December 19, 2010

The Year in Review

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[3] Comments 

In many ways 2010 has been a tumultuous year for Glen Eira. We review the standouts and offer our reflections.

  • The reappointment of Newton for a two year period highlighted the obvious divisions within council and, we suspect, led to the third Municipal Inspector’s investigation of the past 12 years. It has also led to the resignation of Whiteside. This is obviously not a ‘positive’. As far as we know, no other council in the state has undergone three interrogations in such a short space of time. And once again, no serious ‘breaches’ were uncovered. As has been pointed out numerous times, and by several commentators, the constant in all of these investigations has been Newton himself. Councillors’ decision to therefore reappoint him for a further two years has not resolved anything. As far as we can tell the mistrust between councillors and administration, and within the councillor group itself, still remains. If Glen Eira is to have a really ‘fresh start’ then this will only be achieved with a new CEO, and a new set of directors. We note again that Glen Eira is the only council in the area to have 5 individuals sitting on over $200,000pa! The ‘fat cat’ syndrome has been maintained.
  • The C60, and planning issues in general, were dominant throughout the year. Glen Eira abdicated its responsibilities to its residents by conferring upon the MRC the power to create its own Master Plan. This should have been the role of council – not the MRC. The result is utter control to the MRC and the winky popping of several councillors and the sidelining of two others on the pretext of ‘conflict of interest’. When we consider that this ‘development’ involves over 100 hectares of land, and has the potential value of billions and billions, Council’s failure to adequately plan and advocate for the community is inexcusable.
  • In general planning terms, local papers contained story after story of residents protesting about ‘inappropriate development’. Sadly, council has not done anything to ensure that residents are adequately protected. Unlike every other council in the state Glen Eira, following its appalling Planning Scheme Review, has again disowned structure plans, levies on development, height controls, and much more. In contrast to neighbouring municipalities there has been no concerted effort to oppose ten storey developments. Instead the consistent argument put forward by council has largely been ‘blame VCAT’, ‘blame the state Government’, blame anyone and everyone else, except their own planning scheme shortcomings. We have asked the same question over and over again: if other councils can do something about Melbourne 2030, if they can have mandatory height controls, if they can have structure plans, transport plans, public realm policies – then why is Glen Eira always the odd man out? Our conclusion has to be that Glen Eira is a pro-development council, rather than a pro community council.
  • Community consultation and communication is still far from adequate, although there have been several signs of marginal improvement such as the ‘Have Your Say’ online options. Yet, even here the ‘consultation’ is skewed via the questions asked and the simple fact that residents still experience a top down approach in all issues. Instead of asking the community their thoughts about Packer Park, Marlborough Reserve, residents are presented with ‘concept plans’ that many feel have already been set in concrete – without prior discussion and debate. Another significant failure throughout this past year has been councillors’ refusal to open up its advisory committees to community representatives – or to publish agendas and insist that meetings be open to the public. Secrecy remains the dominant ethos of this council. 

So what can we look forward to in the coming year? We believe that the dynamics of this council will change with the departure of Tang and the selection of a new councillor. We also believe that Newton is slowly having his wings clipped and that more officer reports will have to be more thorough, more detailed before they are rubber stamped by council.  But on a far more optimistic note, it has become increasingly obvious that the community is finally saying ‘enough is enough’. Local groups that are organised, efficient, and vocal are springing up everywhere. This year has seen the evolution of the Save Local Childcare Committee, various SOS groups, the ‘No 10 Storey development for Elsternwick’, and countless others. Most importantly, these groups are talking to each other and through unified action there is the real possibility of concrete solutions. 

Glen Eira Debates has been another ‘success story’. Our stats are continuing to go through the roof – which means that not only are we serving a need, but we have the potential to become the conduit for many of these groups. From this aspect, the future does look bright – residents’ voices can and will be heard.

 

December 18, 2010

Tang and More Weasel Words

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

At the last council meeting, a public question was directed to Paul Burke ‘and Councillors if he cannot answer it’. Tang’s response was:

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Public Questions are to Council. Clause 232 (2) (b) of the Local Law allows an individual Councillor to respond to a Public Question if the Chairperson redirects the question to them. There is no such provision that allows a Public Question to be redirected to an individual Officer other than if an appropriate Officer is called upon by the Chairperson to respond to a Public Question to Council.

Additionally, I remind you that Clause 232 (1) (b) of the Local Law requires questions to be less than 150 words. However, despite your question exceeding 150 words Council can advise that Council has nothing to add to the responses previously provided to you.”

The actual Clause 232 (1) (b) states:

The Chairperson may decide to either:

(i) personally answer the question; or

(ii) refer the question to the appropriate Councillor; or

(iii) refer the question to the appropriate officer; or

(iv) advise that the question is taken on notice and that a written response will be sent. 

Tang does have the power to ensure that Burke answers the questions. Various officers have responded to public questions in the past. Tang’s gagging of Burke is deliberate, given that the question could be viewed as embarrassing given Burke’s previous cited remarks ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL.  The only obvious conclusion we can draw is that once again Tang has performed the bidding of his masters! The victim remains accountable government.

 

December 17, 2010

Lipshutz: A History Lesson

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

The minutes of December 14, 2010 record the following statement at the conclusion to Public Questions. 

Cr Penhalluriack said; “I’m unhappy with all of the answers to Mr Varvodic with the exception of the one relating to Cr Esakoff. I don’t know what to do about it but I think that they are unnecessarily aggressive and I am just not happy about it”. 

THE HISTORY 

August 14th, 2007 (in regard to Friends of Caulfield Park) 

The advertisement and flyer are not only misleading and deceptive but they are out and out intellectually dishonest……I also want to take issue with the comment; ‘Have Councillors been misled yet again’. If this is not a below the belt attack on the very hard working Officers of this Council, I don’t know what it is. That question has about as much credibility as asking; when did you last beat your wife. …We are however not prepared to be dictated to by self interest groups especially when those groups adopt cynical and dishonest tactics to deceive the public the very same public that we were elected to represent. 

September 22nd, 2009 (in response to Mary Walsh) 

“The very manner in which this question is asked is akin to asking when did you last beat your wife? The question could have been framed in a non-confrontational manner such as; Do you object to residents asking public questions?….Where however it is the same people Council meeting after Council meeting asking the same type of question and in the same tone as this one, then frankly their credibility must be diminished. I would recommend that you read Dale Carnegie’s book How to win friends and influence people….You have taken it upon yourself to constantly snipe at whatever decision Council makes as if you are always right and Council always wrong. More so the very tone of these questions and most if not all of your questions are belligerent and self serving….That question besides being not only convoluted and turgid was based on ignorance of accounting and process and as with this question had an in built bias that Council had got it wrong. Clearly, if you did not understand accounting concepts or process then you are entitled to query however your question did not in any way suggest lack of understanding, rather it was predicated on the very arrogant basis that you were right and Council was clearly wrong. Had you been less interested in finding fodder for your blog by demonstrating your credentials as an interrogator and that Council had got it so wrong and more interested in genuinely obtaining an understanding of the matters the subject of your question then your question would have been framed in a non belligerent and dispassionate manner without gratuitous comments….The very tone of your question was not only arrogant and puffed up with self importance but was I believe, and I stand to be corrected, posted on your blog…I do not however have regard for any group that is not representative and which lies, distorts the truth and has no regard or indeed respect that the people have spoken by electing Councillors to office despite the strongly held views of those groups to the contrary…I and my fellow Councillors were elected by the people in a fair and contested election. It is we who represent the residents and not the community groups to which you refer. 

December 14th, 2010 (in response to Nick Varvodic) 

“you have embarked on a ridiculous and ultimately a narcissistic campaign to discredit Council and specific Councillors for what I perceive is for no better reason than you enjoy having your name read out at Council meetings. Mr Varvodic, by your actions you have lost all credibility and your incessant questions are frankly no more than a joke.…. The second assumption is that one of my sons is a regular player of Frisbee and is a member of as you call it “the Frisbee group” There is no basis for you making that assumption. Once again as an exercise in intellectual dishonesty you make a leap in logic in assuming that as my son has played Frisbee in the park and that his name is on a facebook page that he is a regular and habitual member of this so called “Frisbee group” as you call it. I can only assume that you have been living under a rock and are unaware of Generation Y’s social networking. Facebook is a regular and usual system of social networking but the mere presence of a name on that site does not translate to my son or indeed any other person being a member of a group... I can only suggest that if you are serious about the issue of Local Law 326 and clearly by your questions you are not, or indeed if you are concerned about any other issue affecting residents and ratepayers of the City of Glen Eira, of which you are not one, you first purchase a copy of Dale Carnergie’s book, How to win friends and influence people. You have to date not won any friends and you certainly have not influenced anyone.… Mr Varvodic, as long as questions are being asked, May I also enquire as to when you last bashed your wife? That question has as much intellectual honesty as your questions to date in that there are inbuilt assumptions which are patently false... You seem to think that by repeatedly making unfounded and wild accusations those assertion become true. You appear to be a follower of the Josef Goebbels school who said if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it’.

 

 

December 16, 2010

VCAT & Planning

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[4] Comments 

VCAT is continually accused by councillors of being the fly in the ointment over planning applications, rather than looking elsewhere for the potential culprit. We highlight one recent case to illustrate the problems with this view.

On December 2nd VCAT varied conditions under appeal by the developer ‘at 257 – 259 Alma Road, Caulfield North for a shop and nine dwellings as a four storey development. This included a waiver of loading bay requirements and a reduction in car parking requirements”.  We focus on some of the member’s comments, especially since the Planning Scheme review basically ignored the following issues. The member’s comments also raise questions as to how well prepared Council officers are in defending the position taken, and whether councillors really understand what they’re doing!

“All parties acknowledged that local policy 22.07 was not clear in its direction to assess proposals in a Mixed Use Zone. Ms Bowden (for council) submitted the policy must be interpreted according to the “residential areas” provisions as a mixed use zone is a residential zone, although she acknowledged that some of the commercial area policies provide more relevant design considerations, notably about addressing interfaces to residential zones.

I agree that a mixed use zone does form part of the suite of residential zones and therefore the logical interpretation of clause 22.07 is to consider the site as part of a residential area. However, the reading of this section of the policy becomes somewhat illogical as one of the policy statements is to “Recognise that these areas offer opportunities for multi-unit development, but at a lower scale and density than development in the commercial and mixed use areas[5] of neighbourhood centres”.

A logical interpretation of this provision is that mixed use areas can and should provide more intensive scale and density than other residential zones. The policy is also to “encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases”. 

A little further on we have: 

“It is within my scope in assessing review application P757/2010 to delete the condition to require balconies to be within the property boundary but as the condition was not contested I am unable to determine why Council imposed this condition. I note the urban design assessment tabled by Council makes no comment about the overhang of balconies other than to say “place the balconies on the building to create a more consistent building rhythm”. To build over public land requires consent of the public land manager, being Council. I therefore will not direct to remove the condition as I do not know if such permission would be granted. However, I note that based on submission and evidence put to me about the general building design I do not see that their overhang will necessarily result in excessive bulk to the building, provided the balconies are of a suitable material and form to break up the building mass. 

(Ms Bowden) stated Council had taken a cautious approach ….that requires the third level of the building be setback 9 metres from this side boundary. In response to my questions, Ms Bowden was unable to identify why 9 metres was the chosen distance to setback, as this was a condition imposed by the Councillors at the meeting that considered the application. The permit applicant contests that the permit condition is unnecessary, unfounded and would result in substantial loss of internal floor space”.

 

December 15, 2010

Record Broken

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
Comments Off on Record Broken 

As of 11.18pm Glen Eira Debates has smashed its previous record for single day hits. Our tally til this time is 704 hits. Further, 61 search engine searches were used to locate us.

Keep spreading the word. We want this blog to become the best possible forum for community news, views and discussion.

PS: Hits now stand at 731 midnight!

 

December 15, 2010

News Flash: Esakoff is Mayor

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[5] Comments 

Margaret Esakoff was voted in as Mayor tonight with an 8 to 1 vote. Lobo also stood for election.

Jamie Hyams was voted in as Deputy Mayor with a vote of 8 to 1. Lobo again stood for election.

 

