March 11, 2016

Winds Of Change?

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

One item in the current agenda is fascinating in what it might portend for Glen Eira – especially with a new CEO at the helm. We draw readers’ attention to the following –

  • Council will NOT BE PROCEEDING with its application for a 1.42% rise above the rate cap.

ITEM 9.14 – RATE CAPPING

Things to note regarding the decision not to proceed with the ‘variation’ to the rate cap:

  • A formal council resolution is sought. No formal resolution was sought under Newton to apply for a variation
  • Community consultation was sought in January/February 2016 by external consultants (although not ‘advertised’ and certainly not announced by any official council statement)
  • Result of this consultation is: It is clear that in the absence of better community information and understanding of Council’s finances, and a shared sense of priority around the use of funds generated through a variation, there is insufficient community support to apply for a variation to the rate cap at this time.
  • Figure of $24m shortfall over the ten years of the Strategic Resource Plan if rates capped, necessitating the development of a new Community Plan…..which will seek wide community input on priorities for the next ten years….. This is forecast to be started in 2016 and will be the subject of a further paper to Council.

Why this decision has been made is entirely open to conjecture and only time will tell. We posit the following as some possibilities underpinning this decision:

  • The influence of the new CEO?
  • Council realising that they may not be successful in their application?
  • Strong community opposition on top of all the other problems (ie planning)?
  • Laying the ground for service reductions and vastly increased charges?
  • The fact that councils had to provide evidence in any submission on how the views of ratepayers and the community have been taken into account in proposing the higher rate cap. In Glen Eira there had been no ‘consultation’ of course. Hence a legal obstacle perhaps?

The positives? If there is to be genuine consultation on a new Community Plan, then it is imperative that residents be provided with full information; that their views not only be listened to, but ultimately acted upon through integration and implementation into any subsequent Council Plan/Resource Strategic Plan.

Needless to say, time will tell whether this represents a real shift in culture or whether it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

 

March 10, 2016

More On Skyrail

Posted by gleneira under GE Transport, Miscellaneous
[17] Comments 

Sky rail’s ‘secret expansion’: four-track future looms for Melbourne’s south-east

Date: March 10, 2016 – 12:15AM

Adam Carey

Parts of the planned $1.6 billion sky rail between Caulfield and Dandenong could be demolished within 12 years of being built, and new linear parks and paths beneath the line built over, to allow a new structure with two extra rail tracks.

Two extra tracks for express trains, V/Line and freight, are part of longer-term plans for the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail corridor, and could see parts of the sky rail torn down under a secret deal between government authorities.

The third and fourth tracks have been omitted from the scope of the Andrews government’s sky rail project: the removal of nine of Melbourne’s most congested level crossings and the rebuilding of five railway stations by 2018, just in time for the next state election.

The project will boost capacity on the line by 42 per cent, the government says.

But some time beyond 2018, a future Victorian government will face a painful choice of either building a new rail viaduct down the middle of the two raised viaducts the government is to begin building this year, or potentially acquiring dozens of properties between Carnegie and Hughesdale.

The Level Crossing Removal Authority, which is in charge of the project, insists the sky rail design unveiled last month includes provision for the future construction of a third and fourth track.

But it has refused to reveal basic details of where those tracks will go.

“The third and fourth track is not part of the level crossing removal project,” authority chief executive Kevin Devlin said.

“The alignment of these tracks will be determined in the future, as part of a separate project.”

However, The Age has learned of planning details for the extra tracks.

Public Transport Victoria estimates the extra tracks will be needed from 2030, based on forecast passenger demand for Melbourne’s busiest and most overcrowded rail line.

About 37,000 passengers are expected to travel on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line in the two-hour morning peak by 2030, more than double current levels and thousands more than on any other line in Melbourne.

In planning for this huge growth, PTV and the Level Crossing Removal Authority struck a confidential agreement last year on what can be built now on land where the third and fourth tracks will eventually go.

Under this agreement, sky rail infrastructure that could be demolished or built over for the extra track pair includes shared walking and cycling paths, station platforms, station car parks, lifts, ramps, buildings and minor utility services.

The Level Crossing Removal Authority agreed to this, on the condition that it did not add to the $1.6 billion cost of the current project.

The rail corridor is just 20 metres wide at its narrowest point between Grange Road in Carnegie and Poath Road in Murrumbeena, making it difficult to build four tracks without acquiring residential property along the line.

Edward Meysztowicz​ and his family own a house in Murrumbeena that backs onto the northern side of the line.

In meetings with the Level Crossing Removal Authority, Mr Meysztowicz obtained the dimensions of the planned sky rail structure, and its proximity to his home.

The authority confirmed the viaduct will be 10.6 metres above ground level and 4.3 metres away from his back fence where it runs behind his property. He used those dimensions to commission an illustration of the sky rail from his own backyard.

Mr Meysztowicz runs a business in industrial Dandenong South and insists he supports new infrastructure, even on the rail line behind his home.

But he argues the government is thrusting a cheaper, inferior option on the public, and should spend what it takes to build all four tracks below ground level now.

“Do it once but do it properly,” he said.

Only when the third and fourth tracks are built will the true scale of sky rail be revealed, he argued – a rail viaduct that will dominate and transform the suburban environment far beyond what is depicted in the authority’s promotional material.

Mr Meysztowicz also commissioned speculative images of his neighbourhood with a third and fourth track.

“The sheer bulk of sky rail in the landscape demands cloaking with multi-storey development,” Mr Meysztowicz said.

“This is inter-generational infrastructure our children will be grappling with.”

Jeremy Reynolds, an urban planner who played important roles in Melbourne’s development from the 1970s until his retirement in 2014, agrees that the Andrews government has failed to be up-front with the community about the fact that sky rail is “just part one” of long-term plans for the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail line.

“Given the scale of patronage growth, surely the government should be openly planning for four tracks between Caulfield and Dandenong now,” Mr Reynolds said.

“The Level Crossing Removal Authority does say that the current two track proposal makes allowance for additional tracks to be added in the future and that the future project will be subject to a separate planning, design and consultation process.

“But this has not been made clear to local residents as they gawp at slick videos, paw over designs for linear parks and worry about noise and light consequences of just two elevated railway tracks.”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sky-rail-is-just-part-one-fourtrack-future-looms-for-melbournes-southeast-20160309-gnetq5.html#ixzz42Rog6R4o

 

 

March 8, 2016

The Zones

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

File_Finger_pointing_jpg_-_Wikipedia__the_free_encyclopedia-2

  • Sick of seeing over-development everywhere?
  • Sick of a council that does nothing to ameliorate the damage?
  • Sick of never being genuinely ‘consulted’ on anything – especially the zones?
  • Sick of the system (and council) favouring developers?
  • Sick of feeling helpless?

Well here’s your chance to have your say. The State Government is calling for submissions on the residential zones. Submissions close on the 14th March.

For the purposes of ‘discussion’, the appointed committee has released:

  • An overarching report (ie for all of Victoria)
  • A regional report (Glen Eira is to be found in the ‘southern region’)
  • A ‘list of recommendations’ on the zones

We urge all Glen Eira residents to take this opportunity. The links to the various reports are:

The Overarching Report – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/291569/Residential-Zones-Overarching-Report.pdf

The Southern Region Report – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/291392/Residential-Zones-State-of-Play-Southern-Subregion-Report-.pdf

The ‘Recommendations’ – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/291568/List-of-Suggested-Improvements-to-the-Residential-Zones.pdf

Submissions can be mailed or uploaded to – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/panels-and-committees/current-panels-and-committees/managing-residential-development/managing-residential-development-submission-form

It’s worth pointing out that once more, unlike many other councils, (Moonee Valley, Stonnington, Monash, etc etc) Glen Eira has not tabled its submission, nor has it made it public up to this stage. Thus, no formal resolution by council, and no discussion in chamber, plus no opportunity for residents to ask questions or comment PRIOR to their submission going in. Well, what’s new?

 

March 6, 2016

How To Waste More Of Our Money!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[20] Comments 

STATION AVENUE

The image presents the location (in yellow) of an application that was recently decided by VCAT. The developer got his 3 storeys and 21 dwellings. Council had refused the original application and they were still opposing amended plans that the developer submitted. This VCAT decision, like so many others, deserves highlighting because:

  • The entire area is zoned General Residential 1 (GRZ1) which means 3 storeys – yet council stupidly & unbelievably argued that only ONE SIDE OF THE STREET IS SUITABLE FOR 3 STOREYS!
  • The application met all of the following ‘standards’ – height; permeability; set backs; site coverage
  • It was a ‘consolidated’ lot size of over 1400 square metres – ‘encouraged’ by the planning scheme
  • Traffic and parking were deemed acceptable by Council
  • The ‘consultant’ arguments were diametrically opposed to what the Traffic department has said!

This leads to the central and most important questions:

  • Why has council wasted ratepayers’ money in going to VCAT?
  • What’s the point of hiring expensive ‘consultants’ (tender in September 2012 was for $90,000 per annum) when they are totally hamstrung by the ineptitude of the planning scheme?
  • How much more money has to be wasted before Council stops blaming everyone else and starts doing what it hasn’t done for 14 years – fixing up the planning scheme?

The VCAT member was clearly unimpressed. Here’s some of the judgement –

…the local policy regarding the residential areas of neighbourhood centres expressly encourages the consolidation of sites to promote development opportunities. Thirdly, the maximum height of 10.1m (excluding the lift overrun) of the proposed building is less than the 10.5m maximum building height….

Mr O’Leary (for Council) submitted that the eastern side of Station Avenue principally comprises single and double storey detached dwellings, with some recent two storey contemporary developments. He advised that the Council sees the eastern side of the street as unsuitable for three storey development.

Mr O’Leary correctly highlighted that the purpose of the GRZ includes ‘To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area’. However, the purpose does not refer to respecting the existing character and in this instance there is no neighbourhood character policy or statement of preferred character. The purpose of the GRZ must be read with reference to the policy regarding housing diversity areas.

The Housing Diversity Area Policy is not about respecting the existing neighbourhood character. There is no preferred neighbourhood character nominated for such areas.

I agree with Mr Bromley (for developer) that it is not self-evident that a two storey development would be more appropriate, as suggested by the Council’s Urban Designer. Rather, the general residential zoning, the central location within the neighbourhood centre and the consolidated site suggests that the height should not be restricted to the two storey scale that is allowed in a NRZ.

Furthermore this is not a case where there is any issue of a suitable transition to land in a NRZ. The subject land is central to the neighbourhood centre, close to the commercial heart and not near land in a NRZ.

There is no basis for distinguishing between the eastern and western sides of Station Avenue, at least in terms of the streetscape. They have the same planning controls. As I have already noted, the ‘consolidation of sites to promote development opportunities’ is specifically encouraged for the residential areas of neighbourhood centres.

There is also clear compliance with ResCode Standard B 20 (North-facing windows). To the east, there would be some additional overshadowing in the afternoon, but well within ResCode Standard 21 (Overshadowing open space).

With respect to visual bulk, there are no proposed walls on the boundaries and there is easy compliance with ResCode Standard B17 (Side and rear setbacks), especially at the upper level. The rear part of the building is cut into the land, so that the maximum height at the rear is 8.8-9.3m.

Regarding the statutory requirement for car parking, as set out in clause 52.06, the proposal provides the full complement of spaces for residents but only three spaces, instead of four, for visitors. ..In response to referral of the application, the Council’s traffic engineers accepted the reduction of visitor car spaces. However, Mr O’Leary submitted that there should be four spaces, arguing that the area is already under pressure for on-street parking due to various factors, including commuter and employee parking.

The Council’s traffic engineers have not raised any issues about the traffic implications of the proposal. The traffic report accompanying the application concluded that ‘the site traffic and access location is expected to have minimal impact on the function and safety of the surrounding road network’.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/305.html

 

March 3, 2016

A Resident’s Point Of View

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[56] Comments 

We’ve received the following email as a response to our previous post on the censure motion against Lobo. We’ve put it up in full.

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

The positions of the bullies on our Council are untenable. As can be seen above, they have clearly defamed Cr Lobo. The remaining question is whether there is any defence available to them.

But first a recap. A meeting was held on 20 Oct 2015, without the required notice and with no explanation for lack of notice. The meeting was closed to the public on spurious grounds, as it has since emerged it wasn’t related to protection of council property, and it has not been demonstrated that holding the meeting in public would prejudice the Council or any person. Since we now know what the real business being transacted was, it is clear that holding the meeting in public would not prejudice Council or any person.

The business transacted concerned whether a jewish security firm providing security services to a jewish organisation conducting an event on Council land could carry guns. This wasn’t strictly Council business as Council admits its business was to decide whether to accept a booking and if so, what conditions would be placed on the permit. Nevertheless it gave its imprimatur to the request.  When details leaked, there was a furious reaction. Certain members of council, stunned by the criticism of their actions, went on the attack, inveighing against their many critics.

An attempt to remove confidentiality from the secret minutes surrounding their secret resolution was defeated on predictable lines. Cr Lipshutz and Cr Hyams made clear to their faction that under no circumstances did they want what they did exposed.

At a bitter Council meeting held 15 Dec 2015, Cr Hyams attacked anybody who didn’t wholeheartedly support him, which included Crs Lobo and Delahunty. Cr Hyams imputed that Cr Lobo was of “very bad character”. The Mayor allowed Cr Hyams’ tirade to proceed unchecked.

Council has [deliberately?] chosen not to publish what was said, but we have a partial record from Glen Eira Debates and from The Leader. Cr Lobo pointed out, accurately, that personal security “is not our business”. It appears the comments that Council are alleging to be racist and antisemitic are [as reported by The Leader] ““Maybe people in that community wouldn’t have to worry about being attacked if they didn’t draw attention to themselves”. In this entire inept saga Council hasn’t actually made clear what the comments are that it considers to be racist and antisemitic. They were reminded of that by their own lawyer.

Cr Hyams, losing touch with reality but confident of his power-base, called the comments “probably the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard said in a council chamber”. Cr Pilling in an abuse of his position asked Cr Lobo to withdraw his comments without giving reasons as required by 236(2) and 236(3). Under pressure, Cr Lobo withdrew his remarks.

The Leader wrote this up as “If you say Jews deserve the attacks that happen to them because of the way they behave, then you can’t characterise that as anything other than anti-Semitism,” Cr Hyams said. Note that it is NOT what Cr Lobo said. It is not a fair comment, and probably not an honest opinion given it isn’t based on proper material.

Cr Lobo subsequently published clarifications in The Leader about his remarks. He said, “I am not and never have been in favour of non-police personnel carrying guns in public places” and “My concern was about guns being carried by non-police personnel on council property that belongs to all residents of Glen Eira City”. I share his concerns. I continue to interpret Cr Lobo’s comments as rejecting the exceptionalism involved in a subset of the jewish community expecting, indeed demanding, special privileges.

Fast-forward to the 23 Feb 2016 meeting for yet more spite and insanity, thoroughly documented above. Although Council provided no evidence, no definitions, no arguments, nothing, to substantiate its claims, it decided to advertise its defamatory comments directed at Cr Lobo. The hapless Cr Pilling allowed the jewish councillors to spout their bile, which was mostly irrelevant and should have been the subject of Points of Order on the grounds of irrelevance. What was the relevance of a quote from a letter concerning a german-born physicist? Did Cr Pilling really think it was appropriate to equate Cr Lobo with the Kommandant of Auschwitz?

Cr Lobo has been bullied repeatedly. That’s a fact. I don’t agree with the repeated abuses of points of order to silence him. Whether the motivation is racism, just plain bigotry, or some other reason remains to be seen. I hope Cr Delahunty regrets voting in support of the second Motion after speaking against it.

Cr Hyams made mention of the heightened security environment. The Australian Government has the National Terrorism Threat Level currently set at “Probable”. The likely targets are listed as “military, police and security agencies” although it notes “indiscriminate attacks are increasing, and the risk to the general public in Australia remains”. I searched but I saw no mention of the jewish community as having a different risk profile to the general public.

The Australian Government does provide specific advice to people to minimize their exposure to threats: “Avoid dress and behaviour that might draw attention to yourself”. Council has condemned Cr Lobo for providing the same advice that the Australian Government provides. I look forward to Council explaining itself to the Human Rights Commission.

 

March 3, 2016

The Censure

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[9] Comments 

Pilling moved motion. Seconded by Okotel.

This Council censures Cr Oscar Lobo for his racist and anti-Semitic comments made by him at the Council meeting held on the 15th December 2015 which as reported online in the local Leader newspaper of the 16th December 2015 were that “Maybe people on the [Jewish] community wouldn’t have to be worried about being attacked if they didn’t draw attention to themselves’”. The Council recognises and acknowledges that Australia is a worldwide leader in multi-culturalism and all communities whether religious, national, ethnic or of whatever nature ought to be able to participate in society without fear or recrimination. The Council unreservedly condemns Cr Oscar Lobo’s comments and disassociates itself from him them as reported in the local Leader newspaper on 16 December 2015. Cr Lobo has been given the opportunity since then by the Councillor group on a number of occasions to apologise and withdraw these remarks. He has chosen not to do so. Council encourages Cr Lobo to undertake counselling and the Council is prepared to facilitate same.

This Motion is to be prominently placed on Council’s website, published in the next Glen Eira News and disseminated to

  • The Leader Newspaper;
  • The Australian Jewish News
  • The Herald-Sun
  • The Age
  • The Australian

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously

PILLING: said he had requested the report and that this is something that ‘shouldn’t happen’ but ‘it did’ and even though it is ‘unfortunate’ council ‘has to deal with it’. Claimed that the motion ‘explains our reasoning and distaste for comments like this’. It also ‘encourages’ the councillor to ‘get counselling’. Pilling’s ‘proudest’ moment as mayor is to officiate at citizenship ceremonies where ‘we get to emphasise what a great country this is’ and where ‘all cultures and religions are equal’. Said that Lobo’s comments at last council meeting and the December 2015 meeting go ‘against all values’.

OKOTEL: said that’s it’s ‘important that as a council we stand together’ and ‘that no-one who makes racist comments’ whether in chamber or elsewhere should go without being accountable ‘for those actions’. ‘It is absolutely appalling’ that such comments ‘could be uttered in this council chamber’. Therefore it’s ‘important’ that council ‘take a strong stance and show the community that that will not be tolerated’. Councillors are ‘leaders in the community’ and therefore have to take a ‘leadership role and show that this is not acceptable’.

LIPSHUTZ: read out from a letter he claimed he had received from an OAM individual (Mr. Goldhammer) which included rhetorical questions about famous Jewish individuals such as Einstein, ‘or is it because they produce doctors, lawyers’ architects and musicians and ‘how do they draw attention to themselves?’ Some of them ‘wear skullcaps’ so they can be identified, like ‘buddhists or for that matter Muslims’. Maybe ‘in your mind they draw attention to themselves because you can’t figure out’ how such a small percentage of jewish people contribute so much to society. They don’t draw attention to themselves ‘but it is you Cr Lobo and people like you’. Lobo should ‘hang’ his ‘head in shame just like the perpetrators of violence’ who place blame on the people. Maybe Lobo ‘falls into that category’ of saying that ‘women who get raped’ bring it on upon themselves? ‘Shame on you’ for your ‘bigotry’. (end of letter). Lipshutz then said he had read a book on the ‘capture of the commandant of Auschwitz’ and this reminded him of Hannah Arendt’s comment ‘the banality of evil’ and ‘you can’t find anyone more banal that Cr Lobo’. Said that Lobo had received the letter and been ‘given every opportunity’ to say ‘I didn’t understand what I said’ or ‘I’m sorry for what I said’. ‘I didn’t mean what I said’ and ‘I apologise’. Claimed that other councillors had also asked him to ‘please say that’. Lobo refused – ‘he won’t say it, he refuses to say it and he won’t turn up’. ‘That is frankly disgusting’. Said that there is ‘no place for bigotry in this council’. Said that if he said that women were to blame for being raped ‘I would be pilloried’ and the same if he said that ‘victims bring it upon themselves’. Lobo ‘has said that about the Jewish community’ and that is ‘reprehensible’ and he should be ‘condemned in the loudest’ manner possible.

Lobo felt so strongly about being a councillor that when he was elected he had ‘a number plate Cr Lobo’. ‘well let his name ring loud and clear in the Australian, The Age’ etc. ‘This man is a bigot’ and Lobo is the ‘one man’ in the council ‘who is racist’. Started speaking about Lobo standing for Mayor and ‘every time’ he didn’t get elected and would say’ you didn’t vote for me because of the colour of my skin’. Said that councillors don’t vote against ‘someone because of their gender’ or their religion. Councillors vote for mayors or deputy mayors ‘because of the person who they are’. Lobo has ‘for some reason a problem about the Jewish community’. ‘Well, I have a problem about him’. Lipshutz said he will continue to have a problem with Lobo until the latter can stand up and say ‘I was wrong’.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Okotel and Lipshutz and thought it was ‘vital’ that Lobo’s comments be ‘condemned’. Said that it ‘concerns me’ that Lobo hasn’t ‘apologised’ and that he is the victim of racism. Claimed that there is an ‘expectation’ that elected people behave with ‘decorum’ and in a ‘respectful and dignified manner.’ Hoped that this was true and that she is ‘saddened’ that the standards may not be fulfilled.

SOUNNESS: said he supports the motion and is looking forward to an apology.

MAGEE: said that what is ‘disappointing’ is that for ‘so many years’ council has worked with Lobo and ignored ‘so many’ of ‘the things he has said’. His response has been ‘English is not my native tongue’ but ‘that should never be used as an excuse’. Said that ‘there’s right and wrong in every language’ and Lobo knows this. Lobo has been given the opportunity to apologise and that ‘he was here half an hour before this meeting’ and then walked out. He was asked ‘to understand that it’s not just anti-semitic but racist’. Went on that Lobo ‘is a decent man – he’s got a lot of decent qualities’ but ‘he has got a flaw that he doesn’t recognise’ in ‘how much his words can hurt’. Said that Lobo doesn’t understand that ‘this isn’t about his religion’ or his being ‘Goan or Indian’. ‘It’s about the things he says and the context’ in which ‘he says them’. Lobo needs to be the councillor that people voted for. The gallery can see that ‘we don’t always agree’ as councillors and sometimes ‘we use theatre’ and ‘language’. Said he has got great respect for the ‘councillor group’ and that when they put up their hands to vote ‘only you know why you voted for something’ but he respects their view. Lobo knows this because he is ‘a grown up’ and ‘has the intelligence to know that’. Hoped that ‘one day’ Lobo would apologise and undertake counselling.

HYAMS: ‘commended’ Pilling and Okotel for their motion especially since they are Mayor and Deputy Mayor and this shows the ‘gravity’ with which they view the situation. Multiculturism is one of the things that is so ‘great about Australia’ and ‘racism is the major threat to multiculturalism’ and is also ‘abhorrent in every way’ and is ‘ultimately responsible for’ some of the ‘greatest crimes ever committed’. As ‘community leaders’ councillors have an ‘obligation to stand against racism’ especially ‘when it occurs in our own council chamber’. ‘There is no question in my mind that Cr Lobo’s comments were racist’. Saying that a ‘minority brings attacks upon themselves’ by ‘drawing attention to themselves’ then that is ‘blaming the victims’ and is ‘therefore undeniably racist’. Quoted from a response by the chair of the Anti-Defamation League on Lobo’s comments – (reading out) that ‘Jews are being blamed for being victims of racial and religious violence’. Letter said that ‘this is one of the oldest and most pernicious anti-semitic myths’. Letter asked Lobo to apologise and that they expected an elected representative to foster ‘unity and not stoke the flames of division’. Hyams hoped that Lobo had read this. Said that multiculturalism is ‘about sharing your culture’ with the community ‘so you draw attention to it’. When Lobo said what he did, Hyams said he asked him to ‘clarify’ and Lobo said what was reported in the Leader. When asked to withdraw ‘he withdrew reluctantly’ and ‘didn’t apologise’. What’s worse is that ‘his behaviour since then has been absolutely appalling’. He has ‘run around telling members of the community that I am bullying him’. At last council meeting when Hyams or Lipshutz spoke ‘he turned his back’ and he ‘suddenly developed a very loud cough when we were discussing this matter’. Thus the ‘perpetrator of the racism showing contempt for the victims of the racism’. Said that it’s like Lobo refusing to apologise for his racism but thinking that ‘we should apologise for objecting to it’. The question then is ‘what do we do about it’. Said the report tabled was ‘general’ and in suggesting a conduct panel, that that was ‘costly and time consuming’ so the motion is better because ‘we send a quick but unequivocal message that comments like that will not be tolerated’.

DELAHUNTY: commented on Hyams use of multiculturalism and that ‘we’ should do more than ‘tolerate’ but ‘celebrate’ different cultures and ‘cooperate’. We are lucky to ‘live’ in such a ‘diverse and multicultural community’. Said that sharing cultures, and it’s important ‘for us to hear’ Lipshutz’s history which he hasn’t mentioned. This is then ‘important’ for ‘how it informs his decision making’ which ‘everyone’s cultural background does’ and that’s why he is so ‘articulate’ and ‘adamant about this particular issue’. Her relatives came ‘on her majesty’s service’ as ‘convicts because they stole stuff’ and they were the ‘first Poles to land in Australia’. ‘So how does that inform my decision making?’ Said it makes ‘her feel very lucky’ and ‘obligated’ and obligated to multiculturalism and to make sure that ‘this great country is better than Cr Lobo imagines it’. Therefore she ‘supports this motion of condemnation’.

PILLING: agreed with comments and thought that ‘ultimately we are sending a strong message to the community’ and it’s in their hands ‘whether people get re-elected’. ‘I hope this sends a strong message’.

MOTION PUT & PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

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

Pilling then moved second motion. Okotel seconded.

The Council censures Cr Oscar Lobo for the remarks made by him that he has been the subject of racism in the Council Chamber. Cr Lobo has been given the opportunity by Councillors on a number of occasions to substantiate his remarks and he has chosen not to respond. Council categorically rejects such allegations as having no truth and deplores that Cr Lobo has sought to divert attention from him by making such unsubstantiated allegations. Council is colour blind and has never discriminated against any Councillors by reason of colour, religion, race, gender or background. Racism and anti-Semitic remarks will not be tolerated. Council encourages Cr Lobo to undertake counselling and the Council is prepared to facilitate same.

This Motion is to be prominently placed on Council’s website, published in the next Glen Eira News and disseminated to

  • The Leader Newspaper;
  • The Australian Jewish News
  • The Herald-Sun
  • The Age
  • The Australian

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

PILLING: said as Mayor he was ‘very concerned’ about Lobo and that he had ‘sent him emails’ and ‘approached’ him on numerous occasions for him to ‘re-educate’ himself and ‘think back on what he had done’. ‘He chose not to do’ these things. Said that ‘initially’ councillors ‘tried to be encouraging of some further understanding’ but this is just ‘terrible behaviour’ which council ‘cannot put up with’.

OKOTEL: said that for her ‘there had never been any racism’ from councillors except for his racism. ‘As a person of colour’ she ‘believes that all my councillor colleagues’ are ‘colour blind’. Hoped that Lobo ‘does take the opportunity to re-educate himself’ about ‘what it means to make racist comments’.

LIPSHUTZ: even though he often agrees with Magee he can’t agree that Lobo ‘is a decent man’. Said that in the book on Auschwitz commander ‘he spent his days killing jews in the gas chamber’ and then ‘happily went home and played with his kids’. ‘He was a decent man’ living a ‘normal life’ then. ‘No he wasn’t. He was a monster’. So ‘when someone can stand up and blame his fellow councillors for racism’ then ‘that is not a decent man’. A year earlier Lobo ‘spoke about Australia as a racist country’ and ‘advising migrants not to come to this country’. Australia ‘welcomed him’ so ‘who is racist’?’ Referred to a Hebrew expression which means ‘Never again’. Stated that his parents were ‘concentration camp victims’ and ‘after the war my father killed Nazis’ and ‘he said never again’. As ex president of anti defamation he wanted to ‘make sure that anti-semitism’ would never be ‘tolerated’. So when Lobo can ‘defame the officers around me’ and ‘defame’ councillors by saying ‘he was the victim of racism’ then ‘how dare he’. ‘Everyone knows that he is the only racist here’. Whenever he stood for mayor and was rejected he would say ‘it is because of the colour of his skin’. ‘What nonsense!’. People in gallery who have watched him would ‘realise why he has never been the mayor’. ‘He is an embarrassment to this council’ and ‘it’s got nothing to do with racism’ or the colour of his skin. Thought that it was ‘high time that Cr Lobo understands the absolute contempt this council has of him’. Hoped that the papers publish this and that Lobo reads it so he understands that ‘he is unfit to be a councillor’.

HYAMS: said that what’s even worse is resorting to claims of racisms to ‘use against’ those you don’t like. The Leader reported Lobo’s comments that he has suffered ‘racism’ and that was because Lobo ‘didn’t like that he was being called on points of order’ and ‘because his campaign for the mayoralty wasn’t going as well’ as he had hoped. Said that he’s been ‘accused’ by people of ‘not wanting to vote for Lobo because of the colour of his skin’ and he is offended by this. Lobo ‘has confirmed to me that he does feel that way’. Said that Lobo hasn’t got any proof about racism except ‘that he wasn’t getting his way’. Said that the points of order were raised because Lobo ‘was behaving’ in an inappropriate way and ‘needed to be called to order’. Claimed that the ‘mayoralty isn’t handed around’ to anyone who ‘wants it’. ‘The person must be up to the job’ and councillors have to be confident that they can do the job. Lobo’s ‘behaviour last week shows he is not appropriate for the job’ as does his comments. Claimed he could ‘cite numerous other incidences’. ‘The fact that he blames this on racism without basis proves that he is not an appropriate person to be mayor’. Thought that it was ‘appropriate’ for council to ‘distance ourselves from these racist’ comments.

DELAHUNTY: said that she was ‘a little uncomfortable’ with the motion because Lobo has said that ‘he feels he is being treated differently because of the colour of his skin’. Said ‘I’ve not seen that’ and as Hyams has said he hasn’t provided ‘evidence to support that’. But in Australia to ‘seek redress’ and ‘speak about’ how you feel you’ve been ‘treated differently’ ‘that extends to him as well’. If Lobo feels this way then ‘he is entitled to say so’. Said she hasn’t ‘witnessed it’ nor does she think ‘I’ve done it’. But ‘to put his hand up and to say that’s how he believes he’s been treated’, then ‘that’s his right’. Said that if Lobo were present she would say to him that she’s sorry ‘you feel that way’ and that she doesn’t believe ‘it was anyone’s intent’ but ‘intent is not the test’. Therefore to ‘say he hasn’t the right’ is a ‘little bit uncomfortable for me’. Thought that ‘it was deserving of a broader consultation’ and she wishes ‘that he would have participated in that’. He might have told us ‘how’ he felt we might have ‘treated him unfairly’. There might have been conversations ‘about how that wasn’t the intent and perhaps moved on from that’. So ‘while I don’t believe it to be true’ she agrees with Okotel that the council is ‘blind’ to colour. She supports the motion because ‘factually it reads correctly’.

SOUNNESS: Lobo was elected by the community. From ‘my point of view’ Lobo does do things ‘well’ as part of his ‘service’ to the community. But other ‘parts’ that Lobo does, ‘I have grave questions’. Said the motion uses ‘strong language’ and ‘I am very uncomfortable’ with censure. Said that from the things ‘that I’ve heard – some in private, some in public’, Lobo has had opportunities to ‘substantiate how he has been treated’. Sounness said he would have liked to understand ‘what I might have done’ but ‘that was never brought forward’. He remains uncomfortable ‘from the point of view of the community that elected’ Lobo and ‘he represents that community really well’ but ‘there’s more than just representing’. So he supports the motion.

ESAKOFF: said that ‘there’s no doubt that’ this is ‘uncomfortable’ but the issue ‘is uncomfortable and is an issue we must deal with’. For Lobo ‘to accuse us of racism’ and it’s ‘unfounded’ ‘needs to be censured’. Said that Lobo ‘tries very hard’ for his constituents, ‘there’s no doubt about that’ but ‘there is certainly a problem here’ and ‘I don’t think I need to go any further’.

MAGEE: said that last year when he became mayor ‘I knew where the challenges would come from’. ‘Within a few months’ he was ‘constantly as Mayor calling points of order’ to ‘stop Cr Lobo from saying’. Lobo would ‘start’ and ‘then disappear’ and Magee had to call him back to order ‘many, many times’. Residents then asked Magee ‘why do you do that and you don’t do it for the white fellas?’ Said you ‘can stand’ in Bentleigh or elsewhere and ‘argue it out, but it’s not an argument you are going to win’. Said he ‘put up with this’ for a year. Thought that ‘there is something that we can work with’ in regards to Lobo. ‘we can’t just give up. We need to give him every opportunity’.

PILLING: agreed with speakers and said that this is ‘serious’ and is the first censure motion in his time as councillor. ‘This is a quite serious thing to do’ but it’s ‘something I think we have to do’ and ‘to show the community’.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

March 2, 2016

Politics – Or Racism & Bullying?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[27] Comments 

lr

 

March 1, 2016

What A Farce!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments 

Government, Trustees, and Council should hang their heads in shame for repeatedly turning a blind eye to the continued reprehensible behaviour of the Melbourne Racing Club. We know that the Department, Council, and the Police were inundated with complaints from residents near and far over the recent ‘rave’ concert at the racecourse. And not a word (of course) from Glen Eira City Council nor its trustee representatives.

rave

rad

 

February 29, 2016

Weasel Words, Gagging & Guns In Park

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

Item 9.8

Delahunty moved motion to accept ‘as printed’. Seconded by Magee. The motion was basically to request a public forum with senior police to discuss ‘the policing of events’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she requested this report a while ago in order to discover the ‘best way to engage the community’ and those ‘responsible’ for ‘providing the safety to the community’ at these events. She wanted a public forum so that those responsible ‘could hear community views’ and how some ‘sections of the community feel unsafe’. Thought that council had a ‘leadership role to play’ to ‘put these two groups together’. Said it’s similar to the request for a forum on sky rail. She asked for a request for a report but didn’t want to waste too much of officer’s time in writing it because ‘time is money’ and to ask for a report is ‘to foreshadow a notice of motion’ but there isn’t the ‘ability to actually bring a notice of motion’ so that’s why there was the request for a report. So a forum is so that people can connect with those responsible for security arrangements and for them to ‘hear’ the views that they ‘feel unsafe on the grounds of their religious observations’. Council can’t put this off ‘for another day’. We need ‘to act, we are leaders in the community’. Said this isn’t a re-examination of the ‘issues raised by the public are right or wrong’. It’s simply to say ‘we’ve heard voices in the community’ that they feel unsafe ‘on the grounds of their religious beliefs’ and that is ‘unacceptable’. ‘We are not responsible for their security but we can certainly put them in touch with those who are’.

MAGEE: people want to have ‘confidence’ that their families are safe and that they ‘get home’ safe. In Glen Eira ‘parts of the community’ don’t ‘feel that way all the time’. Delahunty’s motion therefore wants to get that ‘expertise’ so that council can ‘also hear first hand’ what those ‘fears’ are. It’s important to hear ‘all voices from our great city’. Council should be able to ‘allay those fears’ in our parks.

HYAMS: agreed with the ‘sentiments’ that people should feel safe and the ‘general concept’ of a public forum. He opposes the motion because it doesn’t gel with what the original request for a report asked for. The original request was for information about ‘events on council land and facilities’ which is a ‘very broad spectrum’. This report though concentrates ‘very narrowly on one specific issue that arose only through a leak’. Said that ‘basically leaks cannot be trusted, we all know that’. ‘Leakers can say anything’ but ‘those of us who actually do have the respect’ for ‘our councillors and our colleagues’ stick to the Local Government Act. Said that on the weekend they had 8 or 9 thousand people at Princes park in an ‘event of our own’. ‘We had security there’. That doesn’t get into the scope of this report. The ‘proposed forum is very narrowly focused on one newspaper story’ that ‘came up as a result of this leak’ and it ‘should be focused more on more general matters’. Said he voted for the original request for a report but now he doesn’t think that the report ‘represents what I expected when I voted for it’. Anyone who hires a council facility has to ‘make sure’ that ‘they’ve taken security as well’. Repeated council media release where security is ‘provided in co-ordination with police’. This ‘doesn’t accord with what the report says’. Also council is responsible for public safety but it is ‘detrimental to public safety’ if security measures our given out. This is a result of the leak and the ‘only person’ who voted against the October 20th item going into ‘confidential was Cr Delahunty’.

Delahunty queried whether this was ‘relevant’. Pilling asked Hyams to explain.

HYAMS: said he wasn’t ‘insinuating’ that Delahunty was the leak and all he is saying is that voting against the confidentiality of the meeting displays a ‘lack of concern for community safety’. ‘I wasn’t implying even that the leaker is in this room’. Foreshadowed that if the motion is defeated he will move that officers prepare another report that is ‘accord with the scope’ of the original request for a report.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Hyams. Also ‘cross’ about the leak and that ‘Delahunty has said what she said’ given that ‘she voted against’ confidentiality. Said that the original request was for ‘a very wide ranging report’ and ‘seeks information about all our facilities and not just one particular matter’. But this is ‘all about one particular item’ and that there is ‘an unhealthy emphasis on that particular one’. If council wants to ‘look at security for the community, not just one community’ then ‘one needs to have a fulsome report’ on security and not simply ‘one that involved’ the ‘jewish community’. ‘That’s the elephant in the room’. Delahunty ‘didn’t say that but that’s obviously what she meant’. ‘This report deals with one particular event for the jewish community’. ‘we’re talking about leaks’, ‘firearms, about hiding concealed weaponry’. ‘That’s not what this report is about’. It should be about ‘what does council do in relation to party in the park’ and carols and ‘not one that just involved the jewish community’.

ESAKOFF: agreed with Hyams & Lipshutz and that ‘this report is too narrow’ compared with the ‘description for a request for a report’. She voted for the original request ‘on the basis that it was a broad’ look at all events and ‘this report does not address’ the many events.

OKOTEL: agreed with Hyams and this ‘unfortunately’ arose because of ‘public discussions about what had been confidential’. Said that ‘it is disappointing that the report presented to us does single out one community’. She thought that the ‘intention’ of the report was to have a ‘full’ look at all events and their security arrangements and that isn’t ‘what this report’ does.

SOUNNESS: thought that it’s important to understand the concerns and what ‘security arrangements apply’ to ‘sectors’ of the community and ‘not just the jewish community’. Thought that it could still go to a public forum and ‘have a broader conversation’. ‘There’s a lot of other things that can be mentioned’ like what is happening in the city and that ‘some places may be becoming unsafe’. ‘Having a conversation’ with the police on these things will be ‘very much worthwhile’.

PILLING: agreed that ‘the report is fairly narrow’.

DELAHUNTY: found it ‘bizarre’ on comments that her voting against going to in camera be associated ‘with this’. Said that ‘those two decisions are completely consistent’. ‘I believe in public discussion that is transparent and open’ and ‘if you don’t feel safe that’s not fair and we shouldn’t be putting up with that’. Repeated that this is ‘consistent’ and she’s ‘confused’ as to how they’ve been ‘cobbled together’. Also strange that someone agrees with the ‘sentiments’ and ‘general concepts’ of a motion and then would vote against it on the basis that ‘the words used to get there are a little too narrow’. So if people agree with the concept and the ‘need to get there’ then ‘why do you care about the colour of the car you are going in?’ It doesn’t matter which religion. If people are feeling unsafe ‘it is relevant that they do’. When people are saying they don’t feel safe because of their religion ‘then you’ve got an obligation to act’. It could be Christian, jewish, Buddhist. It ‘doesn’t matter’ whoever it is because ‘council has a role to play and we need to do it quickly’. ‘Putting it off’ because the ‘way’ of getting there ‘is a little too narrow is absolutely just nonsense’. Thought that there’s more going on here and that it’s that ‘people don’t want other issues brought back to the floor’. ‘We are not re-prosecuting those issues. Let’s move forward’. Moving something forward is what they did when they voted for the level crossing forum and it’s what they are going ‘against now’. ‘Talk about inconsistent views. There are some inconsistent views right there’.

MOTION PUT and MOTION LOST. VOTING IN FAVOUR – DELAHUNTY, MAGEE AND SOUNNESS. AGAINST – PILLING, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL

 

 

February 26, 2016

More Lipshutz & Magee Bullshit!

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

VCAT WATCH

There was only one decision in this item – 21-25 Nicholson St., Bentleigh. Council refused a permit and VCAT granted the permit. Here’s what our luminaries had to say on this –

LIPSHUTZ: ‘true to form VCAT knocked it back’. Called this ‘infrastructure stupid’ because both the government and VCAT are ‘allowing infrastructure to grow when there is no infrastructure’. It’s okay that ‘Bentleigh Station is there’ and there is a car park, but when people visit there is ‘insufficient car parking’ and even on a Sunday along Glen Eira road there are ‘traffic jams’ and the government and VCAT ‘allows for high rise development’. Here there is one high rise but ‘what happens’ is that ‘the next one comes along’ and ‘VCAT says because you’ve got one’ the rest are okay and ‘suddenly the whole character of the street changes’. Said that Bent Street is the perfect example of this and ‘this is happening in this street as well’. So there are large developments without infrastructure and ‘not complying with our own policies’. Asks why bother having policy when ‘VCAT simply over-rules us’? Councillors are at ‘the coal face’ and ‘we are the ones who know what is going on’ and VCAT doesn’t.

MAGEE: said this was ‘an important decision by VCAT’. Permit was refused by Manager meaning that it didn’t get to first base of a Delegated Planning Committee or even a Planning Conference but was knocked out straight away. ‘It failed the very first time’ it was looked at. ‘It was fundamentally flawed’ and did not meet planning scheme requirements. ‘Our planning scheme is your planning scheme’ and the ‘Minister actually approved it’ but ‘when it goes to VCAT, VCAT ignore it’. When manager’s refuse it, it is ‘so flawed there is not point’ in going on to a council meeting. So VCAT ‘can come in over the top of 144,000 residents’ and ‘that’s a bloody disgrace’.

COMMENT

Once again the Lipshutz and Magee comments should be revealed for what they are – playing the blame game and utter, unadorned bullshit! Add this to council incompetence, the zoning and the lack of any decent and clear preferred character statements in the planning scheme and it’s no wonder that VCAT overturns so many Council refusals.

For starters, one of councils grounds for refusal was that this site is in the General Residential Zone and therefore doesn’t respect the ‘neighbourhood character’. Well, surprise, surprise! It is NOT in the General Residential Zone as the refusal stated, but in the RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE. Obviously council planners don’t even know their own planning scheme! Here is what the member said on this monumental blooper –

Mr O’Leary advised as a preliminary matter that Council would not pursue its first ground of refusal as clause 32.08 refers to the General Residential Zone that is not applicable and the purposes of the Residential Growth Zone do not refer to existing neighbourhood character.

Then there’s this statement which becomes even more significant when the planning scheme has no preferred character statements for housing diversity, except to say that there will be change expected. Whooppeeee!

The site and adjoining and nearby land are included in the Residential Growth Zone. The purposes of the zone and planning policy encourage the area to be redeveloped more intensively than the prevailing built form, hence the prevailing character of the area is not a constraint.

AND AGAIN –

Neither the purposes of the RGZ or clause 22.05 refer to the character of the neighbourhood as a benchmark for the way a development might fit into the area. The Tribunal has consistently found that land within the Urban Villages is encouraged to be developed more intensively than the prevailing housing that is in garden settings. New development is to be measured by reference to a preferred or emerging character rather than the existing neighbourhood character. The extent of change between the existing and the new built form can be substantial rather than a gently nuanced transition.

Turning to the development before me, the responsible authority accepts the site is unconstrained, is an opportunity site and is close to the core of the urban village. It accepts it is suitable for higher density housing and it has no criticism of the height of the building.

As for arguing for greater setbacks the member simply has to state – No guidance is provided in the schedule to the zone or local policy to support greater setbacks.

Further, since this is such a tree loving council and they want the street tree retained, then why oh why does their Landscape ‘expert’ differ in his opinion – An existing mature street tree has to be removed for the access to the basement. Council opposes its removal. I am not persuaded by Council’s view because its own Park Services department commented that the tree is inconsistent with Council’s street tree strategy and says it is recommended for removal and replacement…..Furthermore, retaining the tree would require the basement, the access ramp and the ground floor to be redesigned, with uncertain results in terms of dwelling yield, appearance and internal amenity. Requiring this to be done to retain a tree of no particular value, in an area and streetscape where substantial change is encouraged by policy, would be an example of the landscape tail wagging the policy dog. I consider retaining the tree to be an unnecessary constraint on a development that implements many planning objectives.

Maybe if council had some tree protection ‘policy’ in its planning scheme this poor old tree might have survived. But of course, Lipshutz has argued against every move to protect trees in Glen Eira, hasn’t he?

There’s even more on landscaping, that makes one wonder exactly how much preparation and the collection of ‘evidence’ this council is prepared to undertake to have any chance of getting their refusal accepted. Again the member points out –

The basement would be set back 2 metres on the south boundary and 2.55 metres from the other boundaries. The responsible authority thought these setbacks would not be satisfactory because the inground areas could not support taller trees. The landscape officer prefers a 3 metre setback, but his referral advice does not specify the basis for a larger setback.The landscape plan prepared by Memla Pty Ltd proposes Ornamental Pears, Chinese Elms and Crepe Myrtles, all to heights of 5 metres and that more be planted in these setback areas. No evidence was introduced by any party regarding the likelihood that such plantings could not be successful in the setbacks provided……In the absence of any specific directions such as an urban design framework or the like, I consider it is reasonable to accept that buildings in an Urban Village are likely to have less landscaping around building compared to buildings in areas of less intensive development.

On traffic – Clause 22.05 says that development is to take account of established traffic characteristics and not add to identified traffic conflicts. No parties had concerns with traffic generation or congestion and I concur with their views.

On ResCode overshadowing – The responsible authority says the development complies with the standards in clause 55 regarding amenity impacts on neighbours. No walls are proposed on boundaries. It meets the standards regarding daylight to existing windows and solar access for north facing windows. Overshadowing complies with Standard B21 and overlooking of ground level habitable rooms and secluded open space comply with Standard B22. The responsible authority advises the proposed development has a high level of compliance with Standard B17.

On internal amenity – The responsible authority and the Applicant agree the development would provide acceptable amenity for its residents, except for some matters of design detail. All habitable rooms would have access to natural light. All dwellings would be provided with acceptable areas of secluded open space located adjacent to living rooms. Only a small number of dwellings would be located on the south side of the building and so have less solar access than other dwellings. This is acceptable in a larger development.

COMMENT

Lipshutz and Magee really need to find another scapegoat. They also need to ensure that the planning department does not continue to stuff up and should read its own planning scheme before it writes up its grounds for refusal. It should also consider carefully WHY something that meets almost every single ResCode ‘standard’ gets a refusal. Isn’t this simply a waste of ratepayers’ money in order to create the illusion that all council’s problems can be laid at the feet of VCAT?

Most importantly, Lipshutz and Magee need to explain to residents why Glen Eira does not have:

  • Any preferred character statements for housing diversity areas
  • Any design overlays for these sites
  • Any urban design frameworks for its urban villages
  • Exactly what specific ‘policies’ does Glen Eira have about anything to do with housing diversity areas
  • Why Glen Eira does not have a Development Contributions Levy
  • Why Glen Eira does not have a levy imposed on every car parking waiver granted
  • And why oh why the zones are such a complete disaster!

That is the issue and NOT VCAT – especially in this judgement.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »