Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

March 4, 2013

Burke & ‘Pay Back Time’?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[54] Comments

At the outset we wish to state clearly and unequivocally that we have no interest in football allocations per se. What does concern us is the lack of transparency in any of the decision making that surrounds sporting ground allocations. The article at the conclusion of this post comes from today’s online version of the Australian Jewish News. It is quite feasible to draw the conclusion that this is ‘pay back’ for the Ajax – Caulfield Bears saga of last year in that Ajax did not get their sought after allocation.

As stated above, we have no problem with this. What is a huge problem is:

All is left in the hands of Burke and his underlings with no need for accountability, nor transparency
There is no POLICY that is in the public domain
There is no published criteria to account for the decision making
Councillors are out in the cold with no role, no say, no nothing
Such ‘secret’ and unilateral decision making is fraught with danger and the real potential for nepotism, secret deals, intimidation, and woeful decision making as with GESAC.
Councillors MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS if their credibility is not to go completely out the window!

By way of contrast, here is part of the Banyule Sporting Allocation policy where the criteria used to decide who gets what is public and easily accessible –

Numerous other councils don’t seem to have any problem whatsoever in publishing their policies. As always, Glen Eira keeps everything under wraps – that’s if it even exists, and if it does, the promises in the Community Plan to publish ALL council policies are not adhered to. Here are some other Councils’ URLs for residents to check out –

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/14457%20Sporting%20Reserves%20Allocation%20Policy%202011-2014.pdf

http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/experience-moonee-valley/sports-grounds/~/media/Files/Experience%20MV%20Documents/Sports%20club%20information/2010_11_Seasonal_Allocation_Policy.ashx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Sportsground_allocation_policy.pdf

http://whatmattersmanningham.com.au/document/show/63

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/mccwr/publications/policies-strategies-plans/policy%20-%20council%20resolved%20-%20allocation%20of%20sporting%20grounds%20and%20pavilions.doc

http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/freestyler/files/Draft%20-%20Sportsground%20Allocation%20Procedure.pdf

Governance is at an all time low in this council as we’ve repeatedly stated. This is just another example of why drastic change is required.

AJAX allocation battle resurfaces

March 4, 2013

IN a major blow for the AJAX Football Club and the local Jewish community, Glen Eira City Council has denied the club from relocating to Princes Park, instead granting access to Old Haileybury’s Thirds and under-19 teams.

AJAX president Ian Fayman expressed his disappointment at the decision, pointing out that even though the club plays in a different municipality to the juniors, it deserves the right to function as one club at the same home ground.

“The argument is that the seniors and juniors are different clubs,” Fayman told The AJN.

“But they have the same jumper, the same sponsors and the same logo, and the community sees them as one club.”

Fayman accepted that the re-allocated club must be from within Glen Eira, but questioned why the opportunity to join the juniors and seniors was overlooked.

“If an allocation has to be from within the Glen Eira municipality, why is it not AJAX?” Fayman asked.

“It’s the most obvious decision that the junior club should have its senior teams at the same home ground to make a strong pathway, which is a policy of AFL Victoria, and so that the local community can follow.”

In response, council spokesman Paul Burke said that the main reason AJAX was overlooked is because it is based in the Port Phillip municipality.

“As the AJAX [senior] Football Club is not a tenant in Glen Eira, council did not contact them in relation to the coming football season, just as council did not contact other clubs that are tenanted outside of Glen Eira,” Burke told The AJN.

“[And] to ensure that sports fields can sustain the wear and tear from match play and training, existing tenant clubs are sometimes required to use grounds other than their home grounds for either training or matches.”

The other major disappointment for Fayman and the club is that no public expression of interest was undertaken, which he said the council committed to in a previous letter to an AJAX representative.

“The question is, why a public and very transparent process was not implemented,” Fayman said.

“It cannot be accepted that a decision has been made without a public process.”

He also noted the success of last year’s community day, which attracted around 1500 people, as an indication of public support.

“The key example is the community day, where the local community wanted AJAX to be there,” Fayman said.

“We have 72 per cent of our members as voters in Glen Eira, and where do Haileybury’s members reside? Yes they are an internal club in Glen Eira, but their school is based in Mentone.”

PS: And here’s the Leader take on the story –

Ajax Football Club denied the chance to reunite juniors and seniors at Caulfield

Andrea Kellett
March 05, 2013 12:00AM

President of the AJAX Senior Football Club, Ian Fayman with player, Eugene Routman. Picture: Paul Loughnan, Leader

AJAX Football Club is furious its seniors have been denied a move to Princes Park in Caulfield.

The club says it was trying to unite its junior and senior players in Caulfield but Glen Eira Council has overlooked it in preference for another amateur club’s third team.

The council has given the Saturday tenancy to Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club.

AJAX Senior Football Club president Ian Fayman wants the council to review its decision, hold a public forum and consider shared tenancy at Princes Park.

“AJAX juniors and seniors have the same logo, the same jumper, the same ethos, the same community base,” he said.

“Speak to anyone in Glen Eira and ask is it one club or two and everyone would say, ‘Of course it’s one club’.”

AJAX juniors have trained and played at Princes Park for two decades, while the seniors train and play outside the municipality, in Albert Park.

The club has long wanted to have its senior in the Caulfield area.

Glen Eira Council does not consider the seniors an “existing” tenant.

AJAX controversially offered another club, the Caulfield Bears, $175,000 last year to leave Princes Park so it could play there. The money was never paid.

The council’s community relations director Paul Burke said the council proritised the needs of Glen Eira clubs first.

“AJAX Senior Football Club is not an existing winter tenant in Glen Eira and has never been a tenant in Glen Eira,” he said.

In a letter to Glen Eira Council, Mr Fayman said the council had reneged on a promise AJAX would be consulted about the new ground allocation.

“The AJAX Junior Football Club, which is the current existing tenant on Sunday of Princes Park, was not given any opportunity to make an application for Saturday ground allocation,” he wrote.

“We believe AJAX FC is the local community football club that represents the local community interests and should have at the very least been given the opportunity to make a formal application to have its senior teams play from the same home ground.”

Mr Burke said the council had not called for “new” tenants.

“Council is not offering a new tenancy.

“We are accommodating the requirements and needs of existing tenants,” Mr Burke said.

AJAX Junior Football Club president Daniel Antman said as long as the council considered the seniors an outside club the dream could never be achieved.

“AJAX is one of the few clubs in the region that has a senior club based outside the region, for reasons beyond our control and desire,” he said.

Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club did not wish to comment.

COMMENT: ‘New tenants’ is an interesting phrase to say the least! The Old Haileyburians are fielding an entire ‘new’ team – the thirds! The game of semantics is alive and well in Glen Eira! See: http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?client=1-3232-36895-0-0&sID=61506&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=22252086

March 1, 2013

When Will The Bullshit Stop? – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[14] Comments

We have literally had a gut full of the way this council treats its residents in terms of their responses to public questions. Whilst falling legally short of outright lies, each response is deliberately vague, misleading, irrelevant to what was asked, and totally non-informative. Residents have to read between the lines in order to come within cooee of the truth.

What is even more offensive is that 9 councillors sit there in total silence and accept these carefully crafted works of fiction without anyone questioning the content of the responses. That is not what these people were elected to do. They have a legal and moral responsibility to provide sound oversight of council operations. That includes ensuring that everything that goes out in their name is accurate and bona fide. Moreover, it is their responsibility to ensure that what residents were promised over a year ago is delivered. They are also responsible for ensuring that council resolutions are in fact carried out! (more on this in a moment)

In this post we will examine several of the public questions asked at the last council meeting and illustrate why residents should be outraged at the duplicity of the responses and the failure of these councillors to ensure that open and transparent government occurs at Glen Eira.

QUESTION 1 & 2 ON GESAC BASKETBALL COURT ALLOCATIONS

There were 2 different questions demanding answers on what was promised in December 2011 – namely that the GESAC court allocations would be ‘reviewed’ in a year’s time. Pilling on his blogsite had this to say when the decision to award the WARRIORS the contract was made 15 months ago – “This allocation is for twelve months – There needs to be a far better process in place next year to prevent this unfortunate situation occurring again”. (December 15^th, 2011) We’re now well past 12 months. Not a murmer from council about reviewing anything or undertaking a new season’s allocation!

Below are the questions and to save space we will only include one of the ‘answers’ SINCE THE SECOND RESPONSE WAS A VERBATIM REPEAT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE FIRST QUESTION MINUS THE FINAL PARAGRAPH REGARDING FEMALE PARTICIPATION. We therefore have the totally farcical situation where two different questions are asked but they each receive an almost IDENTICAL ANSWER!

QUESTION 1 –

“With limited basketball courts available throughout Glen Eira can Council tell ratepayers when the seasonal allocation process, spoken of in the December13, 2011 minutes, will begin for the 3 court GESAC facility. If not why then are girls not given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC?”

QUESTION 2 –

“Can council please inform me of why the twelve month seasonal allocation for the use of GESAC basketball courts is no longer a process being adopted. In the minutes dated 13/12/2011 seasonal allocation is referred to as the on-going process for future allocation. Further to this question , who has made this decision and can an accurate audit be done on the finances of the basketball operation as per the contract originally agreed to with the occupying basketball association.”

THE ‘RESPONSE’

“As advised at the Council Meeting on 24 July 2012, the indoor courts at GESAC are multi-use. They cater for netball, basketball, indoor soccer, badminton, development programs, all-abilities programs, gym classes and more.

GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.

Most sports played in the indoor stadium are team sports which are played in Seasons. As it was, GESAC opened mid-season. The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened.

The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.

Girls are given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC. I have been advised that there are currently 120 girls of various ages in the Warriors Basketball Program. GESAC has more than 10,000 members. A majority of members are female.”

COMMENTS: Sifting through the meaningless verbage of this answer, we find the truth! It is contained in this single sentence –“ The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.” In other words, the promises made over a year ago will not be acted upon, much less fulfilled. The Warriors will have permanent allocations – unless they fold! Our questions then become:

Who made this decision? When was it made? And why is this not ratified by council?
Why is there still no definitive answer as to whether ratepayers are in fact subsidising the current court usage or, whether the current occupiers of the courts are fulfilling the complete terms of their contract?
It is entirely disingenuous to compare the GESAC basketball courts and other sporting ground allocations in the same breath. They are NOT IDENTICAL. GESAC allocations represents a formal contract involving the payment of monies on a regular and weekly/monthly basis. Other sporting allocations we believe simply require a ‘permit’ and money is handed over at the start.
Much of question 1 and 2 remains unanswered. Not a word about financial audits, and not even one single word about ‘when’ the new allocations for anything will start! And not a single word about who is responsible for deciding that GESAC and a game of ‘organised’ frisbee are identical and will be treated identically!
Under what precise piece of legislation are officers granted the right to make such unilateral decisions? Where in the delegations is this signing over of authority documented?
Why are councillors so incapable of simply moving a motion that states clearly that GESAC basketball court allocations will be decided by council resolution!
And why oh why do these 9 councillors allow such garbage to go out in their name without the semblance of public protest?

February 26, 2013

Vale Democracy! All Hail Spin!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[16] Comments

Burke read the petition. Lobo spoke first and said that since Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are ‘mentioned’ in the petition that he ‘believed there is a conflict of interest’ and that these individuals shouldn’t be in the chamber when the petition was being discussed. Hyams responded that since Lobo’s comments ‘didn’t relate to the running of the meeting’ that this wasn’t a point of order. Hyams went on and said that he trusts that ‘the next time you put your hand up for a committee’ or deputy mayor or mayor that he would declare a conflict and leave the meeting. Delahunty moved to accept the motion and Magee seconded.

DELAHUNTY: short and sweet and basically moved to accept

MAGEE: said nothing

HYAMS: thought that the petition was ‘pathetic’ and didn’t want to ‘set a precedent’ where ‘we’re rehashing council decisions because some people don’t like it’ and that would lead to petitions on all council decisions.Said that the government appointed the 3 councillors ‘who came first in their wards’. Read out the numbers of first preference votes for each of the three councillors that people ‘are happy to have those councillors representing them’ and ’64 people come along and think they are more important’ and this ‘shows at the very least an exaggerated sense of their own importance’. Went on to say that it was ‘very sad’ that people can be ‘so spiteful’ and that he knows what’s ‘behind it’ and the ‘people behind it’ and it doesn’t ‘surprise’ him at all.

LIPSHUTZ: said the petition was ‘ridiculous’ but that ‘when any member of this council’ is appointed that they’re appointed as ‘representatives of council’ and ‘we in fact act on behalf of the community’. Spoke about the Leader article and Magee and ‘what he tried to achieve’ and that was following council policy and he’s (Lipshutz) asked for the same things since ‘2005’. This wasn’t ‘something new’ it was what ‘council has approved’. Council doesn’t want training at the racecourse which is what Magee was advocating and it’s what council wants too. The petition is ‘ridiculous’ and just ‘shows the small minded people’…’we’re councillors and we’re here for the benefit of the community’. People mightn’t like every decision but the choice is ‘vote us out’. Voters had ‘confidence’ about all 9 councillors and even though they’ve got different views on things ‘we are a councillor group as one’ and as trustees they ‘will be there to support the community’

PILLING: said that this is the first time he’s had a petition like this which ‘is really a personal attack’ and ‘defamatory’. Thought that there are time when ‘you should draw a line in the sand’ on ‘what’s fair, what’s reasonable’ and that council needs to have ‘some standards’ so in that context he won’t be supporting the motion.

LOBO: fully understood what Hyams had said and that ‘i’m a councillor as well’…’I didn’t feel too happy when you said there are no grounds’. Mentioned ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of choice’ and the importance of saying what one feels and that’s why he’s been put in this council by Tucker Ward residents

ESAKOFF: wasn’t going to speak and doesn’t want to give this ‘any further oxygen’ since it doesn’t ‘deserve any’. The petition is ‘vexatious’, ‘nasty’. ‘Unfortunately it’s been moved and seconded’ whereas she would have preferred for this to ‘lie on the table’

DELAHUNTY: felt obligated to move the petition since it’s ‘come before us in the proper manner’ but ‘accepts’ that those councillors named may find it ‘vexatious’. Lipshutz made a good point about acknowledging the work of Magee in that ‘he certainly brought matters to the fore’ and ‘raised the profile of the MRC’ in the community. She hoped that the new trustees would be able to ‘carry on that momentum’ and that the community ‘would like to see a review of the trust structure’

MOTION PUT. IN FAVOUR OF ACCEPTING PETITION – DELAHUNTY, MAGEE, LOBO
AGAINST: Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz, Pilling, Sounness, Okotel

February 26, 2013

Leader & Petition

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[28] Comments

+++++++++++++++++

A petition of 60+ signatures was submitted for tabling at tonight’s council meeting. It reads:

“TO HIS/HER WORSHIP THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS OF THE CITY OF GLEN EIRA IN COUNCIL ASSEMBLED

This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council the recent nomination of 3 councillors (Crs.Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff) as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. We do not believe that these individuals are suitable candidates to adequately represent the interests of the community.

Your petitioners therefore pray that Council writes to the Minister requesting a revision of this decision and the appointment of different councillor representatives. And your petitioners will ever pray.”

+++++++++++++++++++++

Source: http://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/funrun/

PS: AND NOW CRYING POOR!

Melbourne Racing Club struggling to profit from racing activities

by: Rod Nicholson
From: Herald Sun
February 26, 2013 12:00AM

Melbourne Racing Club is owed money from Nathan Tinkler for his sponsorship of the Blue Diamond Stakes. Picture: Wayne Ludbey Source: Sunday Herald Sun

AUSTRALIA’S wealthiest race club will report a record profit at the end of the financial year – but a massive loss for its racing activities.

Melbourne Racing Club, which runs Caulfield, owns Sandown and is in partnership with Victoria’s biggest country club, Mornington, lost $5 million last year and is heading towards a $6 million loss this year from racing.

The purchase of eight profitable hotels with gaming facilities, on top of its two massive enterprises at Caulfield and Sandown, will provide the record profit.

The club has spent millions of dollars kick-starting a new precinct, branded Caulfield Village, which will have 340 residential units, a supermarket, specialty shops, professional services, restaurants and cafes.

It has already been paid a sizeable sum this year, boosting its profits, and anticipates massive financial rewards when the precinct is completed in 2017-18. But the club is so concerned with its racing activities, treasurer Brodie Arnhold has taken on the full-time responsibility of investigating every department in a bid to curtail costs.

The money woes have been compounded by the lack of payment of sponsorship by mining magnate Nathan

Tinkler for his Patinack Farm’s naming rights to Saturday’s Group 1 Blue Diamond Stakes.

He is yet to pay what club chairman Mike Symons describes as “significant and substantial money”.

Tinkler, now having finished the last year of a three-year deal, was not bound to pay until after Saturday’s event.

The club is already talking to prospective new sponsors but remains hopeful Tinkler will honour his agreement.

Symons said the club had three areas of operation.

“The investment in gaming and other activities is highly profitable, and we have received money from our investment in the Caulfield Village,” he said.

“We will deliver a record profit for 2013, but the costs of our racing are getting out of control and we need to make that side of the business as efficient as possible without sacrificing our service to patrons.”

The club recently spent spent millions upgrading the Caulfield racetrack.

It also spent millions merging with Mornington Racing Club.

February 22, 2013

Laying The Foundations For Calcutta!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[14] Comments

Whether pure coincidence given the recent announcement of the new councillor MRC trustees, or simply superb timing, the groundwork for the MRC is being rapidly put in place. Tuesday night’s council meeting features Item 9.3 – subdividing the land that will basically consist of the C60 into 9 lots.

The Officer’s Report tells us:

No public notice is required for this subdivision
“This application is a separate planning application from Amendment C60. There is no development proposed under this application. The intention behind this application is to tidy up the several land titles. Separate planning approval is required in the form of a “Development Plan”. This process will include a 28 day community consultation period. To date, no development plan has been submitted.”

The information accompanying the recommendation is barely half a page! Residents, thanks to the gang and the Racecourse Special Committee, are stuck with the ‘Incorporated Plan’ prepared by the MRC. We are still no closer to knowing whether the ultimate ‘Development Plan’ will consist of 20 storeys, 23 storeys, 1200 units, 1500 units, etc. The ‘incorporated plan’ that was included with the C60 Amendment is short on detail, and big on euphemisms, spin, and vagueness. We remind readers of some of these statements:

The scale of buildings in the Mixed Use Precinct can be described as ‘urban’ in character, emphasizing the vertical aspect of the buildings. Retail, residential and commercial uses and off street parking will be accommodated whilst maintaining an appropriate scale and activation of street frontages

Passive design strategies that take advantage of unassisted cross-flow ventilation and building orientation to manage thermal comfort are encouraged, particularly in residential buildings.

The street edge on the western side of The Boulevard will have transitional periods of sunshine during the day in winter and street activation such as outdoor dining is encouraged.

The Smith Street Precinct is capable in urban design terms of the highest level of development. The Smith Street Precinct will be a ‘bookend’ to the higher buildings located to the north of the railway line.

The scale of buildings in the Smith Street Precinct can be described as ‘urban’ in character and scale. As such the building envelopes, setbacks and height must encourage the creation of good urban form

But there’s even more important things to consider now that things are up and running. This Council has literally dropped the ball on so many development issues that it is frightening. There is no vision, no views on the future, and no proactive involvement by the community and councillors. Everything has been left in the hands of developers and council remains the compliant hand-maiden.

We urge readers to check out this website. http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/featured/infrastructure-australia-update/ia-appendix. This is the blueprint for the future. At least half of the projects outlined here will have a direct and detrimental impact on all the residents of Glen Eira. Yet, where is the council view? Where is the vision? And where is the consultation and planning with the community? Yes, this is all in the future, but it is essential that planning takes place now.

We point out again that in stark contrast to other councils, Glen Eira has:

Dropped its Development Contributions Levy – so what will the MRC ‘contribute’ to the public purse on this project? Readers should check out this document from Stonnington and how they go about a major project. Every single cent that is to be levied is depicted, explained and justified. Nothing like this has ever existed in Glen Eira – or at least it’s not made public.
When will the MRC hand over the Open Space Contributions for the C60? Why isn’t there one single word about this in the officer’s report? As a ‘major development’ other councils attract an 8% levy. According to the C60 Glen Eira was bought off with a mere 5%. Why?
Why can the Moonee Valley Raceclub submit a Master Plan for the Principal Activity Centre and that Council fight tooth and nail to protect residents, even taking on the Minister. See: http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/planning-and-building/major-developments/proposed-major-developments/draft-master-plan-and-rezoning-proposal-from-moonee-valley-racecourse.aspx
Why do they see fit to have residents as participants in all working parties and Glen Eira does it all via 4 specially selected and obedient councillors?

The farce of the entire Glen Eira approach to development is exemplified by one item from the current VCAT Watch. It concerns what was initially an application for a 14 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd that readers will likely remember. Newton at the time declared a conflict of interest because he lived close by. Council resolution was permission for 7 storeys. Naturally the developer went to VCAT, got his ten and then put in amended plans for 11 storeys! THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE DPC!!!!!!! So we have the ludicrous situation that councillors vote for 7, and it ends up as 11 on the vote by employees! And Hyams still has the gall to argue against height limits!

The writing is definitely on the wall. Unless there are drastic changes within Glen Eira such as structure plans, height limits, an open space levy that applies across all districts in Glen Eira, and a real interest in the Public Realm, then this municipality is ripe for the picking and will definitely become the new Calcutta!

PS: Off topic, but we thought readers would be interested in the photo below –

PPS!!!!!!

February 20, 2013

The Chooks Are Finally Roosting!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

The folly of GESAC is about to come back and bite residents really hard. Faced with a $7.1 million bill for employee superannuation, councils have the choice of paying their share off in one lump sum or spreading the repayments out over 10 or 15 years. Glen Eira, because of GESAC, would not have this choice we believe. By borrowing $25 million they are already over committed and no bank in its right mind would lend them any more. The result is that in all probability Glen Eira will be paying off its dues over the extended time period. That means more money down the drain in interest and an inevitable huge rate hike to meet all the bills.

Other councils such as Bayside ($5.1 million) and Nillumbik ($4.78 million) and probably countless others are endeavouring to pay this amount off in one hit. Both will borrow in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure on interest – but they are capable of doing this. For Glen Eira, we would wager that there is not this option. Instead we will be facing years upon years of endless interest repayments.

Serious questions need to be asked about the financial management of this council. Why is there no substantial ‘nest egg’ to cover such unexpected emergencies? Why have all our eggs been placed in the suspect GESAC basket, and now everyone’s got egg on their faces! Why in this cash strapped council that was designated as ‘high risk’ less than a year ago and has only managed to climb up to ‘Low risk” by delaying Duncan McKinnon for over a year, plus other capital works programs, do we have to witness the pathetic squabbling over whether to spend $16,000 for a lolly pop person or other safety measures for our kids? Yet, there’s no problem in finding another $1.5 million for car parking at GESAC.

By our reckoning this council will be facing an interest bill of at least 3 to 4 million dollars per year for the next 15 years. This figure is based on the Nillumbik calculations and the document which was sent to all councils with their individual calculations. (uploaded here) .We have to wonder whether councillors even got to see this paper? Here’s the important page based on Nillumbik’s share of $4.78 million. When the maths are done for $7.1 million then the interest is astronomical.

What is required is the complete tearing apart of all financial records by a government appointed forensic accountant. More importantly a full blow by blow costing for every single nail that has gone into GESAC. We have absolutely no idea of how our money has been spent, nor how much it costs to keep this place running on a daily basis, nor how many members have not resigned once the novelty has worn off, nor how many staff are being paid for by residents, nor how much subsidy the Warriors are receiving from ratepayers. The questions are multitudinous and the responses non existent. That is councillors’ jobs – to not just ask, but demand and then to ensure that residents know exactly how and why their funds have been spent in this unaccountable and non-transparent fashion!

For starters no amount of spin, bluff and bluster can hide the fact that GESAC has incurred additionals costs that have never been either reported upon, nor directly associated with its construction. We highlight just a few:

Lawyers for the ‘liquidated damages’. What happens when council is perhaps found liable to pay the difference, plus punitive damages, plus more interest?
Why isn’t the construction of an electricity substation, plus road works and traffic lights included in the ‘construction costs’? The figure of $41.2 million is thus not only disingenuous, but totally bogus when one considers the money that has been forked out to facilitate the actual ‘construction’.
What are the insurance costs? why the need for a higher purchase agreement?
What are the heating, cooling, cleaning, maintenance, etc. costs? How much does this tally per day, per week, per month?

Over to you councillors! Do you have the courage?

February 19, 2013

Earth To Council!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Media Releases 2013

Council submission on VCAT fee regulations

18 Feb 2013
Stonnington Mayor, Cr Matthew Koce has made a submission to the State Government Department of Justice on behalf of Stonnington Council in relation to proposed VCAT fee increases.

The submission responded to the Regulatory Impact Statement for proposed VCAT fees regulation, released in December 2012.

Cr Koce said: “Council is concerned that several of the fee increases proposed appear out of step with the key objectives of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which is to provide the community with access to a civil justice system which is both accessible and cost-effective.

“In particular, fee increases for ‘objector appeals’ and mediation will be particularly hard on ordinary residents, who unlike property developers, are unable to claim the cost of VCAT fees as a tax deduction or business expense. These proposed fee increases are substantial and risks placing the justice system beyond the reach of many Victorians.

“Cost-effective dispute resolution is, and must remain, a fundamental objective of VCAT because VCAT was established to provide affordable and fair access to justice for the whole Victorian community.”

Mayor, Cr Koce said: “Council is concerned that the Regulatory Impact Statement mentioned VCAT could introduce mediation fees – to be set at a level equivalent to 45 per cent of the estimated cost of carrying out the activity.

“Increased fees should not be imposed for mediation. Mediation provides a useful tool in resolving issues without the formality of a hearing, coupled with obvious time and cost savings to all parties. Increasing such fees may dissuade participants to utilise this option.”

However, no objections were proposed in relation to VCAT fee increases for major cases, large scale developments and enforcement orders relating to breaches of the Planning Scheme.

Cr Koce said: “The fee increases for some permit applicants appear relative to the cost of a larger development. It is considered appropriate that this fee is increased based on the cost of the development (i.e. increasing after both $1m and $5m) – which is generally proportionate to the resources required to deal with the matter.”

He said that in terms of Enforcement Orders, Council took no objection to a fee increase as Council can recoup such costs as part of such applications to the Tribunal (in the instance of successfully being able to establish a breach of the Planning Scheme).

The submission letter is available on the Stonnington website at www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/news-and-information/whats-new
Media Contact: Media and Communications Coordinator T: (03) 8290 1113 M: 0408 523 708

February 16, 2013

GESAC: More Tales, Fibs & Spin

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[22] Comments

Here we go again! Officer reports that are incomplete, inaccurate and which deliberately neglect to mention, much less highlight, crucial factors that would impact on any decision making in a normal and transparent council. Add to this councillors who either haven’t been adequately briefed, or the more plausible explanation we believe, is that they quite willingly go along with this deception.

We are referring to the Council Meeting of 18^th December, 2012 when Council passed the resolution that another $600,000 (estimated) be spent on GESAC car parking. This is on top of the near $1,000,000 already spent in extending the existing Bailey Reserve car parking and to ‘relocate’ the playground. The motion that was passed in December read:

Crs Lipshutz/Lobo

That Council endorse Option A, additional car parking on the Bailey Reserve side of Gardeners Road, in order to provide additional car parking around Bailey Reserve. That Council continue to examine Option C, timed parking restrictions on the Bailey Reserve side of East Boundary Road, and Option D, East Boundary Road Median Strip parking.

Cr Sounness was the only councillor to vote against the motion. We also remind readers that the argument against the installation of an underground car park was the estimated cost of $1.5 million dollars. Now, when council has already spent this amount and it still hasn’t solved the problem, the argument switches to the laughable claim that underground parking was rejected primarily because women did not feel safe! No such excuse was proffered at the time of the original decision back in July 2011, yet it surfaces on this occasion. Some real scraping of the bottom of the ideas barrel here! Then there’s Lobo’s claim that ‘safety’ is an issue and therefore council is unable to ‘consult’. Quite ludicrous we think. From the architect’s drawing it would appear that cars will be parking perpendicular to the reserve. That means that they will have to either reverse into the spot, or more than likely, reverse back out into Gardiner’s Rd in order to exit. This street is also a bus route and it is extremely narrow. (So much for at least 2 years of”advocating’ that the bus route be switched to East Boundary Rd!) So we now will have cars reversing, buses passing, kids alighting, – all on a narrow residential street. Another great solution in averting ‘risk’.

The argument we love the best however is the one about councillors not wanting to see poor old cricketers and baseballers having to park in ‘residential streets’, or worse, Centre Rd. According to this logic, Gardiner’s Rd does not qualify as a ‘residential street’. Readers should go back to the December ‘debate’ and have a good laugh at the appalling level of argument, and plain old humbug. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/gesac-read-weep/)

But it gets even worse in terms of what happened on December 18^th and the total failure of this administration and its councillors to be transparent and accountable. There cannot be any excuse for failing to fully inform residents that more open space will be lost and that bitumen and car parking are the priorities in Glen Eira regardless of cost. Here’s what was not written or stated:

Throughout the entire officer’s report there is NOT A SINGLE MENTION of the fact that open space WITHIN BAILEY RESERVE will be diminished and turned into more car parking spots. The only sentence of any relevance on the issue is this feeble, and ultimately misleading one-liner – “A guiding principle has been to try to avoid any further reduction of public open space”.
Not one councillor in the ‘debate’ referred to the encroachment on Bailey Reserve itself. In fact, Magee proudly proclaimed: “WE’RE TAKING AWAY A BIT OF NATURE STRIP AND GETTING A MUCH NEEDED CAR PARK”. The photos below show that much, much more than a ‘bit of nature strip’ is going. Lipshutz in turn could only say that as ‘victims of our success’ that more car parks “won’t have any impact’ on the reserve. So much for accuracy, and so much for revealing all the facts.
Yet, the plan that was part of this item, makes it absolutely clear that Bailey reserve itself would be hacked to pieces and that more open space will be lost. Didn’t any councillor look at this? Didn’t the author of the item (unnamed of course!) look at the plan? Or was all this done in the hope that NO-ONE would bother looking at the detail so residents could once again be easily duped into believing the half-truths and mistruths that issue from this council?
Finally, what of the trees? The almost illegible table on the left hand side of the diagram states ‘No. of trees to be retained’ and ‘no. of trees to be removed’. The actual figures are impossible to read. Yet, no-one even uttered the word ‘trees’ and it does not appear anywhere in the officer’s written report. The plan certainly has no trees actually included in the diagram! The root systems have been badly mauled and it would not be any surprise to find council’s arborist in the very near future reporting that the tree is “unstable’ or “diseased” or “unsafe” and that it has to be removed! After all, this is Glen Eira so what are a few fine gum specimens, or other long established trees, or even recent landscaping that cost the earth no doubt, compared to a GESAC car-park extension?

We’ve visited the site in the past few days and below are some photos taken over several days of the ongoing works. We’ve decided to present them in their full glory, rather than as a slide show. Please note:

Photo 1 displays the area cordoned off WITHIN BAILEY RESERVE before work started
Photo 2 displays the original footpath/nature strip which is located to the LEFT of the gum and has now been removed
Other photos reveal the new ‘path’ that is well inside Bailey Reserve itself, plus the shredded roots of the gum.

February 15, 2013

From A ‘Seriously Concerned Resident’: Part 2

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments

Here is the second part of our email which continues on from the quotes derived from the 2002 Housing Strategy.

“There is plenty more in this document and it reads well. I have just concentrated on residential development, population estimates, and the public realm issue in the wider sense. It would be good if Councillors concerned with overdevelopment, high rate of residential development and the type of development and its consequential very high population increase could pursue the review of the Housing and Residential Development Strategy. It only needs 5 Councillors and it seems that Cr Lobo and Cr Sounness, as the one with some town planning background could start the ball rolling by first asking how many action points have been implemented. So how did Glen Eira actually develop? Let me expand on the issues raised and its problems.

The residential development is always greater than forecast by a significant amount. In 1996 it was 300 dwellings per year, 2001 over 600 dwellings per year, and 2006 and beyond nearly 900 dwellings per year. And the current building applications are close to 1200 per year. It is not clear if building application means 1 dwelling or a number of dwellings. Clearly, the rate of development is much greater than anticipated and there has to be a reason for that. Is the Council doing its job to ensure that infrastructure, public realm and services are there for such a large development rate?

The result of all that development is the population explosion in Glen Eira (http://profile.id.com.au/glen-eira/population-estimate ). In 1996 it was around 115,000 with projected figures of 121,000 by 2020. In 2001 it was 123,000 with a forecast of 130,000 by 2021. In 2006 it was 130,000 with estimates of 136,000 by 2011, 148,000 by 2021 and 157,000 by 2031 (forecast2.id.com.au/templates/forecast2/Clients/133Glen/PDF/10.pdf ).

In the 2002 document the capacity for multi-dwelling developments (lot availability) was estimated to be in the order of 10,000 dwellings to be used up by 2020. This estimate depends on the density of dwellings built. We suggest it is a gross underestimate. Over 6,000 dwellings have already been built. The service reports indicate that 80% of those are in the housing diversity areas, so 5,000 dwellings have already taken up the available lots. With greater density being built one can safely assume another 10,000 dwellings can be built in the housing diversity areas. The population under such condition is likely to grow to 160,000 by 2021 and 180,000 by 2031. Properly conducted structure plans as suggested in 2002 would elucidate more accurately the lot availability and density of dwellings. As it is now, Councillors and the community are left deliberately in darkness.

But there is more. The sleeper issue is the minimal change area. Once the pressure is on to develop it will. So what is the capacity for developments in this area since it is 4 times bigger than housing diversity area. The 2002 report gives a figure of 5,000 dwelling opportunity for low density developments in housing diversity area. With the existing rules for dual occupancy, single or double storey units, flats and subdivision, all allowed in minimal change area, the end point of 20,000 dwellings is not unreasonable. Assuming a very low no. of 2 to 3 people per dwelling we get a whopping population of over 220,000 perhaps by 2041. The population density in 1996 was 29.7 per hectare growing to a 41.4 by 2021 and 56.9 persons per hectare by 2041. Clearly, such an influx of people with nearly double the density will have major implications on the character, lifestyle and liveability of Glen Eira. Is there evidence of minimal change areas developments? YES. Take Bentleigh East with the largest minimal change area and the smallest population density. The dwelling growth of medium density housing between 1996 and 2011 was 127% as opposed to only 26% in Glen Eira overall i.e. more than 4 times the average. Councillors should ask for details of each suburb growth patterns in terms of medium density and high density. The pressure to develop is on everywhere. What are we building? Is the Council ready for it?

Nearly all developments outlined are suitable for small time developers, who like Glen Eira Council focus on a single project at a time. Koornang Rd Carnegie has exceeded its electricity power capacity and requires a new sub-station to be built. Jemena, the infrastructure provider will not provide more electricity than necessary if it is a case-by-case approach rather than an area approach. Ormond has a number of recently built apartment blocks erected from concrete. When you flush a toilet, you can hear it throughout the building. Quality is not there and they will become rental slums. Ormond – Glen Huntly reached the dubious distinction of the greatest population density increase of suburbs in Melbourne (http://chartingtransport.com/2012/09/21/first-look-2011-density/ ). Why? And what about water supply and drainage? Are we sufficiently ready for the over 200,000 people living in Glen Eira?

Now to the level crossings of which Glen Eira has 9. Work on North Rd level crossing begins with Murrumbeena Rd being next. The Department of Premier and Cabinet website says: “A program of level crossing removal will contribute to improved productivity and safety outcomes in Melbourne and improved land use outcomes by supporting urban renewal to cater for Melbourne’s growth.” (http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/featured/infrastructure-australia-update/ia-appendix). One of the criteria for priority level crossing removal is urban renewal, which means more residential development in the area. Lowering of the rail provides more opportunities than having a flyover rail line, although it is probably cheaper. With $100m to remove a level crossing the State Government is looking for funding from private corporations. They are willing to do that for a price (http://www.afr.com/p/national/cash_cocktail_for_melbourne_rail_Sgxu1YvQcayPIEk9lqWwoK ). If private capital is to fund the level crossing removal then what development would cover such a cost?

Caulfield Village development gives a clue to that with about 7 to 10 times the value of level crossing removal i.e. $700m to $1billion. That would provide a huge injection of capital into the Ormond area. Businesses and traders will support it wholeheartedly. The result for residents may not be that great. The Dorothy Ave bridge would disappear and Dorothy Ave, Royal Ave, Katandra St, and the land around Ormond station redeveloped. This development is for the ‘big boys’. Similar consideration goes for Murrumbeena Rd. Of course if the Committee for Melbourne would have their way they would prefer to do a sequence of level crossings e.g. from Caulfield to Patterson (Frankston line) and from Caulfield to Oakleigh (Dandenong line). Each level crossing removal could add few thousand people into the area. With 9 of them in Glen Eira we could see another 20,000 to 30,000 people. How long would it take? Committee for Melbourne claims they can do it in 20 years. So by 2041 we could see a population of 250,000 (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2011/08/16/should-replacing-level-crossings-be-given-high-priority/).

One has to ask how all this development affects the Public Realm, which is the responsibility of every Local Government. Glen Eira Council has no definition of Public Realm and has a narrow focus on Open Space. Stonnington Council has developed a Public Realm Strategy (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/your-council/strategies/ ) – “This Strategy extends the typical open space strategy, which includes ‘green spaces’ such as gardens and parks, to the broader understanding of the public realm, which includes all external space that is available for public use”. And it illustrates the concept with the following diagram

The diagram illustrates the context in which this Strategy operates. The outer layer identifies the broader State policies that govern public space policy in Victoria. The next layer identifies the Council Plan as Stonnington’s key strategic document. The next layer shows both the Municipal Public Health Plan and the Municipal Strategic Statement. The Public Realm follows, and includes streets, parks, hubs and links. Stonnington’s public realm is further divided into suburbs and the many elements from across Council that form the core of the Public Realm Strategy.

Glen Eira Council is conducting a Survey to review its Open Space Strategy – “Open space is all publicly owned land that is set aside primarily for recreation, passive outdoor enjoyment and nature conservation” and the Strategy “includes planning ahead for the provision and design of open space to meet the needs of the anticipated future population”. How they can do it without an integrated approach to planning and by letting developers drive the City growth is a question to be asked. When one examines Glen Eira Council Strategies one gets the feeling it is for administrative/public relations purposes. Look at the Stonnington Council Strategies and one feels more confident in their ability to plan comprehensively and manage their plans in an integrated way.

Perhaps we may as well ask again after Cr Lobo – ‘are we building Calcutta or Richmond’. Over to you Councillors.

February 14, 2013

Definitely A Do Nothing Council!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

We thought it might be extremely informative following our last few posts to investigate what’s been happening in other councils in terms of reviewing and updating their Housing Strategies. What a surprise! Countless other municipalities are at it hammer and tongs and their reviews include lengthy periods of community consultations ranging up to a year! Please note, we are not commenting on the quality, processes, outcomes, nor the various strategies themselves. We are simply highlighting that unlike Glen Eira City Council, these municipalities have not been sitting on their hands doing nothing. Glen Eira has been stagnant since well before 2002 and bases its policies on statistics that are woefully out of date. There are only two possible conclusions here: either this council is entirely incompetent, or the strategy is to do nothing whilst Rome burns because it benefits development and more development.

We remind readers that a bare minimum of the recommendations from the 1998 Open Space Strategy has been implemented. Even less has been implemented from the 2002 Housing Strategy. The sham of the Planning Scheme Review and its recommendations are also in limbo – the only things that have been pushed through facilitate further development! This is Glen Eira in a nutshell. Maintain the status quo and do nothing to safeguard local neighbourhoods, social amenity, and so forth.

Here are the URLs plus the dates that accompany other councils’ reviews of their housing strategies:

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Draft_Housing_Strategy_April_2012.pdf (April 2012)

https://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/Housing%20Strategy%20%28Adopted%2016%20March%202009%29.pdf (March 2009)

http://www.cardinia.vic.gov.au/files/Strategic_planning/HS_PP1_IssuesPaper_Feb2009.pdf (Feb. 2009)

http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/planning–building/studies-strategies-and-guidelines/Housing-Strategy/ (October 2010)

http://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/page/Page.aspx?Page_id=7505 (October 2011)

http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Page/Page.aspx?Page_Id=9798 (2012 – current)

www.brimbank.vic.gov.au/…/Adopted_Brimbank_Housing_Strategy… (August 2012)

http://www.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/Residents/Planning/Planning_Strategies_Studies/Housing_Strategy (May 2009)

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/default/o24750.pdf (June 2007)

http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/hanc.review.html (current)

http://www.campaspe.vic.gov.au/hardcopy/112123_190784.pdf (March 2011)