Caulfield Racecourse/C60
Archived Posts from this Category
March 24, 2011
March 22, 2011
Caulfield Racecourse & C60: Indecent Haste!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication[10] Comments
Today’s Caulfield Leader Advertisement (tiny) on Page 12 –
CAULFIELD RACECOURSE PRECINCT
SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING
4 April 2011
Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act 1989 that a meeting of the Glen Eira City council Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on:
- Monday 4 April 2011 in the Caulfield Pavilion, Caulfield Park, Balaclave road, Caulfield commencing at 7pm.
The business to be transacted at this meeting will be:
- Melbourne Racing club (MRC) Planning Scheme amendment C60 and a planning application for works in the centre of the reserve – to hear oral submissions from interested parties (a maximum of three minutes per submission)
March 17, 2011
The following letter, written to the auditors of the MRC is published with the permission from the author, Mr. Jack Campbell, MBE. We have bolded what we believe are significant sections and deleted the author’s address. At the time of this posting, no response to this letter has been received! We are also informed that a meeting between Council and the MRC occurred this afternoon.
14th December 2010.
Morton Watson and Young – Chartered Accountants
51 Robinson St,
Dandenong 3175.
Dear Sirs,
Re: The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees.
I write to you as auditors of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust drawing your attention to some apparent irregularities. As you know the Trust has, since 1858, controlled Crown Land now worth well over $1 billion for the purpose of not only a racecourse but also a public recreation ground and a public park. The Trust was criticised by The Legislative Council’s Select Committee on Public Land Development, which produced a final report in September 2008. One would presume the Trust would take cognisance of the report, which was chaired by David Davis, the Minister for Health and Ageing.
I now respectfully draw your attention to the following, and ask for your comment:
1. The Grandstand (Head) Lease to the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) expires in September 2012. The final 3-year renewal, which could have proceeded (following due notice) in September 2009, has not been effected. It follows that there is no lease, and a monthly tenancy of this Crown Land by the MRC is not legal and its occupation should cease.
2. Notwithstanding point 1, the Grandstand (Head) Lease seems to only cover the Crown Land north of the racetrack, in which case the MRC has no right to sub-lease either the Western or the Neerim Road areas, or to use the ‘flat’ for training, car parking and other commercial ventures.
3. The sub-lease to Monash University has expired and the documentation is missing.
4. The sub-lease to Hore-Lacy of the ‘Western Stable’ complex is also missing and has probably expired.
5. A newly executed lease (23rd April 2008) for the Neerim Road Stables is also missing, and it would appear that Freedman Brothers and Mitchell have already broken their lease by vacating the leasehold. The remaining trainers are Mason and Aquanita Racing who, without the MRC having a legal head lease, may be occupying the Crown Land illegally.
6. The Deed of Maintenance and Development executed 17th February 1997 seems to have fallen behind in its reporting and the MRC’s annual development plans seem to be routinely altered at the sole whim of the MRC.
7. State Government permission is sought and granted for buildings and works to proceed despite no current valid lease between the Trustees and the MRC.
8. An anachronism of the past is that the Trustees accounting period is calendar rather than financial, and the amount of rent, and when it is due from the MRC, is vague and indeterminate. $180,000 p.a. seems to be the amount, giving a return of less than 0.02% on the real estate value. What is clear, however, is no monies are returned to the community.
9. Without consulting the community the Trustees have indicated an intention to issue a further Grandstand Lease in September 2012, and have asked the MRC for a ‘wish list’ to ensure they get whatever their ‘heart’ desires. (The previously negotiated ‘Communiqué’ between the MRC and Council is ineffective. If the MRC is to retain control of this land fresh and sincere negotiations are essential to provide a direct and positive benefit to the community.)
I am sure you are familiar with the Select Committee’s report, but for your ease of reference here are some of its recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION 5.8
That the Government investigates:
• the history, membership structure, responsibilities and current arrangement of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Board of Trustees, particularly in relation to its duty to uphold not just horse racing, but all the purposes of the reserve in the original Grant;
• the purpose to which money raised by horse racing has been used;
and
• ways in which the Government can ensure that the Board of Trustees operates in an open and transparent manner and in accordance with the terms of the Grant.
RECOMMENDATION 5.9
That the Master Plan for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve redevelopment be the subject of wide public consultation incorporating the municipalities of Glen Eira, Stonnington, and Port Phillip.
RECOMMENDATION 5.10
That the Minister for Planning strongly consider appointing community members and/or people with park and recreation expertise as nominees of the State Government to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Board of Trustees to provide a balanced representation of interests and expertise.
RECOMMENDATION 5.11
That the day-to-day management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, by delegation from the Trustees to the Melbourne Racing Club, be reconsidered.
At the hearing it became apparent that some Trustees did not even know the boundaries between the MRC’s freehold land and the Crown Land which they control and govern.
On the 27th November last year the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, the Hon Gavin Jennings, told Parliament … “that there might be some lingering concerns about the way in which this public reserve may be opened up to the community. In terms of my responsibilities as the Minister for Environment and Climate Change who deals with the land element, I wanted to be satisfied that the net benefit of this would derive a community benefit and that there would be the potential once and for all to make sure that the community is aware this is a public reserve and not, as it may have been perceived for decades, a private space.
“We are unswerving in our determination to ensure that there is a public benefit derived from this public reserve.” (Hansard, my emphasis.)
Finally, fundamental breaching of the Crown Grant provides that the authorities may ‘re-enter upon the said land … and to hold possess and enjoy … as if this Grant had not been made’.
Yours faithfully,
A. J. E. Campbell
March 16, 2011
Racecourse: Round 1 to the ‘Gang of Five’
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)[17] Comments
Forgive this long post, but we believe it’s important!
Penhalluriack moved his motion under ‘Urgent Business’. It was seconded by Forge. Again a rousing speech which began by going over the history of the original grant and its 3 purposes – a racecourse, a recreation area, and a public park. ‘We don’t have a public recreation ground; nor do we have a public park’. It is important that we negotiate to ‘share this land….It is a huge land and many people here tonight have never been inside this land’. Last meeting proposed that we be given access to ‘all the land inside the training tracks’ – most of the land anyway is taken up with racing and training tracks. ‘For 150 years we have been kept out of it’. ‘It’s about time that we stood up and fought for our rights…..the Melbourne Racing Club has used that land for their own purposes…..we have 20 or 21 race meetings a year. That’s all!….but they have training every morning and every afternoon and that means that we can’t go on it….they are using land that is close to 2,000 million dollars…..2,000 million dollars for 20 bloody race meetings a year! Get real! It is our land……It’s time that we negotiate with the Melbourne Racing Club to take back this land…..The only fair and equitable way to do this is to invite the Melbourne Racing Club …to come to a meeting of all nine councillors and discuss it’.
Penhalluriack then stated that if he loses the motion and three councillors go off to negotiate that he ‘wouldn’t be happy when they come back and say this is the best we could get….because I won’t believe it is the best we can get and I’m sure Councillor Pilling will feel the same’. Lobo will also feel the same. ‘This is our land’. ‘we need to have access, unrestricted access to the land’….The trustees meet twice a year’, they haven’t done anything, councillors are 2 or 3 against 13 or 15.
Penhalluriack claimed that he comes from a business background and that it’s ‘common sense’ to him that ‘we should all be partaking of this exercise’….we need to get value for our money.
Forge then spoke stating that most of the community had ‘no idea’ that there were three purposes to the racecourse. School and sporting communities ‘are crying for space’ and ‘we’re looking at a sand belt in the middle and nothing for the public…..at the moment the horses are being treated much better than the public….not one of the 15 recommendations (from the public lands inquiry panel) has gone through…..what’s Glen Eira Council doing for us? We have put no ideas on paper….I think we have to be far more explicit….Cr. Penhalluriack and I have had more experience about this industry than anyone else (on council)….we have to look more closely at the makeup of people’ who will be representing us to the MRC.
Pilling then got up and commended the ‘passion’ of both Penhalluriack and Forge and the work they’d put in ‘but this motion is about the best way to negotiate with the MRC.’ Penhalluraick’s motion isn’t the best way to negotiate. ‘I won’t support the motion’.
Tang then asked whether it would be a meeting open to the public. Penhalluraick responded that no it wouldn’t be – just councillors.
Lipshutz continued the ‘theme’ by congratulating Forge and Penhalluraick for the work they’ve done and that ‘no one can suggest that they’re not passionate about this HOWEVER, this is not about passion. He objected to penhalluriacks remarks about the past. He was a member of council in 2005 and ‘took a very strong stance’ about opening up the park. The fact that they didn’t achieve this ‘was not because of lack of trying….because we had a government that wasn’t prepared to assist us…..this is about how to best achieve the result we want…..Penhalluriack said that he wouldn’t trust that (if 3 councillors came back with a proposal)….at all times this council delegates…..and when I vote for someone I trust them; I trust every member of this council. I believe every member of this council is reliable, is trustworthy….when I vote for someone to go off and represent council I trust them, so I reject what Cr. Penhalluriack says’. Claimed that how many racemeetings were irrelevant and that the real issue is ‘how best to negotiate’. No negotiation should ‘bring people in, have 9 people’ trying to negotiate. It ends up as a ‘free for all’. The example was a councillor saying that he wants fences removed and another councillor saying I don’t want that – I want something else. ‘so where do you go?’ You negotiate by good will, not by bringing in 9 councillors and having a free for all. Compared decision making to what happens at council – that is committees are set up to discuss issues. ‘I want as much as anyone here the racecourse to be opened up…..this (Penhalluriack’s motion) is a recipe for absolute disaster’. It basically says that this council ‘has no idea how to negotiate…we’re a professional council and we should do this properly….’
MAGEE said that the MRC will undoubtedly have their legal advisors, as council could, but that the meeting ‘should be held on council’s grounds….we can only put forward what we as councillors think is appropriate….anything that puts all the cards on the table and lets everyone know where we stand is a good meeting….
HYAMS then threw in his ‘dorothy dixer’ asking Tang to explain why, when every other time the racecourse had come up for discussion he had declared a conflict of interest, yet tonight he did not
TANG stated that his position as trustee put him in a difficult situation. He would ‘dearly love’ to be able to discuss these issues but ‘unfortunately they are a risk to council…..as a trustee I have responsibility to the Trust’. He is a ‘councillor nominee’ which enables him to ‘passionately advocate for the community’s interests’ by putting people’s ideas to the trustee meetings. He has ‘conflicting duties’ when ‘matters of policy affect matters of the Trust’ and since this discussion is not about changing policy he can comment(!!!!!!!) so since no questions affecting the trust are being considered now, there is no conflict of interest.
HYAMS then asked what happens if the MRC says ‘no’
Penhalluriack replied that ‘we are under pressure from this government and so are the MRC. I don’t believe they would stand up’ and say no.
HYAMS then asked about the composition and Penhalluraick responded ‘I don’t expect all councillors to show up….I would like to see all nine councillors come along and share the passion that Cr. Forge and I….we are democratically elected to represent our constituents…..if councillors want to turn up, if the MRC all want to turn up we can go and hire the pavilion….’
HYAMS then asked what would happen if the MRC wanted to go away and deliberate and how this would impact on council’s meeting schedule. He stated he ‘doesn’t disagree’ with the motion but the most important thing is that we act ‘reasonably’….in negotiation each side sends its representatives….they discuss…..they then go back to report to their constituent bodies…..and they see where they go from there…..I’m concerned (that we might be seen to be) ‘acting unreasonably’…the only question is how best to go about it…..we need to be reasonable’. Hyams also admires the passion and commitment of Forge and Penhalluriack, BUT ‘sometimes someone can get so close….you don’t know when to step back…..so close to something that you don’t trust anyone else to do it…..and when we reach a situation where that might be the best for everyone we don’t see that that might be the best for everyone…..it’s time to step back’. He doesn’t doubt Forge’s and Penhalluriack’s intentions, just the method of achieving what ‘we all want to achieve’.
TANG: ‘I resent what Cr. Penhalluriack has said…..(it is) self serving….Noone can doubt that they’ve been active in this issue…..I’ve dealt with Penhalluriack and Froge when they weren’t councillors….Council made very strong representation (and the Select Committee)….’we were all very interested…..it is annoying and frustrating when it becomes about personalities; who should negotiate….we’re now debating personality rather than policy….but I’m here to tell you that on policy everyone agrees…..’. Tang then claimed that it was the previous government’s fault and that the Liberals were no different now. ‘I agree we want the best possible negotiating team on behalf of the community….it is not about personality….we should be supporting each other in achieving that outcome….’
Penhalluriack summed up that the feeling is that we need to be ‘reasonable and my motion is not reasonable…..Last meeting we passed’ what everyone now seems to think was excellent points.’Prior to that meeting I had to negotiate, cajole, beg four councillors to vote with me….Those four councillors as it happens are all in their second term….and those four councillors….most vigorously oppose this….Well so be it. But I believe they will live to regret it. Those four councillors have achieved nothing by way of opening up (the racecourse)….absolutely nothing….This council has allowed the racecourse and the training areas to expand and expand….to the detriment of what we, the community wants…..and now we’re forced to negotiate with the MRC with one hand tied behind our back’. Lipshutz claimed that in 2005 they tried to open it up but the government wouldn’t assist – ‘well I’m sorry we’re also a local government….it’s up to us to negotiate to get this thing through. It’s our land…..’.
‘it’s not going to be a free for all….we are responsible citizens, councillors are all responsible citizens….this (council meeting) is the only area where council can make policy….this is supposed to be where these things are debated…..in public in an open and transparent manner….I think councillor Tang should perhaps consider resigning his position…and appointing someone else who doesn’t feel that moral obligation…of not being able to report to us….the whole purpose of having a councillor as trustee is that so we know in an open transparent manner what is happening…..’
Esakoff put the motion to the vote. IT WAS LOST.
PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION.
PENHALLURIACK, FORGE, MAGEE, LOBO VOTED FOR
LIPSHUTZ, TANG, HYAMS, PILLING AND ESAKOFF AGAINST.
Lipshutz then moved a motion that Newton, Eskakoff represent council in negotiations with the MRC. Motion was passed. Only Forge and Penhalluriack voted against.
CORRECTION: The Lipshutz motion also included himself and Magee as the councillors to ‘negotiate’ with the MRC.
March 13, 2011
Urgent Business: Racecourse
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)[17] Comments
Agenda for Glen Eira Council Meeting, 15th March 2011.
10. Urgent Business
Seek leave to raise an item of urgent business.
Involves a request by the Minister for Planning to negotiate with the Melbourne Racing Club to ensure a public benefit from the Crown Land known as the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. There is no other motion from Council to permit these negotiations to proceed. We are dealing with 56 hectares of land worth over $2 billion.
Motion: (Moved by Cr. Penhalluriack; seconded by Cr. Pilling.)
That Council invites authorized representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club to a meeting with Councillors to discuss future arrangements, including timetables, for the sharing of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land. The Mayor shall open the meeting, and introduce Councillors Forge and Magee who shall explain, using overheads, Council’s position. The meeting shall then be open for all to contribute. The meeting shall be sound-recorded and minutes shall be prepared.
March 12, 2011
Dear Friends of the Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Reserve,
Now we have a new government it is a good time to write to our members and remind them of their pre-election promises to revise projects. The C60 is a proposed large ghetto development which will only add to the chaos which has been experienced with the Caravan and Camping Show. The area around here was absolutely gridlocked and some of the roads closed without notice. The area described as Caulfield East will have over 300% increase in population if the plan proceeds; as well as 23 storey and 15 storey office towers and 15,000 square metres of retail. All with limited parking and no open space! We also need to tell them in no uncertain terms that the racecourse reserve must be opened up and we the citizens of Victoria given a reasonable oportunity to recreate there freely without feeling like a trespasser who is forbidden to play a ball game therein! The area is about 55 hectares.
The members who should be contacted are:- David Southwick Member for Caulfield who ran a campaign against large scale development and whose consistent slogan was ‘working with community’ – 193 Balaclava Road Caulfield North 3161. Louise Asher Member for Brighton – 228-130 Bay Street Brighton 3186
Andrea Coote Member for Southern Metropolitan 306 Bay Street Port Melbourne 3207
David Davis Member for Southern Metropolitan, 4/975 Riversdale Road Camberwell,3124
Denis Napthine Minister for Racing 94 Liebig Street, Warrnambool, 3280
Sue Penniciuk Southern Metropolitan Member, 206 Bay Street Brighton 3186
Ann Barker Member for Oakleigh, 19 Station Street, Oakleigh 3166 (she represents all who live east of the Racecourse )
Elizabeth Miller Member for Bentleigh,, 9557 666, 379 Centre Road, Bentleigh, 3204
Martin Pakula Member for Western Metropolitan , apparently he grew up in Ormond, is a member of the MRC and asked a question in house (Hansard) regarding holdup of C60. 3 Ballarat Street, Yarraville, 3013
Andrea Coote Member for Southern Metropolitan, 306 Bay Street, Port Melbourne, 9681-9555
Michael O’ Brien Minister for Gaming 1/313 Waverley Road East Malvern 3145
It would seem that now a new party is in power they are becoming a little softer in the development line meetings with Windsor development in the city — so we must keep up the political pressure now! KEEP IN MIND ONCE THE OPEN LAND DISAPPEARS IT WILL NEVER BE AVAILABLE AGAIN FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO TAKE A BREATH OF FRESH AIR OR TAKE IN VITAMIN D WHICH IS NECESSARY TO HEALTHY LIVING AND REQUIRES 15 MINUTES OF SUNLIGHT PER DAY!! IF WE CANNOT KICK THE FOOTBALL ANY MORE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFLOAD ENERGY IN A WHOLESOME AND HEALTH BOOSTING MANNER. WE MUST PRESERVE OPEN SPACE.
Bye for now,
Mary Healy
March 10, 2011
Baillieu defends meetings with Urbis
Marika Dobbin
March 10, 2011
PREMIER Ted Baillieu has defended his government over its meetings with developers of a 140-metre skyscraper proposed for the parliamentary precinct that would eclipse the adjacent Windsor Hotel redevelopment.
He said it was appropriate for Planning Minister Matthew Guy and his department to have met representatives of the developers from consultancy Urbis recently, ahead of a formal permit application being lodged.
”We have never had a problem with pre-application meetings,” he said. ”I think it’s important in those situations that it is all documented and that will be a distinguishing feature of this government.”
An Ombudsman’s report into the Windsor Hotel fiasco criticised the former government for failing to keep accurate records of meetings. Mr Baillieu said he had not seen the proposal for the Palace Theatre site – but hinted he would be against it.
Questions:
- How many pre-application meetings took place between government, MRC and/or council regarding the C60
- How comprehensive is the record keeping of these meetings?
- How well informed were councillors of the existence of these meetings?
- How well informed were councillors of the progress of these meetings?
- How comprehensive are the records of meetings post application?
- Are councillors privy to these records? Should they be?
March 4, 2011
Thursday, 3rd March –
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Questions resumed.
Planning: Caulfield Village development
Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan) —
My question is to the Minister for Planning, and it relates to the C60 planning scheme amendment. The Melbourne Racing Club has been attempting to resolve issues related to the Caulfield Village proposal with the Liberal-controlled Glen Eira City Council for some four years. The Caulfield Village represents an up-front investment by the club of some $20 million and a close relationship with Monash University. It is a project that has been endorsed by Planning Panels Victoria. The club has received positive endorsements from council officers who have recommended that the amendment be adopted, yet council will not act on the amendment. I ask: what steps will the minister take to resolve this matter so that this major investment can proceed?
Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — I appreciate the question from Mr Pakula. It is very timely. I met with staff from the Glen Eira council this week to seek their views on the proposals that have been put forward for the redevelopment of Caulfield Village. There are issues around car parking which are yet to be resolved. Unlike its predecessor this government will play a key role in trying to facilitate an outcome that suits both the council and the redevelopment of the course to ensure that we achieve for the community the effective use of open space and a great new development for the Caulfield Village.
Supplementary question
Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan) — In relation to some of the concerns that have been raised by council and the local community, I am advised that the club has agreed to develop the infield to include barbecues, play areas, toilets and jogging tracks as well as providing the public with permanent access to an area around the lake — —
An honourable member interjected.
Hon. M. P. PAKULA — No, it was by the club. Despite this, the council has recently advised the club that they will not support parking in the infield of the racecourse for race day purposes — a situation that means racing may become unviable at Caulfield Racecourse. Coupled with the council’s refusal to address the C60 amendment, this in effect leaves the club without recourse and threatens not just the development but the future of racing at Caulfield. My supplementary question is: are there any circumstances in which the minister would step in and bring the matter to a conclusion?
Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — Again I say to Mr Pakula that these are very timely and important questions in relation to the future of that redevelopment opportunity and the issues that council has raised. As Mr Pakula would know, the questions raised by council are not new. They have been around for a long period of time. I have given a commitment to the council that I will allow it to get on with the process of the C60 planning scheme amendment. I have also met with the Melbourne Racing Club a number of times to ensure that we resolve those issues so that ministerial intervention would only be an extreme last resort, although I believe very firmly that this government will work with the council and the MRC quite cooperatively. Without pre-empting anything I am very confident that there will be an outcome which will render that unnecessary.
February 23, 2011
More MRC Chicanery & Council Complicity?
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance[3] Comments
We’ve received several comments, emails and photos from local residents regarding the notice that has gone up on Station St for a 7 lot subdivision submitted by the VATC (MRC). This news is most disturbing for several reasons:
- What has happened to the proposed land swap?
- The sign (see photo) indicates that this application is several months old. There has been no publicity and we even wonder whether councillors are in the know about this. If they don’t, then why has the Planning Dept. of Glen Eira Council decided to keep this under wraps? On whose authority was this decision made and what is their agenda?
- We’re also told that brand spanking new signage has gone up without stating that as well as the racecourse, this area is also a public park. Again, who knew about this and was council permission for the erection of these signs sought by the MRC and granted?
Once again, here is evidence of one of two things – the MRC thumbing its nose at Council and residents, or worse, that they have worked in collusion with Council and possibly without the full knowledge of all councillors. This is not simply a planning issue. Given the ongoing saga of the C60 and the centre of the racecourse issue anything that pertains to these matters deserves full transparency and accountability. This obviously has not occurred here.
February 23, 2011
Penhalluriack’s Speech
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)[3] Comments
We’ve received a copy of Cr. Penhalluriack’s speech last night –
The residents of this municipality know exactly where I stand on the issue of opening up the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for public use, rather than as a private estate for the “rich and famous”, as it has been used by the Racing Fraternity for the past 153 years.
What the residents of this municipality do not know is where you, the rest of their elected representatives, stand. If you vote against this motion then I’m afraid you will have abandoned not only your moral obligations to this community but also you will have abandoned your fiduciary obligations to ensure that public resources are used to benefit the entire community.
This is the moment of truth.
Alan Jones, the very successful Wallabies Coach, once said:
“There are many things we can never get back. There is time, this very minute, this very second of our lives … we will never have it again.
“Then there are words, what you and I are saying right now will never be heard or spoken in the same light in any other point in time.
“And finally there are opportunities, once missed you are never given the chance again.”
This is one such occasion. This is the time, these are the words, and this is the only opportunity you are ever going to get to make amends for 150 years of monopoly that the “Sport of Kings” – even that name rings of arrogance — has over our public recreation ground and our public park. We must seize the opportunity with both hands, or forever know that we personally have not done our best for the community. We have let them down.
Listen to your conscience. Apply your hearts and minds to this issue.
Glen Eira has only 1.4 hectares of open space per 1,000 residents. That’s less than any other local government in Victoria. 14 sq.m. per person. About half the size of a small bedroom.
The time of reckoning is here, right now. Will you settle for a half a car-park, or a real public park? This choice is of vital importance to every citizens of Glen Eira — and to those who live well beyond our borders. It can put Glen Eira on the world map of beautiful parks.
The people have elected you. The people trust you. The choice is yours, and yours alone.
We are about to make a decision which will have lifelong consequences for the population and the surrounds of this municipality. The community has every right to expect that we, as its democratically elected decision makers, put the community’s interests above those of the MRC. We must ensure that our processes of decision making are beyond reproach. We must ensure we are open and transparent. We are a government of the people, by the people and, most importantly, for the people. We all have to justify our stance now, at the next election and, most importantly, to your own consciences as you lie in bed tonight and reflect on what you have done for the wider community.
Finally, let me remind you of a Select Committee that the Minister for Health chaired in 2008. One of many supportive conclusions was “that evidence from the Trustees themselves illustrates the complete lack of appreciation for the original purposes of the Reserve as a Public Park and the responsibility to uphold that purpose (the public park purpose) with equal status as horse racing.” (P.135).
At that hearing it became apparent that some Racing Industry appointed Trustees did not even know the boundaries between the MRC’s freehold land and the Crown Land which they supposedly govern and control.
It is some three years after that Select Committee reported to Parliament. Only now is Council claiming some small portion, some 30%, of the Crown Land. We are laying claim to a redundant runt accessible only via a quarter-kilometre long tunnel. Councillors, for the life of me, is that asking too much?
Following on from that Select Committee, on the 27th November 2009 , the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment the Hon Gavin Jennings, told Parliament … “I wanted to be satisfied that the net benefit of this would derive a community benefit and that there would be the potential once and for all to make sure that the community is aware this is a public reserve and not, as it may have been perceived for decades, a private space.
“We are unswerving in our determination to ensure that there is a public benefit derived from this public reserve.”
Council has not made adequate demands on Parliament or the Trustees on behalf of its citizens. Tonight we have an opportunity to correct that anomaly. If you vote with your heart and your mind you must vote for this motion
