GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

August 21, 2013

Pilling’s Blog

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

We take this opportunity to respond to the comments made by Cr Pilling featured above. It’s worth noting that this posting has now been removed!

GE Debates is labelled as ‘unfair’, ‘irrelevant’, consisting of ‘cowards’ and ‘untruths’ amongst other things. It is also claimed that we do not ‘verify’ our data. All of these labels are symptomatic of a council and its councillors who believe that by attacking the messenger they can absolve themselves from having to deal with the countless issues we have raised over the past 3 years. On every vital aspect of governance this council has underperformed. Here is a list in case Cr Pilling has forgotten –

Meeting procedures that stand in stark contrast to every other council in the state
Consultation or lack thereof especially in relation to the residential zones, budgets and council plans
Lack of transparency re countless decision making processes – especially planning and role of the DPC
Acceptance of sub-standard reporting by officers
Lack of commitment and action on numerous issues – carbon reduction targets; tree register, vegie gardens, cctv cameras; car sharing; ESD policies; WSUD policies; Urban Design Frameworks – and the list goes on and on.
Repeated failures to provide comprehensive cost-benefit analysis within officer reports

For each of these issues we have taken the time and effort to contrast this council’s performance with that of its neighbours. We have supplied facts, figures, statistics, and we believe sound argument. Glen Eira Council, in contrast, has repeatedly come up short when it comes to these basic elements. Residents need to ask themselves just one thing – Why? Why is it that other councils can achieve all these things and Glen Eira is incapable, or even worse, unwilling? And, if we are so ‘irrelevant’ then why bother putting up such a post and why the repeated attempts in council meetings to answer our criticisms.

Pilling’s post is typical then of the modus operandi of this council. Ignore the issue and slay the messenger. If the issue just can’t be ignored then there is always spin or secrecy. The most self incriminating comment that Pilling can make and which exemplifies his own inadequacies is the sentence – In my view the authors of this blog are trapped in the bitterness and outdated practices of local government as conducted in the last century….. . It is certainly illuminating and sad, that a current councillor believes that the call for transparency, accountability, and sound financial management belongs in the last century! Our view is that times may have changed, but that Glen Eira Council remains marooned in a past where oligarchies ruled and their actions went unquestioned. In 2013 thanks to the internet and social media all is open to scrutiny. That is the foundation of good government – so sorely missing in Glen Eira thanks to the inability of its councillors to recognise and accept this simple fact. As decision makers councillors should be called to account when their decisions so often fly in the face of community aspirations and their arguments lack all credibility and substance.

Finally it is worth pointing out that over 461,000 hits must be a sure sign of ‘irrelevance’!!!!!!

August 18, 2013

Worse Than Car Salesmen!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

Below are the ‘responses’ to last week’s public questions. We ask readers to consider:

How much credibility do any of these ‘responses’ deserve?
How much faith should residents place in the imputation that the zones are largely the handiwork of the Minister and that little ‘ol Glen Eira Council was not the instigator and/or responsible for the outcomes?
Why would a Minister bother with such a small site as the Alma Club when he hasn’t intervened in the C60 or other major developments such as the Clover Estate, etc? In our view, the rezoning of the Alma Club and other sites has to be placed fairly and squarely at the feet of Council and not the Minister.
Who wrote the schedules? Surely not the Minister?
Please note how many sections of these questions are totally ignored
Once again, not all public questions were read out or their existence even acknowledged.
And the most important question was – why the secrecy?

QUESTION 1

1. On what precise date was Amendment C110 (Residential zones) submitted to the Minister and/or DPCD?

2. Why hasn’t the full Amendment and its schedules been made public by council prior to its being gazetted – especially since it has now been announced?

“Council does not have Amendment C110. It is, of course, not possible for Council to publish a document that is not in our possession.

When the Minister announced the creation of three new residential zones in March 2013, he said that he would translate Councils’ planning schemes into the new zones by Ministerial Amendment. A Ministerial Amendment is different to the process you are familiar with which involves Exhibition, an Independent Panel and Adoption.

After the Minister announced his openness to Ministerial Amendments, this Council sought differential zones and mandatory maximum height limits, which the Glen Eira community and Council have sought for many years, based on the established Minimal Change and Housing Diversity policies. On 5 August, the Minister announced that he had approved a translation into the new residential zones and issued a Media Release to that effect.

Ministerial Amendment C110 also includes some elements which Council did not raise such as the rezoning of the site of the former Alma Club in Caulfield North to the General Residential Zone and the rezoning of the ABC’s studios in Gordon St, Elsternwick to the Residential Growth Zone.

It follows that there was no precise date on which Amendment C110 was submitted to the Minister in the way that most planning scheme amendments which have been prepared and adopted by a Council.

Amendment C110 is scheduled to be Gazetted on 23 August 2013. The mandatory maximum height limits and other benefits will apply to applications lodged on and after that date.”

QUESTION 2

New Residential Zones were announced last week which show 1 Wilks St site allocated General Residential Zone Schedule 1 with minimal setbacks to the abutting Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1. This fails to meet the Transition Buffers as elucidated to in “5.9 Transition Buffers” of the Guide to the New Residential Zones; buffers which apply to all other abutting transitions.

Question 1. Please provide IN DETAIL ALL the reasons why the zoning for 1 Wilks St site was not retained as Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the equivalent of the old Minimal Change Area, particularly as it completely contravenes all the reasons given by Council for unanimously rejecting the Planning Application GE/PP25557/2013?

Question 2. Please provide IN DETAIL ALL the reasons why the zoning was made General Residential Schedule 1 not General Residential Schedule 2, particularly as 1 Wilks St is abutted on over 3 sides by Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1?

Question 3. Who (officer, department, council or government person or the like) made these aberrant recommendations and who authorised these aberrant decisions?

Question 4. Under whose or what authority were these decisions made?

Question 5. Further to my question on zoning of 1 Wilks St, what action is Council now taking, or intends to take to rectify the error in Transition Buffers for all properties abutting the 1 Wilks St site?

The Minister for Planning applied the new zones by Ministerial Amendment, taking into account and largely adopting requests from Council. However, Council did not canvass any change for the site of the former Alma Club at 1 Wilks Street, Caulfield North. Council assumed a direct translation from Minimal Change to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Council was advised on 5 August that the former Alma Club had been included in the General Residential Zone. Council’s understanding is that the site will have its own Schedule which will be consistent with the setbacks set out in the officer report on the planning application considered by Council on 2 July 2013. Details should be clear by the time of Gazettal which is scheduled for 23 August.

The planning application for the site is before VCAT. That appeal would be determined in accordance with the rules which applied at the time the application was lodged, including the Minimal Change policy

QUESTION 3

Given that the

1. Glen Eira Planning Scheme was last reviewed in 2010 and scheduled for the 4 yearly review in 2014 and

2. Council had 12 months to implement the new residential zones Could Council please provide its reasons for electing not to consult with the community on the introduction of the new residential zones?

Glen Eira has had policies in the Planning Scheme for the last nine years which differentiate the municipality into Minimal Change Areas and Housing Diversity Areas. Those policies were incorporated into the Planning Scheme following extensive community consultation. The policies are well understood within our community. (Policies are, however, open to interpretation as is regularly seen at VCAT and greater certainty could only be achieved by the use of controls ie zones.)

Council undertook a Review of the Planning Scheme in 2010-11. Through the consultative mechanisms of the Review, the community made clear that it is seeking:

 mandatory maximum height limits binding on all parties, including VCAT;

 transition controls to step development more gradually between higher and lower density areas; and

 greater certainty for both existing residents and providers of additional residential housing.

The three new zones provide the opportunity to achieve these enhancements which are not possible under a policy framework.

Based on the outcomes of these consultative processes, Council sought a direct and neutral conversion to the new zones which achieved the outcomes sought by the community. If the process had not addressed the community’s expressed priorities, Council would have discontinued that process.

The translation which has been approved introduces greater protections for the benefit of existing residents as well as greater clarity for those wishing to proceed with residential development. The mix of zones, like the policies before them, provides for a clearer balance between retaining valued Neighbourhood Character and opportunities for higher density sustainable development at appropriate locations around public transport and shopping centres.

It is important to bear in mind that these zones were applied by Ministerial Amendment, taking into account, and largely adopting, Council requests. It is our firm belief that further consultation could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect. Our concern, on this as in all matters, was to achieve the best possible result for the Community.”

August 16, 2013

Where To For Glen Eira?

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

Here are some questions for residents to consider:

Why are so many decisions in Glen Eira City Council made in secret?
Why is the community voice so often ignored?
Why are the principles of good governance in terms of open and transparent decision making repeatedly abused and perverted?
Why does this council consistently resort to spin, obfuscation instead of disseminating the truth in an open and honest fashion? Why are they so scared of the truth?
Why is this the only council in the state not to accord its councillors true democratic process via its meeting procedures?
Why do public questions so often go astray?
Why are there no community representatives on the vast majority of advisory committees?
Why is there no real ‘debate’ in council chambers but far too often the mere rubber stamping of officer recommendations?
Why do councillors accept sub-standard reporting from officers?
Why has Newton’s position never been advertised?
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION – WHO STANDS TO GAIN THE MOST FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE AND THE CULTURE THAT IS NOW ENTRENCHED IN GLEN EIRA COUNCIL?

August 6, 2013

Why The Newton Spin Won’t Wash!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

The State Government and Council’s strategy is transparently obvious [reduce amenity for all but start with the significant minority in “targetted” areas] and it continues an inglorious tradition started by Labor when Melbourne 2030 was released. Remember this statement: “The character of established residential areas will be protected through Rescode, and increased densities will not be achieved at the expense of existing amenity.”? Not that Council or VCAT ever took it seriously.

Yesterday’s announcement reaffirms the Government’s belief that it should be able to reduce people’s amenity without consulting them; taxation without representation. It doesn’t matter whether Lib or Lab or Brown, that is the principle.

Look at the huge chunk of Residential 1 Zone properties that are now about to find themselves in Residential Growth Zones or General Residential Zones. Where once they had ResCode, which included a 9m height limit, now they don’t. Council argues quite shamelessly that people will be better off because now there is “certainty”, since previously Council and VCAT ignored ResCode if it suited them. The same people who repeatedly abused the planning scheme are still in charge. What guarantee do residents have that whatever the schedules might say (and of course these remain top secret) that this planning department won’t continue with its old ways of handing out dispensations on countless of these ‘standards’?

Remember too that height limits only apply to dwellings or residential buildings. It won’t be long before we see some imaginative applications that push the envelope, quite literally. And of course, there simply aren’t any height limits for the old major activity centres and the main roads they sit on. Glen Huntly Road already has 10 storeys. That is the future – minimal ‘commercial’ or ‘retail’ and stacks of apartments.

Then there’s some seemingly random choices made, all without any transparency. Glen Huntly, which is a major activity centre, is now to be surrounded by GRZ. It has a railway, a tramway, 2 State Arterial Roads, and open space. Then look at what Council is doing to a bunch of Edwardian homes and California bungalows in Carnegie, which instead is to be rezoned RGZ.

The media releases remain silent on the contents of the Schedules to the Zones, yet the map does give a strong hint that at least some content has been inserted to replace “none specified” for various amenity standards. Who decided what should be inserted? Council staff. Council couldn’t even be bothered to vote on it.

The recent decision to refuse a Permit for Wilks St (Alma Club) is suddenly looking shaky, until such time as people can evaluate the implications of being rezoned to GRZ and Schedule 1 (no increase in rear setbacks). It’s no surprise that this has suddenly dropped its Minimal Change status and is now designated as General Residential Zone. In other words, 3 storeys is fine and 75 units in a dead end street is perfectly okay.

If Elizabeth Miller believes “the Victorian Coalition Government is delivering on their promise of protecting residents’ backyards” then she should be prepared to state how many backyards have just been condemned to being buried underneath concrete. I wonder if she even knows. Yesterday’s obligatory soundbite was carefully filmed in a tree-lined street. There won’t be many trees left when there’s no permeable soil available for roots in the targeted areas.

Will the State Government accept responsibility for flood damage when the drains are inadequate for the rapid runoff of water from these concrete ghettos? Does it have a crime strategy for the consequences of creating an unhealthy imbalance in demographics? Has it identified where the new sports facilities will be located?

Expect traffic to be managed when areas that you have to pass through have their population swollen by several thousand residents? There are no amenity standards for traffic congestion, no money to eliminate railway level crossings in the municipality, and it’s not even safe to ride a bike since Council/VCAT encourages street parking for multi-unit development [count the number of applications which seek and obtain a waiver]. Besides, the speed limits are generally too high for the population density. Will people be walking to their nearest open space? Depends how far it is. Yesterday’s announcement ignored that element of community well-being.

Clearly the policies behind yesterday’s announcement are unstable. If you increase the population faster than the jobs in an area, then more people will have to be travelling further distances at a slower average speed by less convenient means. Council admits its planning for an extra 18000+ people over 20 years, so it should be able to show its traffic modelling along with documented assumptions like where they have to go for work, recreation, services. Of course such detailed planning is not Glen Eira’s forte. The irony is that when council officers front up at VCAT and argue that the municipality has already exceeded its population forecasts, then that only throws more doubt on the figures produced by council this time around.

Planning for a community is so much more than trumpeting a bunch of discriminatory height restrictions. This entirely begs the question of where council has been for the past 10 years? No height limits throughout this time; no structure plans; no parking precinct plans (then or now); no Environmental Sustainable Design (then or now); no Urban Design Framework (then or now). It’s been hell bent on more and more development. This latest announcement only provides further evidence that the philosophy, strategy, and ambition remains intact. Glen Eira will remain the developer’s paradise.

Finally, we remind readers that in March 2012 the officers in their wisdom wanted to introduce a greater percentage of permeable surfaces but ONLY FOR MINIMAL CHANGE. Councillors passed a resolution that in part read: “Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to lower the percentage of impervious surfaces within the Minimal Change Area and Housing Diversity Areas.”. No such amendment has seen the light, so we can only conclude that once again a council resolution has been ignored or conveniently forgotten and not acted upon in a ‘timely manner’ as required by law. Now we discover that the ORIGINAL recommendation of 25% permeable surfaces will only apply in what was formerly known as Minimal Change. This is how this council works and residents need to be not merely aware but alarmed at how their rights have been continually trampled upon.

Last but not least, here is a glimpse into the future for all those areas with the nice little light blue lines marked on them!

July 31, 2013

Another Chain-Saw Massacre?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

Council has announced another community consultation for a landscape plan at Koornang Park. The accompanying blurb states: “The plan sees the removal of the predominant row of over-mature Cupressus macrocarpa trees (Monterey Cypress) which are at high-risk of tree limb failure.” The blurb then goes on to say: “The development of the landscape plan has been guided by principles which prioritise safety, increase useable open space and promote environmental sustainability.”

Council has also provided a link to their ‘Have Your Say’ on their webpage. We acknowledge the fact that this time there is at least some form of ‘consultation’ (unlike the Duncan McKinnon episode) and the questions are open-ended. However, we are entirely sceptical as to the claim that ALL OF THESE TREES represent a physical danger, or if in fact, any of them do.

We ventured down to Koornang Park today and spoke with numerous residents who had no idea of what was going on. They also expressed alarm at the prospect of losing so many of these cypress trees. Please note that the ‘landscape concept’ does not indicate anywhere how many of these trees are to be removed.

What many of these residents did say was:

The trees provide a terrific sound barrier to block out the traffic noise from busy Koornang Rd
The trees also provide a natural barrier from the playground to the street so that young children cannot run onto the road – the playground is not fenced.

Apart from the fact of losing valuable and we maintain healthy trees, the safety issues in the above points would appear to go against council’s claim of ‘prioritising safety’. Rather, we are at a loss to understand why cypress trees have suddenly become public enemy number one for this council!

July 26, 2013

Consultation Committee: Terms of Reference

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

Item 9.8 involved the terms of reference for the community consultation committee. We urge all readers to pay careful attention to the stated ‘function and role’. It reads:

“To make recommendations to Council in relation to the ways in which Council consults with residents,ratepayers and other stakeholders in the community to ensure maximum participation, communication and value to the community”.

In other words, the committee’s function is basically to partake ONLY in the mechanics of consultation, rather than providing direct input into any form of decision making as to the outcomes of these consultations. This important area of course, will be left first to the administrators and then councillors we presume. Thus only the first step in the ‘consultation’ continuum is being met and that is how to ‘engage’ with people – full stop. This committee is not granted any powers beyond that. It will presumably have no say in assessment, review, or participation in any decision making on the results of the ‘consultation’.

Nor do we believe it’s an ‘accident’ that the very important word REVIEW is now missing from these new terms of reference. The term was present in the original 2011 version. Also gone is the requirement that the committee meets at least 4 times a year. This has now been replaced with “as and when required”. Not that most committees do meet 4 times a year, but the omission we believe is significant in that it further erodes any formal structures and rules that should govern the running of such committees. Finally, as we’ve already noted, there is mention of ‘agreed criteria’ for the selection of community reps, but these are not provided, and definitely not made public. We can only speculate as to whether or not they even exist!

Following is the actual ‘debate’ on this item. Readers should carefully consider comments made by councillors and how the very notion of ‘consultation’ is watered down to practically nothing. Hyams’ hallmarks of ‘success’ such as the e-newletter and the notice boards are damning in themselves. Residents are lucky to receive 2 newsletters per year, and as a previous post pointed out, the notice boards were discussed, and discussed, and discussed for at least 2 years before little plastic boxes appeared in Glen Eira streets. Great achievements we say in open consultation, transparency and accountability!

Delahunty moved the motion and Lobo seconded.

DELAHUNTY: said that they had ‘long discussions’ about the number of community reps. She would like to ‘see more’ but happy with the current recommendation of 4. Went on to say that the ‘role and function is quite important’ in that recommendations about ‘the way we talk to residents’ is included and can then become the basis for ‘conversations’ with a ‘broad range of people’. Thought that ‘this is great’ and will help keep things ‘relevant’.

LOBO: couldn’t add much to Delahunty, and said this was ‘just streamlining’ of the terms of reference. Noted that the only thing that’s changed is ‘that the chair does not have the extra vote’. ‘So that will be a very interesting committee meeting’. Hoped that once the community reps were appointed they would be able to ‘steer this committee to heights that” the community would like in ‘the name of transparency’.

SOUNNESS: asked whether the terms of reference have ‘to follow certain forms’ and why this seemed to be different?

WAIT: answered that ‘they don’t’ have to follow any form and that each committee’s terms of reference can be different.

HYAMS: said that the committee began in ‘last term of council’ ‘at my suggestion’. Said that ‘most issues were decided by consensus’. Said that it’s important to ‘consult with the community’ but also that they ‘do so effectively’ and keep on improving. Claimed there were a ‘number of good initiatives’ from the committee such as the ‘e-newsletter’ and ‘community notice-boards’ and hoped to see ‘future improvements’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

July 24, 2013

Community Consultation & The Veracity of ‘Minutes’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

Below is the ‘debate’ on accepting the various committees’ ‘minutes’ and their recommendations. We’ve focused on the Community Consultation ones.

Delahunty moved to accept and seconded by Lobo.

DELAHUNTY: stated that the consultation committee ‘sets the standards‘ for consultation and seeks to ‘widen, broaden, deepen’ and make consultation ‘appropriate’ so it’s an ‘important committee’. Related what had been discussed: terms of reference; and EOI from people wanting to be community reps as well as reviewing engagement strategy. Said that one submission from a resident was ‘very helpful’ (on disability). Vouched that this ‘was a true and accurate’ record of what happened at the meeting.

LOBO: said that 4 EOIs had been received by council. One was from a ‘very senior’ and ‘experienced resident’ and was in the ‘format’ that they were asked to submit. Went on to say that there were no ‘qualifications’ or ‘requisites’ given to people. Claimed that the committee decision was to ‘hold the applications on ice’ until advertising again. Said that in his view it’s the ‘right of ratepayers’ to both ‘represent the community’ and ‘contribute to a council that they finance and pay our salaries’. People who apply are community minded and spend ‘their own time’ in the effort to ‘make a difference’. Re-advertising creates the impressions that ‘we are not a transparent council’. Community reps for this committee is different to the environmental one where some professional expertise is required. Quoted Ghandi about ‘greatness’ and no correlation to ‘education’ and that these applications should be ‘viewed’ in the same way. “Barriers’ to ‘perceived transparency’ have to be removed. Asked the rhetorical question as to precisely what they’re looking for – ‘a rocket scientist’, ‘psychiatrist’ or ‘a doctor of philosophy’. The Local Government Act compels councillors to act ‘impartially’ in carrying out their duties. Said that these would be ‘just words’ if not acted upon.

OKOTEL: spoke about the Violence against Women day and how council supports two groups in this area.

HYAMS: told the gallery that with this motion it’s not just about receiving and noting the minutes but also ‘adopting the recommendations’ so if councillors agree with Lobo that council shouldn’t be readvertising for community reps ‘they would vote against this motion’. Said that he didn’t think that readvertising was a ‘slight’ on those who applied and that they had hoped to ‘attract a slightly broader range of applicants’. Readvertising was ‘just a way of trying to achieve a broader range’ and doesn’t mean that those who already submitted won’t be selected. Went on to discuss the grants committee.

DELAHUNTY: endorsed Hyams comments on the Legal Service then went on to say that the minutes ‘tell the story’ of how council is ‘spending your money’ and they also tell the story about issues being discussed and ‘values and how we impart those values onto things we deem to be important’. People need to ‘keep track of these minutes’ and ensure that councillors are ‘held to account’ and ‘not discussing ourselves’ in these meetings and ‘not having a go at each other’. All that’s happening is ‘we’re discussing the issues and doing what local government’ should be doing. Finished by saying that some of the things she isn’t proud of but others she is and urged people to read the minutes.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (NOTE: Lipshutz and Magee were absent)

July 17, 2013

Waiting, Waiting, Waiting……

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

July 16, 2013

What Lipshutz Wants Lipshutz Gets?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

What Lipshutz wants, Lipshutz gets and to hell with the cost! That’s the only plausible view that residents can take on the Conservatory Affair. Lipshutz and his mates want a café instead of restoring and maintaining the site as the previous council resolution decreed. So, all the resources of council are put at his and his mates’ disposal. For example:

A dubious and far from ‘objective’ set of survey questions
The printing of thousands of glossy sheets containing the survey
The hiring of consultants to ring people and ask the same nonsense questions
The pre-paid postage for return of said surveys
The ‘Have Your Say’ online version where even though residents are told they can “discuss ideas and opinions with the community” that option is not provided. All that’s there is the same old boring and rigged survey.

And last but not least, there’s the REPRINTING of large and prominent advertisements in the Caulfield Leader. Not once, but at least twice. Quite remarkable when considered against the advertisements for really important issues such as the Budget, the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) or Council Plan or even the notification of the Special Council Meeting that would determine the budget and SRP. Here there was no ‘Have Your Say’; no repeat advertisements prominently placed. In short, no real attempt to do more than the legal requirement even though these ‘consultations’ are arguably the most important for the entire year.

Even when advertising the SRP in the Leader residents were only given 9 DAYS NOTICE since the ad appeared on the 28^th May and submissions closed on the 6^th June! In contrast, the Conservatory Survey is featured on council’s home page, appeared this week as part of ‘community news’ on page 2 and then a separate 3 column ad on page 4. This was a repeat of the 2^nd July advertisement (albeit smaller)!

Given all of this, we must therefore query:

How much is being spent on a really dubious consultation process on something that has already come up 3 times previously?
Why isn’t this same effort and amount spent on the really crucial consultations?
Would this emphases on publicity be different if Lipshutz didn’t fear that there would be strong opposition to the idea of granting public open space to commercial interests and as the Friends of Caulfield Park point out, the countless ‘unknowns’ as to costs of ‘development’ and the potential to destroy the heritage area of the park?
How far will council go in order to subvert and create the responses that they want and at what cost to ratepayers? Why is the ‘survey’ so reprehensively skewed?
To what extent does the principle of ‘winky pop’ apply here since both Lipshutz and Hyams have made it absolutely clear that they favour cafes and hence are they guilty of ‘pre-judgement’?
What else is there that the public isn’t being told? We repeat our earlier comments – who will pay for ‘developments’ such as roads, toilets, sewerage, lighting, outfitting kitchens, etc. And the $64 dollar question – why is one man’s wishes being pandered to to such an extent at the probable cost of tens of thousands of ratepayers’ money?

Finally, there was one resolution carried at another council recently which basically clipped the wings of administrators in that any consultation (ie hired consultants) worth over $10,000 had to come to council for approval. Not a bad idea we say!

July 16, 2013

Compare & Contrast – Again & Again!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments

COMMENT: The irony of this situation should not be lost on anyone. How ‘unreasonable’ that the land owner should want to know what the tenant has in store for their land! Pity that when council hands out carte blanche to the MRC and the Alma Club it doesn’t insist on the same processes. Instead vague, nebulous, and airy-fairy ideas that are likely to change ten times over, get the go ahead!

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

And from The Stonnington Leader –

COMMENT: Readers will remember the fiasco of the ‘debate’ on car sharing in Glen Eira. The same old arguments were trotted out – ‘let’s think about it in the distant future’. Hardly any concrete evidence was provided in the officer’s report and when it did come back to council the resolution was to look at the issue again in a year’s time. Stonnington takes it even one step further – draft papers, and full consultation with their community. Well done Stonnington!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates