Change Areas introduced in 2003 (ie. the same year Jamie and Esakoff were first elected). The Independent Planning Panel assessment that occurred clearly states that the Council had agreed to undertake structure planning for all Housing Diversity Areas (no just the 3 activity centres). Council has yet to do so, despite residents crying out for them for the past 13 years. By the way, Neil Pilling, current Mayor, was an objector to the implementation of Areas and like Jamie and Esakoff consistently ignored residents and town planning basics.
Point 1 + 2 = excessive supply and no planning
3. The zone imposition was unanimously and retrospectively voted in by all Councillors. Included in the imposition and not communicated to residents was an exemption from any community consultation prior to imposition and for further 2 years after their imposition. The Ministers letter ordering the recent planning scheme review clearly states that Council had again applied for a further exemption from community consultation. How many of you actually knew had applied to again avoid community consultation?.
Point 1 + 2 + 3 = excessive supply, no planning, secrecy and no community consultation.
October 1, 2016 at 11:32 PM
This is appalling. I am very grateful to Glen Eira debates for providing some of this important background information. I am really horrified by our Council’s complete lack of attention to planning.
I believe an urgent priority for a new Council would be to commence a structure planning process that included comprehensive community consultation. It feels very much like the horse has bolted. Any thoughts about other measures that can curb our market driven developers bonanza? We have an urgent problem and need a strong community platform on what we want Councillors to do.
September 27, 2016 at 3:41 PM
Be grateful if you could publish the part of the electoral regulations that make unlawful to include preferences in the 250 word statement. I can’t find it. Looking at other Councils most candidates are talking about “like minded people” then laying out their preferences. I suggest that the parliament simply removed the regulation that directed that preferences were to be included by the VEC. If a candidate submits something illegal in their statement it is up to the returning officer to reject the statement.
September 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM
We believe that formal complaints have been issued by some candidates and that the electoral officer declared this practice as legal. Section 38 of the Amendment was removed late August. However, we still maintain that when candidates include vote #1, Vote #2 and Vote#3 then this is at the very least an abuse of the system and clearly indicates ‘preferences’. Making matters worse is that complainants were not given the opportunity to amend their candidate statements. This is therefore not a level playing field. The fault lies, as we’ve stated before, in the lousy legislation and the games that the major parties of all political colours play
September 27, 2016 at 5:03 PM
You are right. What happened was the Government wanted the preferences to be included as they have always been. The Liberals and Greens did not. (ALP dose not have the numbers in the upper house,) The VEC tried to change the regulation in 2006. They don’t like stooges either. Both major parties rejected any change. The LGA has a clause whereby it must be reviewed every 10 years. The Department boffins have waited 10 years to try to get rid of stooges. They must have lobbied the Libs and the Greens and succeeded. During the review the Government has sought to increase the Regulations as opposed to the actual Act. Regulations can be changed by the Minister rather than going though the Parliament. Handy when they don’t control the upper house. The reason for the last minute change was the 10 years was up. The good part is that no one knows what the voters will actually do.
Some candidates are deliberately being less than honest by saying they work for a not for profit organisation or as a community worker when in fact they are employed by a trade union. Unfortunately the playing field will never be level.
September 27, 2016 at 10:16 PM
Hyams dumps O’kotel in his preferences despite O’kotel’s loyalty to him.
..
September 28, 2016 at 9:28 AM
Hyams is for Hyams and no one else.
Pity poor f*wits that vote for him, they wasted their opportunity to get proper planning in and have instead voted for at least 3 stories next to them.
September 28, 2016 at 7:38 AM
Old Four out and new Four in with a gigantic sharp end brooms to clean the carpet under the seats. Our chamber needs disinfectant on those chairs that will go with marching orders. People have seen various phrases under their posters – Hyams stating something like “Serving OUR community” What does the word OUR mean?
September 28, 2016 at 8:41 AM
There isn’t a large enough jewish population in Tucker ward to continually get Hyams elected with the “so called jewish vote” his appeal is, and has to be a lot broader than you are suggesting.
September 28, 2016 at 9:06 AM
Just one of many issues with the new zones and governance in Glen Eira is that VCAT is under the erroneous impression that 78% of the municipality is zoned NRZ [it’s actually less than 70%]. As a result VCAT have said in their many decisions setting aside Council decisions that they must grant permits for larger developments in areas not zoned NRZ. Unstated is that the developments are much larger than Council originally intended when introducing their Housing Diversity policies. VCAT further bullshitted when it claimed without evidence that the zones were the result of careful consideration by Council.
Now there is no longer any pretence of diversity or respecting neighbourhood character. The rules were changed unilaterally by the former Planning Minister with the secret support of a subset of our councillors. It wasn’t even put to a vote at Council originally and therefore cannot honestly be said to be supported by Council, although some councillors have made it clear that they support unfair changes and don’t support compliance with ResCode. The lie about 78% of Glen Eira being zoned NRZ matters.
The whole planning scheme stinks. Rather than a pure zoning regime, there should have been additional rules that constrained new developments to be only say 1 storey bigger than their neighbours, and as a result have the whole municipality develop more evenly with problems distributed rather than tightly clustered. FWIW I haven’t seen any candidate or incumbent councillor state clearly what they consider “appropriate” development to look like, or what specific changes they’d like to see made to the planning scheme.