December 15, 2010

Council Meeting: #2

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[8] Comments 
  •  Minutes of last meeting were accepted unanimously. Readers should recall that Penhalluriack had indicated his dissent from Esakoff’s ruling and requested that this be included in the minutes. The subsequent minutes failed to record any of this. Last night’s meeting in effect wiped history – without a murmur from anyone! There is now no official record of what actually happened. Any future investigation (since we presume audio tapes will be wiped as soon as possible) will only have these so called ‘official’ minutes to go on. So, what happened behind those closed doors? What pseudo-legal argument(s) did Newton, Burke and co. propose to stifle discussion and debate on this most important point? Why did Penhalluriack not mutter a word? What about Lobo? Magee? Pilling? Why this continual complicity of silence? At the very least, the community deserves some explanation as to why a councillor’s request has been ignored. 
  • Lobo commented that Co-ordinator of Godfrey house has resigned and that they’re ‘in trouble’; ‘council may need to look at this vertically’!???? 
  • Assembly of Councillors reports: Esakoff/Pilling to accept – not a word said by anyone. These ‘records’ were not included in the online version of the agenda! Error? Deliberate? Competence?
  1. Item 9.1 Station St. Development: (Hyams/Penhalluriack) –  resolution passed unanimously  – ‘up to 48 dwellings’. Hyams praised the application as an ‘interesting development’ and for being ‘innovative’ as well as ‘fitting in with planning guidelines’. The fact that it’s a 5 storey building ‘may be a bit high’(!) but because it’s part of Phoenix Precinct and c60 it fits in. 
  2. Item 9.3 Morgan St application: (Pilling/Esakoff) – Pilling had ‘some concerns’ conceding that ‘it is true that there are no side by side in the street’ but that there were other applications in waiting for this! Ultimately ‘it’s a reasonable application and I support it’. Esakoff also conceded that ‘side by side’ is ‘not popular in glen Eira’ but the alternative of one behind the other ‘causes the same angst’. Further with all the conditions imposed that this will ‘ameliorate the angst of the neighbours’. Penhalluriack stated he was in two minds over this since it does represent ‘huge bulk for the street’ and is ‘out of character’. Tang endorsed Pilling and stated that since there were already two storey developments in the street it would be hard to oppose this application. Vote – 8 to 1 Penhalluriack voted against motion. 
  3. Item 9.9 Packer Park (Esakoff/Forge): petanque gone; lemon trees gone; reorientate bowls area to a north/south aspect; ‘as a matter of urgency pursue’ links between state and federal government arrangements for kinda (ie -no kindas), and developments to be implemented (barbecues) when funding is available. Esakoff went into the 20 months history of this site; consultation ‘methodology’ was also elaborated upon; ‘from all of these methods 78 comments were received’ with (of course) the vast majority supporting the concept plan. “it should be noted that….80% were in support…20% suggested changes’. The gallery were then treated to an expose of the limited amount of open space available and the prediction by the VEAC paper that as density increases open space will decrease. Admitted that kindergartens were suggested but ‘considered unfeasible for a number of reasons, including town planning restraints’, ‘high cost of development’, and ‘compatability with adjoining areas’. Reported that council carried out a ‘quite extensive’ investigation in response to government Universal Access Policy (which as far as we know has never been made public!) and which looked for suitable kindergarten locations in Glen Eira. The report apparently proposed 7 appropriate locations and Packer Park was not one of them. Esakoff then went on to state that Packer park is actually in the McKinnon zone for kindergartens and that there is greater need in Murrumbeena. Carnegie is the ‘ideal site’! Esakoff did however note that if the kindergarten HAD BEEN AN OPTION THEN THE RESPONSES WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE DIFFERENT!  ‘Kindergartens are important, they are emotive and they require long term solutions. But, it must be the right solutions and…not anything will do’. ‘at the end of the day …will be a valuable addition to Packer Park, for all residents, young and old… and should provide many, many hours of enjoyment..’

Forge: ‘I am happy to support everything that she (Esakoff) has put forward’

Magee: ‘$370,000 is a lot of money….at last count I think we still had 60 odd children’ for next year that didn’t have a place…$370,000 of ratepayers money to pull out a bowling green to put in a bowling green’. Magee basically stated that he would not be happy to do this until Glen Eira reached a situation where it had fixed up all its other needs. Carried 8 to 1 Magee voted against. 

  • Item 9.10 Booran reservoir (Penhalluriack/Forge)

Penhalluriack: ‘officers can go further….it’s very important that we analyse in more detail the cost…’. Penhalluriack basically argued for more research to be done before a decision could be made. Forge also stated that ‘we need to get to the nitty gritty’ before deciding. Lipshutz claimed that Penhalluraick’s motion was ‘non-specific’ and that it should contain more detail. Penhalluriack went on to state – ‘the officers had a motion to work to…(their report) I believe is rather superficial . Penhalluriack wanted to know – strength of walls; whether surface is clay, what weight can they hold? ‘I want to know…whether we can reclaim this reservoir tomorrow….’

Pilling was ‘happy with the report’ and asked ‘why take a step backwards’? In summing up Penahlluriack said ‘we need to know. There’s nothing worse than flying blind. We need to know..we need to know all the facts before we start…..’Penhalluriack’s motion was lost. FOR – Magee, Forge, Penhalluriack 

Item 9.8 Boyd park water (Pilling).

Penhalluriack spoke against the motion stating residents believe ‘they (council) are hopeless, but I’ve been defending council. But this one is the most ridiculous waste of money I’ve ever come across…This is $1.1 million dollars. Yes the government is giving half. So what? It is still money that can be spent’ elsewhere than this ‘extravagant, extroadinary waste of money’. He estimated that the final cost of the water would be 15.17 cents per litre. ‘Why should we be spending 16 cents per litre on this water….? “This is a nonsense….this is one of the worst money wasting schemes I’ve ever come across..’ No-one in their right mind would want to install this tank underground and pay 16 cents per litre. Magee agreed with Penhalluriack – it was still spending $500,000 council dollars. That’s money ‘that we could spend in our municipality servicing our ratepayers…’

Tang then stated that Penhalluriack ‘has gone further than he needed to’; that he didn’t have to talk about ‘the quality of the proposal’ and include ‘gratuitous references’ about it!!! ‘I think it is a good proposal’.

Lobo also saw it as a ‘big waste of money’ and wanted a ‘cost benefit analysis before we consider it further’. Forge also called for a more ‘accurate cost benefit analysis’ and the need to defer decision until more analysis was completed.

MOTION WAS CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION 

This post is now long enough. We’ll conclude the report on public questions, delegations, etc. in the next few days.

 

December 14, 2010

Council Meeting: Lipshutz in Full (Arrogant) Flight!

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[6] Comments 

Just a very brief rundown on tonight’s marathon council meeting. A more comprehensive version will follow tomorrow.

  1. Packer Park will have a bowling and bocce green to replace the old bowling green. Petanque is out! Kindergartens are out! Green open space is out – although a couple of barbecues (that council can charge for bookings) will be put in. Great consultation over this – offer option 1 (sell the bowling green); when this is defeated, use answers to this as basis for another concept (bocce, bowls,pentanqe) and again when people give you their views, just state that kindergartens are inappropriate there. The question that has NEVER been asked of residents is ‘WHAT DO YOU WANT’?
  2. Lobo gagged AGAIN. Seems like Oscar Lobo attempted to reveal something about an email written to him by Lipshutz in response to the former’s email to Esakoff. Hyams piped up that private emails are private and since councillors have right of reply only when the PUBLIC may draw some inference from comments/press/statements, Lobo couldn’t raise the issue. We strongly suspect that it has something to do with his earlier call of ‘racism’ that he has attempted on several occasions to put before council.
  3. Lipshutz was at his absolute arrogant best in a 5 minute tirade against Nick Varvodic and his public questions relating to Lipshutz and the Frisbee Group. All the old cliches and shibboleths were trotted out on cue – Mr. Varvodic should read Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People; that Varvodic was guilty of narcism; that he was ignorant; that he was defamatory (ironic?) and that his questions were like asking someone if they had killed their wife!!!!! Gosh Cr. Lipshutz, we think that it’s about time you got some new lines. These are becoming a real drag – especially when you’ve used them time and time again (see council minutes relating to previous tirade against Mary Walsh).  Repetition is boring and displays a total lack of imagination!
  4. Penhalluriack, to his credit, objected to the tone of the answers.
  5. Arguably the most interesting decision of the night, was the unanimous passing of the Station St. planning application. Officers relied almost exclusively on the assumed acceptance of the c60 amendment in their argument. There’s no c60 as yet, but the application was passed!
 

December 14, 2010

Councillors, Whiteside & Planning

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[7] Comments 

From today’s Caulfield Leader –

Set higher standards

SINCE my resignation from the Glen Eira council in July, I have been inundated with letters.

With fellow councillors, I raised my genuine concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the need for decisions to be made transparently and on merit. I would like to encourage all residents and ratepayers to involve themselves in council matters and to demand transparency and accountability; attend council meetings every third Tuesday at 7.30pm at the council chambers and submit questions in writing; become informed about issues, individual councillors’ attitudes and behaviour that may affect their decision-making on particular issues, and communicate opinions to your councillors and read the most recent report by the municipal inspector and his criticisms of some councillor behaviour.

The election of the Mayor for 2011 is now due. This is a time for a new start to bring about the renewal the council sorely needs. I remain interested and concerned for the long-term future of our city.

Helen Whiteside

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

 

Flat out protesting

Residents rally against apartments

PLANS for two apartment blocks within 400m of each other have riled Murrumbeena residents.

Picture: JASON SAMMON. N25CK302 Murrumbeena residents show their opposition to development planned at 121-123 Murrumbeena Rd.More than 75 residents objected to the buildings planned for the corner of Emily St and Neerim Rd, and 121-123 Murrumbeena Rd.

Combined, there are 69 new units planned for the area.

Real estate agent Toby Primrose, who lives on Emily St, set up the SOS (Save Our Streets) website and organised a letter drop to highlight the issue.

He said the plans were a ‘‘gross misuse’’ of the properties – particularly in Murrumbeena Rd where peak-hour traffic congestion at the Redspot level crossing was already a problem.

‘‘I can’t see how they can even consider trying to get that sort of thing on the site,’’ Mr Primrose said.

Twenty-six residents objected to the four-storey building with 49 apartments planned for Emily St and Neerim Rd, because of overshadowing, inadequate parking and traffic congestion. Thirty-two units would be at 389-395 Neerim Rd with 17 twostorey units in Emily St. Glen Eira Council approved a three-storey building with 25 units and a double-storey block of 12 units at its November 23 meeting. A three-storey building with 32 apartments at 121-123 Murrumbeena Rd drew 50 objectors and will be discussed at a planning conference on Thursday.

Council spokesman Paul Burke said a decision was likely to made at the first meeting next year.

 

December 13, 2010

C60: Sincerity or Just More Weasel Words?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[15] Comments 

Tonight’s Special Committee Meeting (Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Lipshutz) decided unanimously to ‘delay’ consideration of the C60 Amendment and the centre of the racecourse planning application. Moved by Lipshutz, who occupied the chair, council will now call for ‘community comment’ on both issues. Objectors will be given 3 minutes each to address council  – at a date yet to be determined.

Ostensibly, some may see this as a ‘victory’ for residents. We however, are less assured of the possible outcome. Nothing has been ventured except the belated recognition that this is an important issue, and the community should be heard. We say, about bloody time! Why hasn’t this occurred months and months ago?

More to the point however, what occurred tonight was another example of politics, in all its glory. Under the rubric of ‘let’s listen to the people’, councillors neatly avoided the reality of the situation – ie a new government and the imponderables that this represents!! So it makes us fairly suspicious as to the eventual outcomes. Residents will have their 3 minutes in the spotlight; councillors claim they will listen, BUT WILL THEY ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESIDENTS’ WISHES? We’ve heard it all before – listen and then ignore!

Below are some highlights – Please note the flood of weasel words!

Lipshutz:  The issue ‘is so important to the City…sea change in the way we look at the Racecourse precinct and as such it is appropriate that everyone has a right to speak and to address the committee…..there have been so many submissions already…in terms of written submissions….that the community to have a say and that hasn’t happened’. ….it is appropriate by deferring this to another day everyone can have a chance to speak…..I myself have concerns. People have rung me…..parking……I don’t think it’s fair or right that four councillors make the decision……everyone (should have) the opportunity to express their views……special thanks to Cr. Penhalluriack and Cr. Forge…..(they) have given a great deal of thought

HYAMS: Agreed with Lipshutz; also commented that since the agenda went out on Friday and the meeting is on Monday, that not enough time to digest the complexity of the amendment. People haven’t had ‘a chance to consider it and get back to us….Officers have done a lot of work in negotiating with the MRC …it can also be argued that there is a lot more work to be done….one word of caution when you address council….you’ll have three minutes …we could have three hours if everyone speaks for three minutes so I suggest when you address us….stick to planning issues rather than issues about the use of the racecourse…they are issues which raise passions but don’t relate to whether we approve c60 or not. So when you do speak to us I want to hear what people have to say about this particular planning issue

PILLING: quite prudent for such a huge development to take the time to consider …I would like better clarifications of the displacement of car parking….and clarification about the height of the development….

ESAKOFF: Apologised for not being able to attend the original planning meeting but said ‘that it would be very helpful to us to hear directly’ from the people

LIPSHUTZ: ‘everyone’s heard loud and clear the view of the committee’. Lipshutz then stated he would stop people if their points were repeated…’it has as much weight if you say it once as if you say it ten times’….There are many good aspects of the’ amendment….

So Dear Readers, the decision is yours! Do we believe these councillors when they say they really and truly want to hear what people have to say? Do we believe that anything will be achieved by twenty or thirty people voicing the same objections that they put in writing a few months back? Do we believe that this delay has anything to do with ‘democracy’ at Glen Eira, or more to the point, a change of government and the limbo that has thus been created? And what does this say about council’s claims of having already conducted ‘extensive consultation’ on this issue? Sincere, or just plenty more weasel words? Over to you folks!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »