September 15, 2016

Residents, Candidate Promises, & How To Decide

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[19] Comments 

fairy-tales

We’ve received this email from a resident, expressing what we believe is probably a fairly common reaction to the election conundrum – who to vote for?

Good morning, 

With no shortage of evidence pointing to the incompetence of our council, the big question is…. So who do I vote for? 

For the average person it is impossible to become adequately informed about who stands for what. 

Are there any candidates with integrity or honesty? Will anyone actually have the will power, knowledge and stamina to repair our failed planning scheme, when the council blames VCAT and VCAT simply insists it is ruling according to the laws of the state?  

Quite frankly I am convinced our local government is a complete joke, without the laugh. We have experienced first-hand the incompetence and lies coming from their planning and enforcement team who are paid for by my rates. A 3 year saga that left us high and dry. 

So now it is election time and I want to make my vote count….. yet sadly I think it makes no difference whatsoever. They are all as bad as each other. 

Please tell me I’m wrong…

We do sympathise, whilst acknowledging that sorting the wheat from the chaff, the stooges from the genuine candidates, is going to be a herculean task, especially when each candidate talks in clichés, generalities, and is full of potentially hot air promises.

Our position is clear. After more than a decade of in fighting, incompetence, and abuse of power over and over again, it is definitely time for a change. These councillors have done nothing to advance planning, to secure sufficient open space, and to operate in a transparent and accountable manner. Nor have they acted on community aspirations that mean something or done this in a timely manner. Traffic, over development, open space, heritage, community gardens, tree protection are just some of the issues left untouched by this group of 9 councillors.

So now is the opportunity to change all this. And it can be changed with your vote. That means ensuring that each and every one of the incumbents are not re-elected nor those to whom their preferences are directed since the chances are that these are merely their stooges. Thus we urge all residents to MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT and elect a council that is new, visionary, and committed to listening and working with the community and not against it. Ask each candidate the following:

  • Whether they will commit to a full and immediate review of the zones
  • Whether they will commit to changing the meeting procedures so that residents can freely ask questions and present their views
  • Whether they will commit to having community reps on all advisory committees and which are open to the public
  • Whether they will commit to online broadcasting of council meetings
  • Whether they will commit to residents having a direct input into budget priorities
  • Whether they will commit to insisting that all officer reports include costings, timelines and objectively present the pros and cons for each proposal

If the responses are nebulous, qualified, or mumbo-jumbo, don’t vote for them! The best example we have of this last statement comes in the form of Ho’s election flyer! At least he has the grace not to mention his opposition to ‘over-development’!!!!!!

EPSON MFP image

EPSON MFP image

 

September 15, 2016

Ms ‘Independent’!!!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Transport
[12] Comments 

esakoff

 

September 13, 2016

What Magee Really Thinks!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance
[18] Comments 

Here is part of a screen dump from a company that Magee used to work for. Note the email –

untitled3

Next, please note the IPs and email addresses attached to the following comments –

jmjm2jm3jm4jm5jm6untitled2

There are countless others from this and different emails. Our final selection however says it all!

magee

 

 

September 11, 2016

Hyams: Liar & Hypocrite Extraordinaire!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance
[35] Comments 

Over the years we, and our commentators, have been accused by various councillors of being ‘cowards’, lacking ‘integrity’ and ‘honesty’ and the worst crime of all ‘hiding behind anonymity’. Yet these very same councillors certainly do not practice what they preach or pretend to disavow. The number of anonymous comments that have been posted by these same councillors on our blog is astounding. We have had a great time laughing our heads off at how these councillors spend time attacking each other and lying whilst remaining ‘anonymous’.

Hyams is the perfect case in point. Not only has he lied in the chamber with his denial of calling a resident a ‘whining bitch’ , but he has lied via his innumerable comments on a blog site that he purports to so seldom read! It would seem that the Councillor Code of Conduct demanding honesty, integrity, and treating residents with respect applies to everyone else, but not to him!

Below we feature some screen dumps that prove conclusively what kind of liar and hyprocrite this man really is. Please ask yourself if this is the calibre of a man that you want as a councillor when you go to the polls in a few short weeks.

First off we draw readers’ attention to the ISP (at the time) of the organisation that Hyams works for. Please take note of the underlined numbers.

210-23-136-125_page_1Now compare these numbers with what Hyams has written under his own name and ‘anonymous’ –

jh4

Compounding Hyams’ lies we then have this little doozy –

jh3

All of the ‘positive posts’ about Esakoff are from Hyams!

There are literally countless other screen dumps that we could have uploaded – many coming from council computers, from mobiles, from home computers, and all attacking other councillors.

We present the above because it is election time and because we believe that when we elect individuals they should at the very least be people who will conduct themselves with integrity, honesty and a desire to work for the community. Hyams does not fit this bill!

 

September 9, 2016

Gross Incompetence!

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

In January 2013 Amendment C87 was gazetted. This amendment introduced some revised Neighbourhood Character Overlays into the planning scheme with the objective of ‘protecting’ certain streets and areas of the city. Council’s stated objectives in the recently completed planning scheme review is to implement more of these overlays.

But there is a major problem with council’s planning as illustrated in a  recent VCAT decision which calls into question whether council is totally incompetent, or simply so pro-development that nothing they do to foster more development should come as a surprise to residents. This latest VCAT decision involved an application to build a 2 storey building containing 4 townhouses. The site was in Murrumbeena and included in a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NOC6), plus a Design and Development Overlay, plus a Special Building Overlay (ie flooding). Yet, council in its wisdom also ZONED THIS AREA UNDER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE 1.

This raises a multitude of important issues –

  • Why has council included areas that have NCO’S in the GRZ and RGZ zones?
  • Discussion on the introduction of the new zones was already happening in 2013 and probably well before. Didn’t council planners know what they were potentially undermining? Or didn’t they and councillors care?
  • What happens now to the several hundred properties that find themselves in the same boat as this Murrumbeena application?
  • Why can’t council write amendments that actually mean something, instead of the contradictory and useless waffle that they continually produce? And who ultimately is responsible for vetting their nonsense? Here is an example of two statements that come from this NCO6. We maintain that they contradict each other –.

To ensure that new dwellings or extensions to existing dwellings respect the dominant building height, form, façade articulation, materials and roof forms of the streetscape..

New buildings should interpret the detailed elements of older dwellings that contribute to the neighbourhood character significance of the area in an innovative and contemporary manner that complements, rather than replicates, period dwelling styles.

Thus we have an NCO that is seeking to protect existing neighbourhood characteristics on the one hand (ie ‘respect) and then there is the injunction NOT TO ‘replicate’ but merely ‘complement’ the area. No definition of course exists as to the meaning of these two terms. You could literally drive a truck through any of these statements, decision guidelines and objectives!

The VCAT decision went the developer’s way with the member making this important point –

The construction and application of the zones, overlay controls and policies to this locality creates a tension within the planning scheme with respect to the future built form character of the area. This is a locality identified as a diversity area in which the Council seeks to encourage redevelopment and increased residential densities. It is one of a confined number of diversity areas in this municipality in which redevelopment is directed and specifically encouraged. Simultaneously the Council has applied an NCO to this locality, the purpose of which encourages development to be in accordance with a preferred neighbourhood character that is largely based on the protection of existing neighbourhood character. Notwithstanding this site’s diversity area location the Council opposes the demolition of a modest and relatively non-descript (my description) dwelling because it is a dwelling originating from the interwar period. (Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1494.html)

As for the other ‘protections’ afforded this site, they are useless. The Design and Development Overlay only applies to fence heights (like another 2 from council’s ‘generous’ 5 DDOs) and hence was irrelevant. The member also makes the point that council’s opposition to demolition should not be based on a Neighbourhood Character Overlay, but on a Heritage Overlay! Melbourne Water had no objections to the Special Building Overlay requirements following amended plans.

What does all this ultimately mean? We believe that:

  • No property should be zoned GRZ or RGZ if it is also covered by a Neighbourhood Character Overlay. This of course means changing the zoning – a definite ‘no-no’ for this council since they are ‘perfect’ and got everything right the first time around
  • At least another 200 properties now find themselves in the same boat as this Murrumbeena site. What will council do to ensure that they are fully ‘protected’?
  • Until there is a complete and utter re-write of the planning scheme, and eschewing reliance on useless waffle, then no resident anywhere can expect that his neighbourhood or street  is ‘safe’.

In the public interest, we provide some screen dumps of the other areas that are covered by an NCO, but also zoned for increased density. Residents in these areas – BEWARE!nco2

nco1

nco3

 

 

 

 

September 7, 2016

The New Public Questions Format!

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

With the new Public Questions format introduced recently, the wider community  literally has no idea as to what the public question was, nor the answer, if the questioner was not present in the gallery at the time the item comes up in the agenda. Given that public questions occur at the end of the meeting (and this can be hours and hours later) it is no wonder that some residents might simply give up and leave or simply cannot abide the thought of 2 to 2 and a half hours of woeful arguments and plenty of hot air and grandstanding. Nor do these new protocols take into consideration that someone might be ill and unable to attend.

Councillors Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling,and Ho have therefore successfully limited public access to resident views and queries since the questions and responses are not recorded in the minutes. We’ve however been able to subvert this anti-democratic practice by publishing one of these questions! Please note the answer and make up your own minds as to its veracity and faithful ‘reporting’ of events.

public-question_page_1public-question_page_2

 

September 7, 2016

Magee, VCAT & Electioneering?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

untitled

Are we asking too much for both journalists and councillors to actually portray the truth? Here are the facts:

  • Magee did NOT ASK FOR AN INJUNCTION. His motion asked officers for ‘options’ to ‘challenge the VCAT decision’ and to provide some figures on ‘costs’ and chances of ‘success’.
  • This site in Claire Street is far from a ‘small area’ as Magee would have readers believe. It is 2053 square metres – fulfilling council’s planning scheme objective to ‘encourage’ the ‘consolidation’ of sites!
  • In his chest thumping speech where VCAT was again the sole villain, Magee stated in part – This application ‘failed ResCode, failed the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ but the VCAT member who refused the original application for 34 units has now granted a permit for this application for 33 units. The member said ‘Council encourages dwellings of this scale’ and he ‘could not be more wrong’. Council ‘does not encourage development of any scale’. ‘Council simply says what are the height limits’ and what the Planning Scheme allows and this was ‘set up via consultation’ in 2004 and in 2010 ‘our residents said to us very clearly’ that they wanted ‘increased set backs and height limits’. ‘We got’ these things but ‘VCAT again are not applying our planning scheme’. No point in ‘having a planning scheme then’ if VCAT ignores it and that’s why ‘mandatory controls are very important’. Nearly everyone in Claire St., ‘has sold out’ so council needs to ‘dissect’ the VCAT decision.
  • Several things to note in the above: (1) the VCAT member does NOT STATE that council ‘encourages dwellings of this scale’. What he does say is that council policy and the zoning makes Claire Street an ‘ideal’ location for 3 storey developments. (2) as for council not ‘encouraging’ ‘development of any scale’, perhaps Magee should have a read of the planning scheme he is supposed to administer!
  • The word ‘encourage’ occurs 352 times in the planning scheme. In the vast majority of these occurrences, ‘higher density’ is the goal. Here are some examples with the relevant clauses in parenthesis.

Higher density housing is encouraged within and adjoining the commercial zoning (Clause 21.03 )

Single dwellings and multi unit development are encouraged immediately adjoining the commercial areas of these centres.(21.03)

Industrial sites surrounded by residential areas are encouraged to convert to residential where appropriate.

A targeted approach involves identifying areas throughout the City where multi-unit development is encouraged and facilitated through local planning policies and statutory controls.(21.04)

Encourage a mix of housing types, increased residential densities and mixed use developments within urban villages and neighbourhood centres

The encouragement of residential development within and around commercial centres is a key strategy aimed at giving additional support to centres (21.06)

Where a small retail centre is in danger of losing its retail role, alternative land uses should be encouraged to fill vacant premises. Favourable consideration should be given to uses such as small business, clean light manufacturing, service business, residential and community use. This is particularly the case in centres such as McKinnon, Murrumbeena, Hughesdale and a number of local centres (such as Patterson).

Encourage conversion of derelict industrial sites to residential or mixed use activity where appropriate. (21.07)

Encourage highest residential densities in preferred strategic locations such as urban villages. (22.05)

To encourage increased densities within and around commercial/transport nodes which respects transition to the surrounding residential area

Where opportunity does exist,however, appropriate infill development at increased densities is encouraged.(22.05)

Buildings along Centre Road be encouraged to increase in height to provide for office,commercial and residential uses……

Where opportunities exist, medium density housing be encouraged in the residential areas surrounding the centre.

Encourage higher-density residential development.

Encourage site consolidation and redevelopment to support increased development densities.

Consolidate properties in the area west of Koornang Road to encourage more intensive development.

Commercial development on lots with frontage onto Neerim Road be encouraged

Increased density residential developments be encouraged

Increased density residential development be encouraged in Chestnut and Blackwood Streets with medium to high density development occurring on lots with frontage to Dandenong Road.

The re-development of 314 Neerim Road for medium density dwellings be encouraged

Increased density housing be encouraged, particularly along Rippon Grove.

Site consolidation to facilitate increased densities be encouraged

Encourage the higher and more intensive development in the southern and eastern parts of the precinct facing Station Street and the new road.(22.06)

Encourage the consolidation of sites to promote development opportunities.(22.07)

Encourage gradual changes in building heights between existing buildings and new developments.

CONCLUSION

Election time is definitely the top most consideration for many of the incumbents. Magee is excelling in his attempts to portray himself as a concerned councillor. We’ve had crocodile tears at VCAT, the demand for mandatory height controls instead of discretionary, and now the latest ploy – a request for a report on the Claire Street VCAT decision. We certainly doubt that this will go any further since appealing to the Supreme Court can only be done on a point of law and would cost the earth. Also, if council were stupid enough to vote in this course of action, then any determination would only be after the election. Thus, if Magee was so concerned about what is happening to McKinnon and other neighbourhood centres then where has he been for the past 18-24 months? Why does this crop up only now – 2 months out from election? Why all his votes for permits that we’ve previously pointed out? And why oh why, is so much of what comes out of this councillor’s mouth simply wrong, incorrect, and the opposite of the truth? What would help Magee’s election ambitions is that instead of lambasting VCAT again and again, he and his colleagues undertook to act upon resident wishes and review the appalling zones and rewrite the incompetent planning scheme. That would surely get him votes!

 

September 6, 2016

Election Flyers: Hyams ‘Recycled’!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

img001Scanned Image 122670000-1Pages from Community-Satisfaction-Survey-2016

 

September 4, 2016

Election Flyers: Don Dunstan – Rosstown Ward

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

We reproduce only part of the 4 page flyer here.

p3 001

Page 1

Page 2

Page 4

 

 

September 3, 2016

Elections & Stooges!

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

Greens, independents say council fight set to be fairer after how-to-vote cards scrapped

Megan Bailey, Cranbourne Leader

September 2, 2016 2:15pm

CHANGES to postal ballot packs could make council elections fairer by making it harder for hopefuls relying on dummy candidates to get votes. State politicians last week voted to ban how-to-vote cards in postal ballot packs.The move was sought by the Liberals and backed by the Nationals and Greens.

Labor voted to keep the cards in the packs earlier this year, saying removing them would increase informal voting.

The change will mean that election candidates who plan to use dummies will have to spend more money sending their preference information to voters or pay to mail out brochures for dummy candidates running on their behalf.

“This is a good move but we’re yet to hear whether the VEC have been told by the government that these will be the rules for the election,” Victorian Greens leader Greg Barber said.“We hope the government doesn’t do something dodgy to try and reinstate preferences and stooge candidates.”

Former Casey councillor Steve Beardon, who said he was now planning to run in October, said the decision was great news.“Independents have the greatest opportunity now more than ever to take control of council and return it to the people, to our communities,” he said.

Rex Flannery, who earlier in the year told Leader he felt he had no choice but to use dummy candidates in this election, said it would even the playing field for independents. “Four years ago when I ran in the Springfield Ward, I was subjected to eight candidates out of eleven placing myself at the bottom of the ballot paper,” he said. “This will make way for fewer dummy candidates running and give all independents a fairer chance of winning. “Only those candidates who want a chance to become a councillor will publish a brochure to send out to the residents and they will see who the real candidates are.”

Cr Gary Rowe, who will stand for election this year, said the decision may stop the manipulation of the election process.“There will still be “dummies” running in every ward but hopefully fewer of them,” he said. “They can be identified by lack of a genuine campaign, checking the flow of preferences and where they end up.“The ‘real’ candidate is the ultimate beneficiary of the preference flow.”

Monash councillor Geoff Lake said changes to how-to-vote cards were ‘overwhelmingly opposed’ by councils.  “If the opposition consulted councils, like the government recently did on this very issue, they would be aware that the overwhelming majority of the local government sector opposed this change,” he said. “Voters who are used to receiving a how to vote card whenever they vote are now going to be on their own when voting at these elections — in some situations with more than 20 boxes to number.”

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/greens-independents-say-council-fight-set-to-be-fairer-after-howtovote-cards-scrapped/news-story/ba230ecff55d88bf39bbdb56b38031df

COMMENT

We welcome the absence of How-toVote cards in the election packs sent out to residents. This will not remove dummy candidates  but it will ensure that it makes it that much more difficult for votes to be steered and manipulated in a specific direction.

The Leader article however is not 100% correct. Those councils undertaking attendance voting will still be permitted to hand out How-to-Vote cards in their election packs. Glen Eira has opted for postal voting.

Below we feature part of the ‘application’ process that candidates have to fill out. Question 4 is basically useless in that it asks candidates if they are ‘endorsed’ by any political party. Given that only the Greens officially ‘endorse’ candidates it reveals nothing about the candidates political leanings, nor does it reveal if they happen to be a member of either the Libs or Labor. When the flyers start arriving in letter boxes we urge all residents to carefully scrutinise candidates’ preferences.

Q'naire-pt2

 

 

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »