February 28, 2013
From A Concerned Resident
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance[24] Comments
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 23, 2013
The Stench Is Getting Worse!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance[16] Comments
Hansard of August 15th 2012 (Legislative Council) records MP Pennicuik reading parts of a letter that Cr Magee wrote to the Premier in regards to the countless governance issues that surround the role and function of the MRC Trustees . The letter was dated the 26th July and requested a response from the Premier. To the best of our knowledge, no response has been forthcoming. The full letter (minus address details) is presented below:
“Dear Mr Baillieu
Re: CAULFIELD RACECOURSE RESERVE
I am writing to bring to your attention concerns about the governance of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and the responsible financial management of some $2 billion dollars’ worth of public land.
Earlier this year, I was elected Chairman of Trustees.
- Composition of the Trust
The Trustees are appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister for Crown Lands, the Hon Ryan Smith. The Trust is comprised of six nominees of the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC), three Councillors of the City of Glen Eira and six nominees of the Minister.
Those arrangements appear to date back more than a hundred years.
The MRC being the tenant and comprising 6/15ths of the Trustees seems to institutionalise actual or perceived conflicts of interest which do not seem consistent with contemporary standards of governance. One option would be to reconstitute the Trust as independent of all interested parties.
- Non-adherence to Government Guidelines
The Department of Sustainability and Environment publishes “Committee of Management Responsibilities and Good Practice Guidelines” (Guidelines). The Trustees received a copy of the Guidelines and advice from the Office of the Victorian Government Solicitor Anthony Leggiero, on the 24th February 2012 that in his opinion,”
“It is clear that members of the general public could reasonably form the view that the Nominated Trustees may experience a conflict between their private obligations’ to the Club and their duties as Trustees, which could influence their decision-making in relation to Reserve tenure issues.”
Guidelines recommend that the Nominated Trustees manage this perceived conflict of interest by:
- “Disclosing their potential conflict to the other Trustees:
- Recording this disclosure in the meeting minutes: and
- Implementing a transparent and accountable process to manage the perceived conflict.”
The Majority of Trustees have decided not to accept the advice or Guidelines.
- Responsible Financial Management
The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is Crown Land with a commercial value of approximately $2 billion. The land is used for a range of purposes including racing, racing related, recreational and commercial. At present the commercial users pay their rents to the MRC and not to the Trustees. The Trust has virtually no income with which to discharge its responsibilities.
The Trustees are currently dealing with the appropriate leasing of the Reserve or parts of the Reserve for different purposes and tenures.
The governance arrangements referred to above and the non-adherence to the Government’s Guidelines raise urgent issues concerning decision-making on these very important leases.
- Tenure of Trustees
While Government and MRC-nominated Trustees retain their appointments for long periods of time, Trustees nominated by the Council are regarded as losing their eligibility at the end of each Council Term and, if re-elected it takes many months for them to be reappointed. That is likely to happen again when the Council Term expires on 27 October 2012. The Victorian Government Solicitor advises that the leases are likely to be finalised in the period immediately after this and the Council may be unrepresented in that process.
- Parliamentary scrutiny
These arrangements were the subject of an all-party Report by the Select Committee on Public Land Development in 2008, chaired by Hon David Davis MLC. The unanimous Report was critical of these arrangements and called for reforms. No response was made to that Report at the time and it would be appropriate for those concerns to be addressed urgently.
For all these reasons I would appreciate it if the Government would give urgent and serious attention to ensuring that the Crown Land is subject to appropriate governance arrangements and that the process for establishing leases over this land meets all government requirements.
Yours sincerely
Cr Jim Magee
Chairman
For and on behalf of the Trustees
Of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve
Copy
Mr Des Pearson, Auditor General
Mr George Brouwer, Ombudsman
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
News Flash: The Gang As Trustees
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance[29] Comments
The Minister has announced that the new councillor trustee representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse are non other than our infamous gang – Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff. What a surprise, eh? And what does this bode for the community voice? Zilch we suggest!
At the very least we can say that what is required is a full Royal Commission into the wheeling and dealing that has been going on for the past century and the unsavoury role of vested interests, politicians, administrators and councillors.
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 20, 2013
Residents: Always The Last To Know!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
From Hansard (19th February,2012) –
Caulfield Racecourse Centre Park: opening
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—It is my great pleasure to rise to address the Minister for Environment and Climate Change in my adjournment matter tonight. The action I seek is that the minister attend my electorate on 12 April to open the new Caulfield Racecourse Centre Park. The Caulfield Racecourse is Crown land, granted in 1885 for use as a racecourse and public open space. There is no doubt that previous governments have delivered in creating a racecourse that is recognised as a premium racetrack on the world stage and is an international icon. However, previous governments at all levels have missed the opportunity to provide public access to this Crown land for the residents of Caulfield in the form of open space and a public park. The failure to deliver public space at the Caulfield racetrack has been evident for over a century.
One of my major priorities since coming to office has been negotiating a better deal for residents to access Caulfield Racecourse. I have been working closely with the City of Glen Eira and the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to achieve this result. This has led to a $1.8 million investment by the Melbourne Racing Club to create a new park in the centre, which will feature five recreational precincts and great amenities, including a junior footy oval, a 1.6 kilometre running track, exercise stations, a dog-off-leash park, a boardwalk, a barbecue area and toilet facilities, to name a few.
I am pleased to report that on 21 April this new park will be open, providing a great new recreational facility for my electorate and for the wider community. To celebrate this I am working with the MRC, the Rotary Club of Glen Eira and the Caulfield Park Community Bank to host a community day and fun run as a fundraiser for local charities and organisations. This will be known as the Caulfield Racecourse Run and Community Day.
Charities struggle to raise funds to carry out important work in difficult economic times. I know this is a challenge, and I thought it would be good to bring all these community organisations together for one big fundraising push. The fun run will consist of a 3.5 kilometre walk and an 8.5 kilometre run around the Caulfield Racecourse. Charities, community groups, schools and clubs can register, create a team and fundraise for their own organisation. This will be a great community day which will celebrate the redevelopment of the park in the centre of the famous Caulfield icon, the racecourse. The day will see the community come together for a fun run, entertainment and festivities to celebrate what will be a memorable occasion.
We hope this facility will be the beginning of a conversation to bring local Caulfield residents to the public open space at the racecourse and create further interest in developing this great public asset for community benefit. Most importantly, many residents who I meet are still unaware that this public open space within the Caulfield Racecourse exists, and events like this are an ideal way to inform them. The City of Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality in Melbourne. What we have done will hopefully make the best of this new park at the Caulfield Racecourse, and this event will help to deliver this.
I repeat my call on the minister to join me at this new park in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse on 21 April and share in this historic moment.”
PS: Council does not appear to have any problem in doing the bidding of the MRC, via publishing the Agenda for the next trustee’s meeting on their website. This is set down for March 27th – five weeks off! Yet, they cannot inform the public of the above event. Residents have to learn about this by scouring Hansard!
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 18th 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 18th 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.
Glen Eira Debates 