Esakoff was first elected in 2003 and apart from a few months ‘vacation’ after council was sacked, she has run again and again – and been elected. She is now seeking another 4 years – as is her right of course. Whether or not it is a good thing to have such long serving councillors is a personal viewpoint. Any answer should be based on the facts of their tenure – such as ‘what have they achieved’; ‘how have they improved the municipality’, ‘what is their stance on so many issues that now confront residents’ and do their actions support the claims?
What needs pointing out as well is that to the best of our knowledge Esakoff has never fronted up to answer residents’ questions in any Candidate Forum for the past 3 elections. Nor has she partaken in any ward meetings that were run occasionally years ago.
So, despite all the flyer statements as to opposing overdevelopment, creating more open space, etc. we have to rely on what has actually occurred in relation to these issues. That means looking at voting records.
The following lists some of Esakoff’s voting on planning applications only since 2012. These were all granted permits and were either moved or seconded by Esakoff.
Readers will notice that some addresses are repeated. This is because there was either a planning application to amend, or the proposal was passed on to another developer, so this meant a new application.
The standout feature for many of these is the penchant for lopping off a storey or two, or the number of apartments, only to have VCAT grant the developer everything he wanted. Of course, instead of fixing up the planning scheme, councillors (including Esakoff) continued with blaming VCAT for all the losses. As we’ve repeatedly stated, the VCAT member is bound to assess applications against the current council planning scheme. If the scheme is so archaic, and contains no viable constraints, then for the most part, this is not VCAT’s fault, but the councillors who have allowed this situation to continue.
Apart from all the following applications that received permits based on Esakoff’s endorsements, readers should also remember that she was in support of the introduction of the odious residential zones (in secret), the current interim structure plans, and countless other policies. Plus for years and years she was opposed to a tree register that included controls on private land.
After 17 years of ineffectualness, it is definitely time for a change.
1056-1060 DANDENONG ROAD – voted for 8 storeys. VCAT granted 12 storeys and 173 dwellings
149-153 NEERIM ROAD & 4 HINTON ROAD, GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – 17 double storeys
2 MORTON AVENUE, CARNEGIE – 5 storeys, 33 dwellings. VCAT granted 6 storeys
730A CENTRE ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – 4 storeys, 21 dwellings
328-330 NEERIM ROAD CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 16 dwellings
259-261 NEERIM ROAD, CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 28 units
33-35 Jersey Parade, Carnegie – 4 storeys, 28 units
534-538 North Road ORMOND – 4 storeys, 20 units
7 Ormond Road Ormond – 3 storeys, 15 units
115-125 Poath Road Murrumbeena – 4 storeys, 33 units. VCAT granted additional storey and 7 units
67-73 Poath Road MURRUMBEENA – 5 & 6 storeys, 30 dwellings
2-4 Penang Street MCKINNON – 3 storey, 23 units
15-17 Belsize Avenue & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storey, 47 units. VCAT granted 52 units
670-672 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 5 storeys, 50 units
14-16 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE – 3 storey, 18 units. VCAT granted permit for 4 storeys
482-484 North Road ORMOND – 4 storeys, 21 units
143-147 Neerim Road GLEN HUNTLY – 3 storeys, 32 units
247-251 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 48 units
253-255 Neerim Road CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 38 units
1100 Dandenong Road CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 22 units
30-32 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE – 12 double storeys
600-604 North Road, ORMOND – 5 storeys, 45 units
37-39 NICHOLSON STREET BENTLEIGH – 3 & 4 storeys, 10 units
8-12 ELLIOTT AVENUE CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 40 units
322-326 NEERIM ROAD & 17 ELLIOTT AVENUE, CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 38 units
45 Orrong Road, Elsternwick – 4 storeys, 13 units
1110-1112 Dandenong Road, Carnegie – 3 & 4 storeys, 38 units
153 Poath Road, Murrumbeena – 4 storeys, 10 units
813-815 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD, CAULFIELD – 5 storeys, 9 units
360 NEERIM ROAD, CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 16 units
1254-1258 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD, CARNEGIE – 5 storeys, 68 units
777 Glen Huntly Road, Caulfield – 4 storeys, 5 units
3 Rigby Avenue, Carnegie – 5 units
2 Newman Avenue, Carnegie – 5 units
1110-1112 Dandenong Road, Carnegie – 2 to 4 storeys, 19 units
7-11 BELSIZE AVENUE, CARNEGIE – 4 storeys, 36 units
13-15 HAMILTON STREET BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 27 units
14-22 Woorayl Street, Carnegie – amend permit to be 13 storeys
81 DALNY ROAD, MURRUMBEENA – 3 units
20 BENT STREET, BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 7 units
285-287 NEERIM ROAD CARNEGIE – additional floor level and another 5 units to 46
1 AGNES STREET BENTLEIGH EAST – 4 triple and one double storey unit
80 HOTHAM STREET ST KILDA EAST – 3 storey, 10 units
Glen Eira Debates 
October 9, 2020 at 11:58 AM
No public official should be in the same job for 21 years. They get lazier and lazier and go through the motions. I want new blood with new ideas.
October 9, 2020 at 5:21 PM
She can talk the talk but doesn’t walk the walk when it comes to voting for heaps of things. Will never forget hubbies attempts at demolishing heritage. Once a developer always the mindset of a developer I say.
October 9, 2020 at 5:16 PM
She not finished yet, there’s still lots of room for more towers, and she try her very hardest to make sure we get them
October 9, 2020 at 5:49 PM
Glen Eira does not need complacent councillors like Ms Esakoff who have overseen the blatant overdevelopment of our city in recent years. Vote for change!
October 9, 2020 at 7:11 PM
She’s made a fortune out of ratepayers with repeated shots at mayor and then the councillor stipend. Pretty good pay for not doing to much.
October 10, 2020 at 9:17 AM
Cr Esakoff commented that tower in 1056-1060 Dandenong Rd, Carnegie which has 173 units and 27 of these units had no direct access to fresh air or sunlight words to the effect that it was ok as” there were not many”. Of course she voted in favour. Amazing comment in these CV19 times which rendered residents totally dependent on air conditioners which as proved in Wuhan spread the virus.
IN oTHER WORDS SHE IGNORED THE GOOD BUILDING STANDARDS WHICH SOCIETY HAS BUILT UP OVER THE YEARS IN FAVOUR OF THE DEVELOPER’S PROFIT ENTRY
.
October 10, 2020 at 10:02 AM
A good question would be she does this?, my imagination runs wilds as to this question.
October 10, 2020 at 11:38 AM
oops it should have read …. A good question would be why does she do this?, my imagination runs wilds, as to this question.