January 10, 2024

Why Is Glen Eira So Against Developer Levies?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

Over the past few years we have heard time and again that rate-capping and cost shifting by federal and state government has caused uncertainty in Glen Eira’s ability to resource all its services and infrastructure. This has resulted in the closure of our early learning centres and the attempted sell off of aged care.

But how much is this financial ‘stress’ due to Glen Eira’s own grandiose plans and refusal to impose any sort of financial imposte on developers?  In 2016, the planning scheme review noted time and again full resident support for a development contributions levy (DCL) and even a car parking waiver levy.  Glen Eira used to have a DCL but it was allowed to expire in 2010 and has never been reintroduced. Even when the latest structure plans came up for decision the officers’ reports paid short shrift to the idea of introducing such a levy. Over the years we have had statements such as the following:

Incorporating a Development Contributions Plan into the Planning Scheme for Carnegie will not be able to be undertaken as part of Amendment C184 due to the length and complexity of this process and may be worth examining at a later date. (January 2020)

And in the November 2023 planning scheme review (without community consultation!!) we were told that the DCL is: On hold. Pushed back owing to other major strategic planning implementation, such as controls to implement structure plans.

Thus, since 2010 Glen Eira residents have been subsidising developers and there is no indication when this largesse will cease!

Other councils thankfully have not been so backwards in getting their priorities right and working to ensure that their residents aren’t subsidising developers to the hilt. The following screen dumps are all from councils which have been successful in introducing a DCL in the past 18 months into their planning scheme as well as a car parking waiver

WHITEHORSE

STONNINGTON

MERRIBEK

MARIBYRNONG

BRIMBANK

The first screen dump is from Whitehorse council. For its Box Hill Activity Centre the levy is $2,100 per residential dwelling. Glen Eira forecasts over 2000 net new dwellings just for Elsternwick alone. Doing the sums, with a DCL comparable to Whitehorse that could bring in over $4,000,000!!!! Add to this all the other major activity and neighbourhood centres alone, then the income could well and truly be hitting the $20M mark.

AND SOME CAR PARKING LEVIES

Over the years Council’s excuse for not (re)introducing a DCL was that the cost involved far outweighed the benefit! Surely this kind of argument would also apply to all of the above councils? Yet they have forged ahead. If the cost was truly prohibitive then surely they would have refrained?

The question remains: if other councils can achieve the gazetting of their DCL’s and car parking levies, then why is Glen Eira so reluctant to introduce something that was promised seven years ago and hasn’t existed for 14 years now?  Instead of continually crying wolf and bemoaning rate capping etc Glen Eira Council needs to look at its own back yard. It can increase its revenue via these levies! It can cut spending by refusing to build taj mahals that are in the vicinity of $85+M and incurring massive  interest repayments for the next decade and more. It can reduce spending on useless ‘consultations’ that are anything but genuine. There is no excuse possible for the failure to rein in costs and to source new revenue funds via these developer levies. Maybe then council might stop trying to flog off all our services such as childcare, aged care, home support, etc.

 

January 8, 2024

New Councillor: Jane Karslake

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Miscellaneous
[2] Comments 

The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) ran a recount vote this morning to elect a councillor to replace David Zyngier. Jane Karslake won the recount. We are yet to see the actual numbers on how the voting fell. This will be available in the next few days on the VEC website. Assuming that Ms Karlake signs the relevant papers she will represent Camden Ward.

Ms Karslake has twice stood for council elections in the past. We wish her well for the remainder of this term.

 

December 30, 2023

What A Year!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

With the close of the year just around the corner, we thought we would take a look back at what occurred throughout 2023 and what this reveals about council and its performance.

February 2023

  • A resolution to spend $75,319,095 (EXCLUDING GST) for the Carnegie Swimming Pool redevelopment. That makes it well over $80M. By the time this is built we could be looking close to $90M. We also have huge borrowings and no disclosures as to the interest rate payable, nor whether these rates are variable or if fixed, for what period. One could also question whether we really need another mini GESAC?

March 2023

  • Not for the first time we have councillors complaining about the lack of information and appropriate time to evaluate officer’s reports before being forced to vote on the items. Please listen again – https://gleneira.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/711_0385.mp3
  • Given the declaration of a Climate Emergency and an Urban Forest Strategy, the adopted 2022/23 budget REDUCED the spending on the planting of new trees to $827,000 when in the 2021/22 budget it was $1,350,000!

April 2023

  • The decision to only publish ‘summary reports’ on community consultations when in the past the complete raw data was available reeks of a cover up – especially when the summary reports are vague with a predominance of such terminology as ‘several’, ‘many’ ‘some’. There is the continued failure to ensure that the actual survey questions are of quality and that they have gone through a proper testing process that involves councillors and the Community Consultation Committee.

May 2023

  • An Elsternwick forum of nearly a 100 residents turning up to voice their views on the draft Elsternwick Structure Plan. Result? No recognition or addressing the issues raised.

July 2023

  • Structure Plans that more often than not scrape through on the casting vote of the chair.

August  2023

  • Governance failures galore when Pennicuik was suddenly forced to declare a conflict of interest on the Elsternwick structure plan which meant that the final decision was again decided on the mayor’s casting vote. Several months later however, Pennicuik could vote on the Elsternwick amendment and nothing had changed since the acceptance of the draft structure plan!!! Amazing!!!
  • Miraculously, Glen Eira does have a Notice of Motion. But this was because of a huge stuff up in the writing of their governance rules and had nothing to do with the intent of the original wording. The aim was to prevent councillors from having items put on the agenda. It will be interesting to watch the upcoming version of the local law to see whether they keep trying to silence councillors in this fashion.

September 2023

  • More stuff ups in that the proposed pop-up park in Orrong Crescent was deemed ‘illegal’ since it depended on a road closure which had not been advertised and consultation called for. Ultimately this was abandoned, but how much have all the shenanigans cost?
  • More dubious consultation ‘summaries’ on Bentleigh & Elsternwick that pay scant attention to resident views

October 2023

  • Announcement of the secret meeting that decided on the ‘preliminary’ closure of the early child care centres. Consultation would now follow the decision!!!! Repeated claims about the legitimacy of the decision and the need to abide by the Local Government Act. We could not find anything in this Act which demanded a ‘preliminary’ decision!

December 2023

  • The decision to close the early child care centres for the paltry saving of $500,000 per annum. Plenty of public questions which queried the accuracy of the ‘discussion paper’ and some of the claims made by council.

CONCLUSION

2023 has largely been a disaster for residents. Here’s why –

  • the administration has steam rolled ahead with its agenda of rubber stamping major developments and structure planning that will facilitate more and more high rise – regardless of whether or not these new developments are needed to ensure that council meets the projected population growth.
  • Community views are treated as mere annoyances and basically ignored
  • Lack of transparency in decision making
  • Councillors denied timely access to all fundamental information to inform their decision making
  • No public announcements on whether or not there is progress on increasing tree canopy targets. No statements about cost savings or improved efficiencies.
  • Consultations remain nothing more than exercises in legal requirements with no intention of asking questions that would reveal what residents really think and desire.

Finally, we wish all our readers a healthy and peaceful 2024! Thank you all for your continued support!

 

December 20, 2023

Tweedledum & Tweedledee!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

Last night’s council meeting confirmed the latest Tweedledum and Tweedledee union between Magee and Cade. As there were only 6 councillors present, Cade exercised her second vote on several important items to ensure that the motions passed.  Zhang was absent as was Athanasopolous – again!

On the May Street issue as to whether this was a ‘road at law’ the vote to note the officer’s report was – Magee, Esakoff, Cade and opposed Zmood and Parasol. Pennicuik abstained. Cade used her casting vote to ensure it got through.

On the Glasshouse relocation at the Caulfield Racecourse Magee moved an amendment that the Queens Road gate be closed from 10pm until 7am instead of being open till 4am every day. Once this was the substantive motion it basically precluded the alternative motion that Szmood foreshadowed. Voting for this amendment were Magee, Cade, Esakoff and opposed Pennicuik, Szmood and Parasol. Cade again used her casting vote to grant the permit.

Thus two major issues got through with plenty of misleading statements by Magee. For example:

  • The MRC has done everything that it was allowed to do! Really? Does this include coming in and removing 42 trees many of them heritage listed, plus buildings, only to be halted by a Heritage Victoria injunction?
  • The May Street issue is over and there’s nothing more that can be done he claimed. Not so! We believe that the ombudsman is now involved. This is just the first step! Both Pennicuik and Szmood stated that they were unsure as to the current status of May St. They implied that the council decision to not recognise May St as a ‘road at law’ lacked all the necessary ‘certainty’.  

In our view, Cade’s performance thus far does not augur well for what may be in store in 2024. Since becoming deputy mayor, and now mayor,  Cade’s performances have seen a 180 degree about face. We remind readers that she voted AGAINST the first Carnegie structure plan as well as the Housing Strategy. One has to query why this sudden turn around and will it continue? Or will she come to truly represent her constituents?

PS: We forgot to mention another item which surely belongs in the world of Monty Python given its nonsensical process. This involved the Hawthorn Road application. Szmood moved an alternate motion that the proposed 4 storey development be reduced to 3 storeys. Supporting this motion were: Pennicuik, Zmood and Esakoff. Opposing the motion were: Parasol, Magee and Cade. Yet, when it came to her casting vote Cade decided to vote FOR THE MOTION!!!! How on earth can you vote AGAINST the alternative and then with your second vote, support it?!!!!!!!!!

 

December 18, 2023

Caulfield Racecourse!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

When is ‘land management’ nothing but a euphemism for making money – especially when racing and the Melbourne Racing Club is involved? Both ably supported by government and the racecourse trust.

We have already witnessed the removal of scores of trees, the destruction of heritage sites, and now the latest application for the re-location of the Glasshouse to be immediately opposite residential properties.  We’re also facing the probable relocation of the Melbourne footy club to set up their training at the reserve. All this can only mean the further exclusion of the public on many more days plus the potential for more buildings and decreasing access and open space for residents.

It’s literally a crying shame that instead of trees and lawn areas upon entrance to the reserve we now have a tall, ugly, concrete wall. See the following photos –

Council should be screaming from the top of their lungs. All we get is a grovelling media release –

Statement on Melbourne FC’s Caulfield Racecourse Reserve feasibility study

Glen Eira has the least amount of open space per person in metropolitan Melbourne.

We always look to support creative opportunities to enhance sport and recreation in our community, with our recreation facilities hosting many local clubs including football, netball and soccer.

We recognise a move by Melbourne Football Club to Caulfield Racecourse Reserve has the potential to increase and accelerate investment in sporting infrastructure in the area.

However, we also know that investment from elite sporting clubs has been known to reduce community access in other locations.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is Crown land in the heart of the Caulfield Activity Centre. It has long been identified as a missed opportunity for broad community use.

Any investment by Melbourne FC would need to be balanced with continued access to the Reserve by the broader community, including local sporting clubs, other levels of football, and protected areas for local plants and biodiversity.

We look forward to working with Sport and Recreation Victoria and the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust to ensure that community use and environmental outcomes feature prominently in the future of the Reserve and are given due consideration in Melbourne Football Club’s feasibility study. 

Cr Anne-Marie Cade
Mayor

Worth remembering is that council decided to pay around $300,000 to the trust so that they might have a ‘seat at the table’!!!!! Money certainly NOT WELL SPENT judging on outcomes thus far. Perhaps council should demand a refund?!!!!!!!!!

 

December 13, 2023

Child Care To Close!

Posted by gleneira under GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments 

PS: Please read – https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-investigate-after-egg-hurled-at-councillors-mid-meeting-20231216-p5erx8.html

We should all condemn what occurred at Tuesday’s meeting. All it achieves is a further widening between residents and our elected reps and ultimately a further erosion of transparency and accountability.

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

At last night’s Special Council Meeting, councillors voted 5 to 3 to close the 3 early childcare centres. The only concession was that it be delayed until the end of March 2024 instead of the end of this year.

Voting for closure were: Magee, Esakoff, Cade, Penniciuk, Parasol. Those who voted against were Anthanasopolous, Zhang and Szmood.

Much was made of the failures of both State and Federal Governments in funding appropriate childcare and how this impacted on council. Nor was much credence given by those voting for closure to the interest of parliamentarians and their promises to ‘assist’. There was doubt as to whether any funding would ever materialise. The over-riding argument by these councillors was the need to serve the entire community and to do so with sound fiduciary oversight. That’s the role of a councillor they repeated ad nauseum. It’s just a pity that fiduciary oversight does not encompass extravaganzas such as the Carnegie swimming pool and multimillion dollar sporting pavilions plus borrowings of $60M over the next few years to fund these projects. Nor do we have any idea of how much waste occurs each year and how council is attempting to rein this in.

The fundamental question was put by Magee – should council get out of early learning centres? The cited loss of $500,000 per annum is literally a drop in the ocean given council’s overall budget and revenue stream. Readers should remember that for nearly a decade Glen Eira had one of the highest rate increases per year – 6.5%!!!! To therefore argue that lack of federal and state funding and the rate cap is to blame is irrelevant in answering this question. If the community as a whole wants aged care and child care maintained then that should be the priority. This question has never been asked of the community.

 

December 8, 2023

Child Care Closures!

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[2] Comments 

For Glen Eira it doesn’t seem to matter that over 7000 individuals signed an online petition to keep the early learning centres open, or that a hard copy petition of over 2000 was recently tabled at council meetings. Further, that 94% of participants in the online surveys also were of this viewpoint, plus letters from MP’s and other organisations. The recommendation remains that these centres be closed.

The only compromise was that instead of a December 2023 closure, this be delayed until March 2024! How magnanimous!!!!!

The report highlights again and again ‘financial viability’ and that maintaining the centres will amount to a cost to council of nearly $600,000 per annum. With a 94% of responses in favour of keeping the centres open, council still finds it appropriate to state:

Whilst acknowledging the views and feedback expressed by directly impacted staff, families and the community, additional information has not come to light which materially alters the assessment that the combination of factors surrounding Council’s service provision still present unresolvable challenges for Council to continue deliver a contemporary, financially viable ELC service.

Council has also rejected the option of building a new hub, stating:

Initial estimates of the capital investment that would be required to construct a child and family hub on the Murrumbeena ELC site was conservatively estimated at $9.5M if the infrastructure project was built in 2024, rising to $10.04M if it was built in 2025. However, this could be higher depending on construction industry pricing escalation trends.

Consequently, the costs associated with building a new centre would have significant impact on Council’s budget and would reduce the capacity of Council to meet its current infrastructure commitments, including investment to unlock more open space, infrastructure improvements in Glen Eira’s parks and the ability to effectively maintain existing assets such as roads, footpaths, and community facilities.

Even with the potential for a $4.5M government grant the conclusion is – Council’s adopted Long Term Financial Plan has no budget provision for major building investments relating to the three ELCs.

What this final sentence does not acknowledge of course is that councils are free to amend their long term financial plans as they see fit and has been done repeatedly in the past.

As far as the consultation feedback report goes, we again have been denied the raw data, all the comments and emails. The employee consultation is deemed ‘confidential’ so all we get is a very short ‘summary’!!!!!!

If the only option to cut costs is seen as removing services, then we are in deep trouble. Yes, there are financial constraints on all councils, and yes, costs are rising. But how hard has this council tried to either increase their revenue, or cut costs in other areas? Staff numbers keep rising; consultant costs keep rising; and imposing levies on developers for car parking waivers, and community infrastructure both remain in the land of never-never.  Council’s simple solution is to withdraw services from the most vulnerable (aged care) and child care. Surely it should be up to communities to determine which services they believe should be subsidised and not a bunch of bureaucrats who earn over $200,000 per annum and a CEO who is rumoured to be on about $450,000 per year! Whilst other councils include statements about ‘savings’ in their budgets and annual reports, we can find nothing of this ilk in anything Glen Eira publishes.

What has also occurred here is the cart before the horse scenario. Our priorities consultation is yet to be published so that this decision is made BEFORE the community response is available – this assumes of course that the ‘consultation’ asked relevant questions!!!! Similar things occurred with structure planning and land use frameworks prior to the endorsement of the Housing Strategy. It would seem that this orchestrated approach is there to ensure that predetermined decisions are cemented despite what the community might think and want.

It is now over to councillors to make their decision. We can only hope that their primary objective is to represent the thousands of constituents who want this service to remain.

 

December 5, 2023

Victoria In Future 2023!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

In September 2023 the state government released its latest version of Victoria In Future (VIF). Promoted as a yearly document, this one only took four and a quarter years to materialise! Councils are directed to base their strategic planning on this document. What is interesting about this latest prognostication is that instead of Glen Eira’s projected 188,000 in the 2019 version, the 2023 version projects the number of residents in 2036 to reach 174,000. In terms of dwellings required this has now changed from 78,500 to 79,090. Thus VIF 2023 projects that between 2021-2036 Glen Eira will require 12,850 net new dwellings to meet population growth needs.

The latest VIF data can be accessed via https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/data-and-insights/victoria-in-future

Glen Eira however continues to base all its strategic planning on facilitating far more than 13,000 net new dwellings by 2036 as evidenced in its latest structure plans, the housing strategy and Amendment C220. If our projected population has dropped by 14,000, together with a decline in required housing, then why are we still going full bore for more and more development?

If we look at our major planning documents (ie structure plans and priority development zones) and what these documents forecast, the true picture reveals itself. Background papers for these plans forecast the following  (conservative) numbers of net new dwellings over the next 15 years –

Glen Huntly -410

East village – 3000+

Caulfield village/Caulfield Staion – 3,500+

Bentleigh – 2388

Elsternwick – 2000+

Carnegie – 2,500+

TOTAL: 13,798

It should also be remembered that both Caulfield and East Village are only ‘preliminary’ figures. In both cases they can well and truly exceed these forecasts as the permit for East Village has already enshrined!  Thus if we simply focus on the above we already surpass the proposed target, without even counting development that is occurring in our eleven neighbourhood centres, and residential areas. Yet council is not satisfied, and with the housing strategy recommendations ALL of Glen Eira will be turned into a developer’s paradise.

Please note that our Housing Strategy and Amendment C220 forecasts the rezoning of over 10,000 sites and this includes the removal of the mandatory garden requirement for ALL sites zoned General Residential zone, and the creation of a new zone NRZ2 which will increase the permissible site coverage and reduce current permeability requirements. All engineered to allow more and more development on single sites.

When other councils are trying their hardest to stop their municipalities becoming congested and environmentally unsustainable areas, Glen Eira is doing everything it can to achieve the opposite. Here as some example quotes from these councils’ Housing Strategies. Compare these with the Glen Eira vision and what is proposed:

Boroondara

The BHS (Boroondara Housing Strategy) recognises that the need for housing diversity should also be considered in conjunction with the capacity and functions of key infrastructure, such as roads, sewerage, drainage, public services and public transport. If these services cannot sustain additional population in particular locations, it would be unsustainable to increase densities in these locations until the necessary infrastructure can support the change. (page 2 of the Housing Strategy)

COMMENT:  In the Glen Eira documentation, there has been no assessment that we are aware of which provides any analysis of existing infrastructure and future need. No costings have been provided; no time-lines have been provided, and no evidence to support the sustainability of 13000+ net new dwellings.

Bayside

The Review also found that Bayside’s growth locations have sufficient housing capacity to meet anticipated population increases over the next 15 years to 2036 as required by State planning policy. (page 3)

….the overarching spatial approach outlined in the Housing Strategy, 2012 and in this update to the Housing Strategy, is delivering increased housing in Bayside in locations that are well served by public transport, shops and services. This is the most sustainable approach to delivering increased housing density and is in line with State Government planning policy. Should further housing capacity be required in the future, a future review of the Housing Strategy can consider other locations that may be suitable for increased housing density in addition to those already identified in the Housing Strategy. This approach allows Council to direct and manage growth in the short to medium term. (page 6)

Retain the existing residential zoning in Bayside. This clearly implements the Housing Strategy’s vision and spatial approach to managing housing growth in Bayside

COMMENT: Bayside sees no need to change zoning given the growth in its major activity centres. Glen Eira on the other hand intends to ensure that 10,000 sites will be rezoned when our major activity centres alone can meet projected growth.

YARRA

As shown by the assessment of the Yarra’s activity centres to accommodate future housing growth, Yarra can rely on existing capacity and does not need to make significant changes to rezone other land at this time to provide additional housing supply. If housing delivery trends continue to be strong in Yarra, within the next 5 to 10 years it will be important to identify key precincts to undertake further strategic planning to identify long term housing land availability. (page 67)

COMMENT: Yarra takes a similar approach to Bayside. Capacity is sufficient and if there is a need for more dwellings then this can be addressed at the time. In Glen Eira, policies/zonings once introduced stay there forever. The residential zones introduced secretly  in 2013 have not had a thorough review, and certainly no public consultation. No attempt has been made in 12 years to address shortfalls in permeability and site coverage requirements when countless other councils have up to 40% permeability requirements for their General Residential Zone areas. And yet, we are supposed to have an Urban Forest Strategy and a concern about sustainable development.

CONCLUSION

With the latest projections provided by VIF 2023, council must review its strategic planning and assure residents that development at all costs is no longer necessary nor sustainable in our municipality.

 

December 2, 2023

More Sleight Of Hand?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
1 Comment 

Not for the first time do we have council handing over full control of planning to the Minister and the Department. We ask readers to carefully compare and consider the following screen dumps. They involve adopted amendments and the resolution to send the amendment to the Minister seeking approval for advertising and formal submissions.

The Whitehorse resolution contains no mention of the Minister or the Department as does the Glen Eira one. One may quibble as to the interpretation of ‘intent’ but giving the Minister the right to change whatever he likes can still fit into ‘intent’ given that this basically means to produce documentation for land use.

Here are a couple of other resolutions from Boroondara and Stonnington. Again, note the absence of mention of Minister and/or department.

So why has Glen Eira resorted to the inclusion of this phrasing when other councils haven’t?  The repercussions can be immense as proven previously with the increased heights for Carnegie and Elsternwick through the interim DDO’s. It also means that residents will not have any future say – it will be fait accompli. Instead of ensuring that what was decided upon remains, this clause simply allows more changes without community input.

 

November 26, 2023

Vale David Zyngier

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[6] Comments 

Statement from Mayor Cr Anne-Marie Cade on the passing of Cr David Zyngier

It is with deep sorrow and a heavy heart that we share the news of the passing of Camden Ward Councillor Dr David Zyngier.

Cr Zyngier’s passing is an immeasurable loss for Council. We extend our deepest condolences to Cr Zyngier’s family, friends, and all who had the privilege of knowing and working alongside him. Cr Zyngier is survived by his loving wife, Suzanne, children and grandchildren.

Cr Zyngier was the son of Holocaust survivors from Poland and was the first in his family to complete high school and attend university. He was a student at Melbourne Boys High School and then went on to study history and politics at Monash University. He later returned to Monash where he studied to become a humanities teacher.

Cr Zyngier was as well-known member of Glen Eira’s Jewish community. He worked in education for more than 35 years and was principal of a local Jewish school. He was an active member of his synagogue, Kehilat Nitzan, an advocate of Jewish LGBTIQA+ rights, and a member of the Jewish Climate Network. As a volunteer with the Ardoch Foundation, Courage to Care, and Father Bob Foundation, Cr Zyngier’s passion for giving a voice to the vulnerable permeated all that he did.

As a representative of his community, Cr Zyngier was a passionate advocate for climate action. Cr Zyngier co-founded the Glen Eira Emergency Climate Action Network, participated in the development of the Glen Eira 2040 Community Vision, and helped guide the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust Land Management Plan. He helped develop Council’s target of achieving net zero Council emissions by 2025 and net zero community emissions by 2030. Cr Zyngier worked closely with young people across Glen Eira to give them a voice.  

As a member of the Metropolitan Transport Forum, Cr Zyngier advocated for integrated transport and improving connectivity in the local community. On the Local Government Working Group on Gambling, Cr Zyngier called for the reform of Victoria’s gambling laws in the lead up to significant reform to minimise harm from gaming machines. As a member of Council’s Community Engagement, Sustainability and Multicultural Advisory Committees, Cr Zyngier helped Council better engage with our community, respond to the climate emergency, and hear from people from all backgrounds.

Cr Zyngier never shied away from asking the big questions and challenging all of us to aim higher. The Chamber was richer for his contribution. During this difficult time, we come together with our community to support one another and honour the memory of Cr Zyngier. We owe a great debt to Cr Zyngier for the indelible mark he left on our organisation and community, and the positive influence he had on each of us personally and professionally.

Flags at Glen Eira Town Hall have been lowered to half-mast in a sign of respect. Details of any memorial services and arrangements will be shared as soon as they become available. May Cr Zyngier’s legacy continue to inspire us and strive to make a positive difference, just as he did.

Vale Councillor Dr David Zyngier.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »