Council has consistently claimed that ‘evidence’ is the basis of all their decision making. Two items from tonight’s council meeting focus on this claim. We feature two recordings:
- Council’s response to the Mitchell Street residents’ letter, and
- A public question on the Elsternwick structure plan in the ‘community consultation’ phase of the meeting.
We urge all readers to listen carefully and to decide how well these councillors addressed what was being sought and asked.
MITCHELL STREET
- Does Hyams’ motion change a single thing?
- If parking/traffic changes are suggested then one should assume that officers did the necessary research to begin with and that their ‘evidence’ for the proposed changes are beyond question. Thus saying “’if this motion gets passed our traffic officers will examine the street and see what they can do there’ implies two things – (1) either no real ‘investigation’ was done PRIOR to changes being suggested, or (2) placating residents with vague, airy-fairy promises
- Why can’t the results of this further investigation be tabled at council? What are the chances that the residents’ stated concerns will be taken on board?
ELSTERNWICK STRUCTURE PLAN
- Has any councillor satisfactorily answered the allegation that decision making is ‘anecdotal’ and far from ‘evidence based’. We remind readers that Delahunty called the published shadow drawings as ‘rudimentary’!!!!!! Hardly the basis for informed decision making!!!!!
- Not one single councillor, nor any published document has as yet presented any ‘evidence’ as to why 12 storeys is necessary.
The Glen Eira version of ‘evidence’ is let’s make it up as we go along to support the conclusions we arrived at from the beginning!
Glen Eira Debates 
March 20, 2018 at 10:58 PM
A beautiful and accurate summary by this resident not scared to call a spade a spade.Not a single shred of empirical data has been produced to support any of council’s draft plans. Delahunty has let the cat out of the bag. A rush job in case Labor loses in a few months. That’s what it boils down to. Politics and not evidence.
March 21, 2018 at 8:24 AM
It was pretty clear on the night that the decisions weren’t being made on evidence and were being rushed through when Council wasn’t ready. Once again we have an unsubstantiated claim that the Minister won’t approve something less than 12 storeys. Has anybody seen any letter or meeting minutes to back this up? No Councillor has argued that if buildings are built to their proposed envelopes that they comply with ResCode or Apartment Development standards. The evidence demonstrates that they won’t.
March 21, 2018 at 9:23 AM
Exactly and that’s why Wynne approved 4 storey mandatory in Bentleigh because he “won’t approve anything less than twelve storeys”. It was council who decided that 4 storeys wasn’t enough and tried for eight storeys. What I want to know is that if eight storeys was essential a few months back then how come four storeys and five is now okay? Where’s the “evidence” for this change of mind?
March 24, 2018 at 8:55 AM
Who reports to whom – Council to state or state to council.
March 21, 2018 at 3:45 PM
Stacks of evidence to show this council is incompetent. Listen to these mugs and the evidence screams out they haven’t got a clue about planning and do what they are told.
March 21, 2018 at 8:53 AM
Delahunty and co have forgotten their own urban design guidelines by the sounds of it. This policy provides setbacks and podium levels. Shouldn’t then be too hard to work out shadow lengths. Delahunty called the diagrams ugly “boxes” and they were not because council couldn’t do a decent job but because they didn’t want to. When you know the setbacks, geographic location, and time of day, you don’t necessarily need an actual application to get a good idea of what is likely to happen. The diagram was “rudimentary” because it was a total con.
March 21, 2018 at 9:33 AM
Pathetic answers. They vote for something then don’t have the guts to get up and give decent answers. Silver, Strajt, Davey, Magee, Esakoff sit there like stunned mullets and Magee even tries to shut the resident up. They don’t like the truth and being called out.
March 21, 2018 at 10:38 AM
To be fair (me the resident that asked them of this), Cr Silver did voted in opposition to the motion – on Facebook he provided evidence of why he voted that way, succinct and clear. Cr Esakoff although voting affirmative, at least showed she has paid attention to the devil in the detail (I did not have time to speak to this last night). I believe Cr Esakoff is perhaps worthy of further petitioning for consultation – she pointed out some very serious flaws in the Elsternwick structure plan and I still have hope that the Cr will be willing to investigate deeper into the detail regarding the towers.
March 21, 2018 at 11:00 AM
What on earth is a “soft” vote against and what is the “planning formula”? Fair enough that Silver supported residents but he failed and continues to fail in establishing any “evidence” for his decisions. That is in keeping with all councillors. Esakoff did raise quite a few concerns. How many concerns does it take until someone votes against something? Is the number 2, 5, 10 before that is enough to vote against? Maybe another example of playing to the gallery? What counts in the end is the ability of councillors to cite the evidence, enunciate their arguments in accordance with the evidence and then vote. Not one single councillor achieved this.
March 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM
Totally agree. I guess I am looking at further opportunities to address these concerns. Glimmers of hope through the keyhole of the door I chose to bang my ahead against last night. I admit the thought did cross my mind that it was easy for Cr Silver to vote no to a forgone conclusion with view to maintaining support from the electorate. But my cynicism alone is not getting me too far. At this point I think we need to keep banging that door if simply to be heard by the neighbours (state government). If some councillors are open to further discussion, i.e. Silver and Esakoff (not convinced she is) then there is a possible opportunity to further elucidate the totally underwhelming performance of this council and use it against them when it comes to dealing with the state planning minister.
March 21, 2018 at 9:38 AM
Wow. Best ever speech by a resident. He gets my vote.
March 21, 2018 at 10:33 AM
Very kind of you, thank you… trouble is I did not have opportunity to get all my evidence out there last night… missed my favourite.. Delahunty saying on the 27th “is it fair? I think it’s fair”… we all know that is the most telling evidence! Honestly very frustrating to get responses that simply repeat the same rhetoric rather than use it as an opportunity to provide the evidence I was asking for. As for the incompetent Torres… instead of saying that it is all there on-line, again, cite an example of the evidence that draws indisputable conclusions that 12 story towers need to occur or else the planning minister will reject it!!!
March 21, 2018 at 6:13 PM
Torres’ energy might be better spent ensuring the “2014 Planning Scheme Review” he referred to in the previous meeting is up online. He made the claim, the Mayor allowed him to, now he’d better deliver.
March 21, 2018 at 6:21 PM
Not the first time that Torres has mislead council. In the previous meeting he was asked by Taylor to confirm whether a time extension had been granted to a permit for an 8 storey building in Centre Road. His response was that there had not been any time extension when in fact a permit to extend the time limits for starting the construction had been granted in November 2017.
March 21, 2018 at 6:53 PM
I assume he has since apologized and corrected the public record.
March 21, 2018 at 6:59 PM
No public statement (verbally or in writing) has been given to the public or to councillors that we are aware of.
March 21, 2018 at 6:23 PM
Cr Taylor’s experts consider the following to be adequate for VCAT: “A site inspection was considered unnecessary for the following reason: Unnecessary”. Doesn’t convince me.
March 21, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Kick up a stink about something and council goes into damage control and acts like its listening and doing something to fix the damage. Bull. If they got it right the first time there would not be the stink. Did anyone really visit Mitchell street before they decided on the parking? Doubt it. Some idiot sat at their desk, looked at street view and made a rotten decision. Residents were then told what was going to happen. Would be great to know what if anything they were asked for starters or just told this is what we’re doing.
March 21, 2018 at 4:17 PM
The resident’s background detail was outstanding and the responses were totally inadequate. Think that another very important question follows on though and it must be asked by Elsternwick residents. That is: Can Coucnil please outline the specific evidence that justifies the proposed structure plan for Elsternwick (including the height). Council has not been called to fully account for this yet and they clearly need to be.
March 21, 2018 at 4:21 PM
The mayor stated that the role of Glen Eira in accomodating population growth had been considered together with other relevant municipalities. This requires clarity as I don’t recall seeing any summary of this. Based on the structure plan outcomes, Glen Eira is doing everything leaving the other municipalities to do not much at all. Is this what he was referring to?
March 21, 2018 at 6:32 PM
From my own experience in organisations grappling with complex information, the difference between evidence and “evidence” lies in the outcomes decision-makers want. It’s evidence when it supports the desired outcome, it’s “evidence” to be treated disdainfully when it doesn’t.
Unethical people resort to rhetorical tricks to bolster their argument. Hence “a number” rather than quantifying anything. Use of hypothetical syllogisms is another popular trick. It’s great that Council now publishes audio/video recordings, would be even better if they published searchable transcripts. I have fun listening for manipulative techniques.
March 22, 2018 at 3:27 PM
Spot on – I intend to continue this line of questioning each month until they refuse to hear me
March 21, 2018 at 7:29 PM
I’ve listened twice now to the recordings and congratulate the resident on all his hard work in collating the various things councillors said plus his eloquence on the night. I listened twice because I wanted to make sure that what I was hearing from councillors could in any way be interpreted as answering the question of “where is the evidence”. Nothing Delahunty, Taylor, Athanasopolous, Torres or Hyams said came close to an answer. It was a regurgitation about the evidence but nothing quoted from any evidence. When a simple, straight forward question is asked and no one answers it then alarm bells start ringing for me. Either councillors have not got a clue or they are practising evasion. If they haven’t got a clue then the responsibility falls onto the administration. These senior people have not done their jobs in “educating” councillors. Whichever is the real reason this is not a council that can be trusted. The only people represented by the councillors are developers. Residents are nothing but collateral damage.
March 22, 2018 at 3:29 PM
Yes – I think my question next month might need to be a little more simplified- leave no room evasion
March 21, 2018 at 9:08 PM
ICAC investigators in NSW say that the inability to answer simple questions is a hall marker for corruption. Officers continually lying or misrepresenting the actual, is another big hint something is rotten in GECC.
Listening to how casually the councillors run through their well rehearse scripts is amazing, It really highlights the bubble these councillor have insulated themselves in. Residents are the enemy and 12 storeys will be your punishment. These people have been perverted beyond all belief. It does make me wonder just how deep this rot goes.
March 21, 2018 at 9:41 PM
2 minutes for Mitchell and Delahunty nor anyone else could even be bothered to say anything.
March 21, 2018 at 10:07 PM
Spare a thought for the poor buggers in Carnegie. They are in the same boat with 12 stories looming and no evidence to support what council has voted on. Elsternwick is kicking up a stink and good on them. Carnegie has had the stuffing knocked out of people so all quiet on the western front on that one from council or too few protests to get Davey, Esakoff and mayor off their backsides.
March 22, 2018 at 10:51 AM
While many residents of Glen Eira are very concerned about parking they can be assured that Cr. Taylor has the answers. She is undertaking a trip to Europe to study bike strategies. Of course the generous ratepayers of Glen Eira are contributing to this junket. People that work for trade unions are skilled at milking the public purse. Australian have a great affinity for cars. Trying to get everyone on bikes will not work. Hope she has a nice holiday.
March 22, 2018 at 3:31 PM
I hope that you are joking- that is a disgrace
March 23, 2018 at 1:48 PM
No joke . It would be in the minutes.
March 23, 2018 at 2:24 PM
as I alluded to council on the night – do the planning department have no access to the internet? Far cheaper to buy a modem and read the millions of studies that are online regarding bike solutions. Perhaps they are unaware of the work of Vic bicycle association? Talk about reinventing two wheels
March 24, 2018 at 8:19 AM
She is on a junket at the ratepayers expense. The tragedy is that this councillor must believe that she is going get everyone on a bike. Talk about living in a bubble. The Elsternwick structure plan shows the carparks being zoned for high rise flats. Probably going to replace the carpark with a bike rack. The shopkeepers bought this land 30 years ago to make Elsternwick strip shopping viable. Not much talking going on between the councillors and the shopkeepers.
March 24, 2018 at 8:59 AM
Who will be next set to go to the sun?
March 24, 2018 at 5:24 PM
They can all go if they pay for themselves. Cr. Taylor will no doubt be able to sleep in a 5 star hotel with the ratepayers money while the ratepayers book into the backpackers.
March 25, 2018 at 10:43 AM
Look if it had any benefit for Glen Eira it would be worth it, but on return I bet 100 to 1 she will just vote yes yes yes with the bureaucrats as usual like a good little autotron This how you learn which side of the fence offers you more. We will be interested in her report, I also bet 100 to 1 there will be no mention of that 5 star hotel
March 25, 2018 at 12:30 PM
Any information Cr. Taylor can come up with is available on the internet. No need to have the ratepayers stump up towards her holiday. She must reckon if Robert Doyle can do ( have junkets) it then so can I.
March 25, 2018 at 12:57 PM
You’re absolutely correct so long as you know how to use the internet. Then again you don’t need to know how to fly a plane to get to your 5 star hotel either.
Isn’t that the nexus of the problems with our councillors they only need to know how to do one thing well, and that is to hold one arm above their heads when asked too, anything other than that that like expressing residents concerns is just to difficult for them to cope with.
March 25, 2018 at 10:26 AM
Council’s actions on street parking has been the same for years. Make one side of a street all day parking and the other side two hour parking. That isnt planning. It’s a formula irrespective of context and need.