A quick report on last night’s council meeting:
- Many of the submitted public questions merely ‘responded’ to rather than ‘answered’
- By a vote of 5 to 4 committing $300,000 to $350,000 to proceed with the ‘design’ for the Inkerman Road bike path – in spite of the massive community opposition.
- No attempt to change the public question format – current status accepted unanimously
- The ‘revised’ Built Form Frameworks to go out for a 6 week ‘consultation’ period. Voted in unanimously with not a single word from any councillor as to why version 2 included some changes. The officer’s report for this latest version is still to make an appearance. We doubt it ever will.
We will comment in greater detail in the days ahead.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 28, 2021 at 2:03 PM
Massive opposition or a concerted campaign by NIMBYists? How many of the people who signed the petition against Inkerman Bike Path live on or near Inkerman? How many understood that wherever a separated safe cycle lane is created there will be some who object? Yet Council sports safe cycling. Safe cycling means separation. We are in a Climate Emergency and need to make alternatives to fossil fuel burning CO2 emissions vehicles possible. 35%of our residents emissions are from vehicle use. Council decided last night to complete the design project only. Council has a Safe Cycling Plan and Integrated Transport Strategy which includes the development of bicycle corridors.
And you are incorrect about no opposition to change in Council questions. I spoke about the need to continue to slow online questions to be answered publicly. I will be lobbying Council to change this in the coming weeks.
How about also adding the good news? Elsternwick Cultural Precinct to go ahead. The residents who objected to their homes being given heritage status were removed from the homes going to a Panel for decision. And so much more that you don’t report on.
April 28, 2021 at 2:53 PM
Thank you for the correction. We were in error regarding the public questions vote. Cr Zyngier did vote against the motion to accept. All other councillors voted in favour.
As for the Inkerman Road bicycle path we do not regard this as a ‘positive’ outcome. Nor do we believe that community opposition can be summed up as pure NIMBYism. When residents are presented with reports that are flawed, and lack all methodological validity, then something is drastically wrong. The opposition to Inkerman is not about the need for safe cycling, but whether Inkerman is the ideal road for the trial.
As for the other topics you cite (ie cultural centre, heritage) we will comment in detail on these in the days ahead. Whether or not these are ‘positives’ remains to be seen – especially since several councillors admitted last night that the road closures for Selwyn Street are a ‘compromise’ solution and not what originally envisaged.
April 28, 2021 at 3:47 PM
Thank you for the correction. As I argued last night Inkerman Rd isn’t unique. In fact every residential road in GE will face the same issues. Yet separated Bike corridors coexist with cars and parking in most European cities and in Canada as well. Successful trials have also occurred in Richmond and elsewhere.
It is a cultural problem here in GE. We need separated Bike Path ways throughout GE of we are to wean people off their CO2 emissions.
April 28, 2021 at 6:56 PM
I would have to agree It was pure Nimbyism at play on Inkerman Road. Some of the augments if you could even call it that, were so far off the mark as even being remotely creditable, I honestly had to wonder about the IQ of some of the people making such comments. I do agree the Princes Hwy. needs a bike path as well, but I suppose that’s maybe beyond councils jurisdiction.