Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

[BulldogBelle]

Interesting times ahead...

Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton' (http://www.theage.com.au/national/fight-brews-over-bulldog-hilton-20080723-3jzb.html)
Cameron Houston
July 24, 2008

GAMING giant Tatts Group and the Western Bulldogs are mounting a legal challenge against Maribyrnong City Council's decision to knock back a proposed $25 million hotel development dubbed the "Bulldog Hilton".

In legal documents lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Bulldogs' legal team claim the council has made several mistakes in its decision and deny the development would have a negative impact on the community.

The proposal, which includes 65 poker machines, a function room and four-star hotel, was unanimously rejected by the council in May after more than 300 objections.

Residents of Edgewater estate, opposite Flemington Racecourse on the Maribyrnong River, where the hotel would be built, have vowed to take on the football team at VCAT and are considering a class action against developer Delfin Lend Lease, which sold the site to Tatts Group and developer Prizac in 2006.

The council rejected the hotel proposal after finding that it breached local planning guidelines, would damage local amenity and exacerbate problem gambling. The municipality has average annual pokie losses per adult of $1148, the highest in the state.

"If the Bulldogs want to uphold their role as the community club, they will have to rethink the impact of gaming machines on our community and look at other ways of income generation," said Mayor Michelle MacDonald.

Aside from the legal battle between Tatts, the Western Bulldogs and the council, the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation must also approve the plan.

Community group spokesman Enzo De Fazio said Edgewater residents had not been told of a deal between Delfin Lend Lease and Tatts Group to build a large-scale gaming venue on the 95-hectare estate. "A lot of people are pissed off and we are certainly considering taking some kind of class action against Delfin Lend Lease. "We would not have bought into the area had we known that a huge gaming venue with a 20-hour-a-day liquor licence would be within 30 metres of our homes," Mr De Fazio said.

Delfin Lend Lease chief operating officer Bryce Moore said the venue was permitted within the City of Maribyrnong Planning Scheme. "It is proposed on a site within Edgewater Place, which is the commercial and retail precinct within the project," Mr Moore said.

Bulldogs director Neil O'Keefe said the venue's gaming area would account for less than 3% of total floor space. "All sourced machines are being relocated from lower socio-demographic areas as compared to Edgewater, which is among the highest socio-demographic of the municipality," he said.

Greens MP and western suburbs resident Colleen Hartland said: "If the Bulldogs are saying they are doing this to raise money for community interests, they are going about it the wrong way."

[The Coon Dog]

Gee this annoys me!

It's not we are putting extra poker machines into the municipality, just relocating those already there.

There are heaps of Pokies venues nearby, so stopping the Bulldogs relocating theirs will not stop problem gambling.

I sympathise with people who are addicted, but by stopping this, does anyone seriously think it's going to make a blind bit of difference?

There's x amount of gamimg revenue to be divvied up amongst the operators of pokies venues. I'd much rather some of that x went to the club I support rather than pub owners.

This is a furphy. It's not about additional pokies & the effects on the community, it's about relocating existing machines to an alternative venue.

[craigsahibee]

If we could generate the same level of income via more "socially responsible" means I would be rapt. I have been indirectly involved in what poker machines can do and would much rather see them abolished. But the real world doesn't allow that to happen. If it's purely a relocation of existing machines I can't see how it's a huge issue. The only concerns council and residents should have would be increased traffic volumes in the immediate area.

[LostDoggy]

If we could generate the same level of income via more "socially responsible" means I would be rapt. I have been indirectly involved in what poker machines can do and would much rather see them abolished. But the real world doesn't allow that to happen. If it's purely a relocation of existing machines I can't see how it's a huge issue. The only concerns council and residents should have would be increased traffic volumes in the immediate area.
My thoughts exactly, if the bulldog Hilton was going to bring in more poker machines than there alredy are, I would be against it and agree with the decision to reject the plans. But since it is just relocation of our poker machines, I do not see how it is a problem.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Anyone who bets against machines that are programmed to win deserve all they get.

[Stefcep]

Yes and no. Edgewater is a bloody expensive estate to buy in. If i bought property there i wouldn't want anything being built that would devalue the area, particularly as the developer failed to tell the buyers about such a controversial thing as a pokies venue. Clearly this would increase traffic, noise, maybe some unsavioury types, late at nights to the area and would probably reduce the quality of life for the residents. hence it may make it a less desirable area to live in, driving property values down. Personally I'd like to see the damned things banned altogether, but the government makes too much money from them

[Stefcep]

Anyone who bets against machines that are programmed to win deserve all they get.

I, like you can't see the "fun" of losing money. I've walked around the casino seeing people having "fun" losing money they have worked hard for. But for problem gamblers its not that easy. They have an addiction of sorts and need help and support. Remember ex-Bulldog Brad Hardy is/was one, same with David Shwartz

[LostDoggy]

Yes and no. Edgewater is a bloody expensive estate to buy in. If i bought property there i wouldn't want anything being built that would devalue the area, particularly as the developer failed to tell the buyers about such a controversial thing as a pokies venue. Clearly this would increase traffic, noise, maybe some unsavioury types, late at nights to the area and would probably reduce the quality of life for the residents. hence it may make it a less desirable area to live in, driving property values down. Personally I'd like to see the damned things banned altogether, but the government makes too much money from them

I don't think the development is focussed only on pokies - that is a small side area of the development in total.

[strebla]

The REAL issue here is that we will have a quality establishment in the west what is it going to take for the council to realise that the better amenities we have in the western suburbs the better as for driving down propety values what utter rubbish . what about the money this will bring local bussneses not to mention money for our football club .I agree too many pokies in the west but it is the hotels that should not be allowed to have them they should ONLY be allowed in sporting and rsl clubs

[LostDoggy]

Yes and no. Edgewater is a bloody expensive estate to buy in. If i bought property there i wouldn't want anything being built that would devalue the area, particularly as the developer failed to tell the buyers about such a controversial thing as a pokies venue. Clearly this would increase traffic, noise, maybe some unsavioury types, late at nights to the area and would probably reduce the quality of life for the residents. hence it may make it a less desirable area to live in, driving property values down. Personally I'd like to see the damned things banned altogether, but the government makes too much money from them


Geez that's a load of elitist WANK.

Rich estates is PRECISELY where these things should be placed, if they're going to be placed anywhere. For one thing, those from the area who should 'frequent' the place would be able to afford it better and be less likely to be trapped in a 'poverty cycle', the greatest revenue from gambling are from the RICH, not the poor, and putting gambling venues in lower socio-economic areas is the ONE SURE WAY to add problem gamblers to the world.. and we wouldn't want any more 'unsavoury types', would we now.

If we were moving (instead of getting rid of) gambling machines, moving it from a lower socio-economic area to a higher socio-economic area is the ONLY responsible option. Those guys in their gated community of Edgewater can start to live in the real world instead of assuming they can buy their way out of reality, and accept their culpability in the class war before having the GALL to put in narrow-minded and arrogant objections.

AS IF it would drive down property prices. Do you even KNOW how property prices work?

Do you think my apartment in the inner-city is cheaper because it's next to a pub?

Fark me.

[LostDoggy]

Clearly this would increase traffic, noise, maybe some unsavioury types, late at nights to the area and would probably reduce the quality of life for the residents. hence it may make it a less desirable area to live in, driving property values down.

You mean Essendon supporters?

[LostDoggy]

Council has no credibility in this argument.

They seemed to have no issue with approving tacky all night gambling dens like 'The Palms' in Rosamond Road (in a lower income part of Maribyrnong that should perhaps not have these types of machines) but try and build a classy venue with a couple of 'relocated' poker machines in Toorak West (Edgewater) and it's gloves off.

Perhaps another developer with a bigger 'donation' budget has an eye on it??

[Topdog]

Yeah the elitism of those wankers really pisses me off.

Regardless of how it is named they bought property in Maribyrnong and are not upper class people who have some right to everything they want.

[Stefcep]

Geez that's a load of elitist WANK.

Rich estates is PRECISELY where these things should be placed, if they're going to be placed anywhere. For one thing, those from the area who should 'frequent' the place would be able to afford it better and be less likely to be trapped in a 'poverty cycle', the greatest revenue from gambling are from the RICH, not the poor, and putting gambling venues in lower socio-economic areas is the ONE SURE WAY to add problem gamblers to the world.. and we wouldn't want any more 'unsavoury types', would we now.

If we were moving (instead of getting rid of) gambling machines, moving it from a lower socio-economic area to a higher socio-economic area is the ONLY responsible option. Those guys in their gated community of Edgewater can start to live in the real world instead of assuming they can buy their way out of reality, and accept their culpability in the class war before having the GALL to put in narrow-minded and arrogant objections.

AS IF it would drive down property prices. Do you even KNOW how property prices work?

Do you think my apartment in the inner-city is cheaper because it's next to a pub?

Fark me.

Than you for your opinion Mr Marx.

Elitist? Your post smacks of the victim-mentality if some of those who find themselves at the lower end of the soci-economic ladder: Lets blame the better-offs who were all born with a silver spoon in their mouths for all of our failures, lets stick these pokies in to get their money so that we can drag them down to our level and make them pay. I grew up in Yarraville (Severn St), my old man worked for 12 hours a week for 25 years in Borthwicks, Smorgans meats, and later Arnott's biscuits driving a forklift, my old lady was a cleaner, we never had a phone or a car until I was 14, or a color tv. But i took a job at the Coles in Footscray when i was 16, studied hard-and worked- during my time at Uni, and yeah i've got a good job now but I've paid $350,000 in income tax in 16 working years (which has found its way to the unemployed, the single mums, the disabled, the less well to do) and I STILL have a $200,000 mortgage and I now work 50 hours per week raising a family. I don't live in Edgewater, but I thought about doing it, and most of the people there aren't ex-Toorak Toffs, they are people like myself who thought they would buy into an inner-city locality with good facilities, a good environment to raise a family, even if it cost more.

Wake up!!! Why do you think there are more poker machines per capita in Melbourne's West? Its because there is more money to be made from financially-struggling people who think that they can make money by gambling money, and then get into a viscous loop trying to get it back, because they never could afford to lose it in the first place. Those who have the money don't gamble for those reasons. Do you really believe that the people living in Edgewater are all of the sudden going to start gambling there, because they couldn't drive the 3 km they currently have to to get to a pokies venue? The Hotel will survive by drawing outside people into Edgwater, not by attracting the local residents. Your idea that putting a pokies venue in an affluent area will somehow redrees social inequality is just an ill-considered fantasy.

They are proposing a poker machine that has a license to serve/purchase alcohol for 20 out of 24 hours. There is a long-established correlation between access to late night alcohol, gambling and increased traffic flow, drunkedness, criminal activity, noise, violence and other antisocial behavior. Why would any resident want to live near any of THAT? Would YOU?

Your post shows that its you who has little understanding of what determines property values. FYI:
1. Supply and demand
2. Easy availability and access to services such as quality schools, public transport, shopping centres, employment opportunities.
3. Social environment free from crime, violence, and other anti-social behaviour eg public drunkedness, street gangs, public noise.

And yes your inner city apartment IS worth less than an inner-city apartment that is NOT next to a pub.

Your post is the biggest piece of biased one-eyed drivel I ave read. YOU are supporting this Hotel ONLY because its the western Bulldogs that are ban-rolling it. I DON'T support it because THATS the right thing to do.

[LostDoggy]

They are proposing a poker machine that has a license to serve/purchase alcohol for 20 out of 24 hours. There is a long-established correlation between access to late night alcohol, gambling and increased traffic flow, drunkedness, criminal activity, noise, violence and other antisocial behavior. Why would any resident want to live near any of THAT? Would YOU?



The council had no issue building a TACKY gambling and drinking den next to my house (and a primary school)!!

The council also had no issue rushing through approval for other 'less important' developments in Maribyrnong so why turn around and ask the Bulldogs to wait in line???

[Topdog]

YOU are supporting this Hotel ONLY because its the western Bulldogs that are ban-rolling it. I DON'T support it because THATS the right thing to do.

What makes it the right thing to do? Why do you get to decide where it is ok to have a hotel / bar?

There is never a right place to build anything at all but all of these things need to be built in order for us to prosper as a society.

What rights do the residents of Edgewater have that the residents of Footscray and Maribyrnong don't have?

[hujsh]

Wake up!!! Why do you think there are more poker machines per capita in Melbourne's West? Its because there is more money to be made from financially-struggling people who think that they can make money by gambling money, and then get into a viscous loop trying to get it back, because they never could afford to lose it in the first place. Those who have the money don't gamble for those reasons. Do you really believe that the people living in Edgewater are all of the sudden going to start gambling there, because they couldn't drive the 3 km they currently have to to get to a pokies venue? The Hotel will survive by drawing outside people into Edgwater, not by attracting the local residents. Your idea that putting a pokies venue in an affluent area will somehow redrees social inequality is just an ill-considered fantasy.

If there are so many pokies in that area why would people travel to use them?

[LostDoggy]

Your post shows that its you who has little understanding of what determines property values. FYI:
1. Supply and demand
2. Easy availability and access to services such as quality schools, public transport, shopping centres, employment opportunities.
3. Social environment free from crime, violence, and other anti-social behaviour eg public drunkedness, street gangs, public noise.

And yes your inner city apartment IS worth less than an inner-city apartment that is NOT next to a pub.


If you really think something as complex as property pricing can be surmised in your three step 'Property for Dummies' summary, then we have no conversation. As someone's signature here says: "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person."

As a trained and practising architect, whose daily trade is consulting with local and national government, NGOs, and multi-lateral international institutions for infrastructure development in emerging suburban and regional locations in Australia (yes, including the Western suburbs) and developing countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, South and Central America and Africa, I think I may have picked up a thing or two about what makes a place tick market-wise.

--

And thanks, but you don't have to worry about the worth of my inner-city apartment, one of whose greatest attractions is its distinctive heritage-listed 120 year old facade that is PRECISELY the legacy of an old Irish commerce building with a family friendly pub and restaurant on its north-eastern corner, which still runs a bustling trade.

I have no problems with the rich or their (our) right to earn a living and make the best of our lives, and I am very impressed with your life story. However, if the rich think that somehow they can move into a place, gentrify it, and then have the right to kick/keep everyone and everything else out that they somehow deem 'undesirable': that makes me sick.

[LostDoggy]

The council had no issue building a TACKY gambling and drinking den next to my house (and a primary school)!!

The council also had no issue rushing through approval for other 'less important' developments in Maribyrnong so why turn around and ask the Bulldogs to wait in line???

Precisely. Thank you.

[LostDoggy]

What rights do the residents of Edgewater have that the residents of Footscray and Maribyrnong don't have?

EXACTLY.

[LostDoggy]

If there are so many pokies in that area why would people travel to use them?

Good point!

[LostDoggy]

Than you for your opinion Mr Marx.

And for heaven's sakes is it too much to ask in this day and age that we have a discussion about class/economics without evoking 150-year old stereotypes or be haunted by the ghosts of economic theories 50 years out of date. We'll be quoting Adam Smith next.

[Sockeye Salmon]

And for heaven's sakes is it too much to ask in this day and age that we have a discussion about class/economics without evoking 150-year old stereotypes or be haunted by the ghosts of economic theories 50 years out of date. We'll be quoting Adam Smith next.

Adam Smith was cool.

[Stefcep]

If you really think something as complex as property pricing can be surmised in your three step 'Property for Dummies' summary, then we have no conversation. As someone's signature here says: "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person."

As a trained and practising architect, whose daily trade is consulting with local and national government, NGOs, and multi-lateral international institutions for infrastructure development in emerging suburban and regional locations in Australia (yes, including the Western suburbs) and developing countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, South and Central America and Africa, I think I may have picked up a thing or two about what makes a place tick market-wise.

--

And thanks, but you don't have to worry about the worth of my inner-city apartment, one of whose greatest attractions is its distinctive heritage-listed 120 year old facade that is PRECISELY the legacy of an old Irish commerce building with a family friendly pub and restaurant on its north-eastern corner, which still runs a bustling trade.

I have no problems with the rich or their (our) right to earn a living and make the best of our lives, and I am very impressed with your life story. However, if the rich think that somehow they can move into a place, gentrify it, and then have the right to kick/keep everyone and everything else out that they somehow deem 'undesirable': that makes me sick.

My post was never meant to be an all-encompassing guide to property valuations. It was meant to serve the specifics of my argument: that having a gaming house that supplies/sells alcohol to patrons 20 out of 24 hours a day will devalue surrounding properties because it makes living there less appealing to prospective house buyers.


So that would be a RARE building you own then. Meaning that there's not a lot of them in supply. Meaning that its a supply versus demand thing ie point 1 in the "dummies guide to property valuation". And i DID think about rare ie heritage listed properties BUT only after i posted and I couldn't be arsed to repost (because i can't edit my post on this forum). Its interesting that you omitted the heritage listing of your apartment in your original post, giving the impression that it made no difference if a home was located next to a pub to its value. I still stand by my claim that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL a property near to a pub is worth less than a property away from the pub.

But we are not talking about rare heritage listed properties in Edgewater, we are talking about people who bought a place to live in who were never told that a pokies venue and a place that serves/sells alcohol 20 out of 24 hours would be opening up across the road, especially as the developer promoted it as a family ie kids friendly estate.

"Rich keeping the poor out". At what point did anyone say anything about this? If you have the money and desire to live there, who's stopping you? If you don't, you buy/live elsewhere: what's new about that? The issue is a local planning issue where the locals who are going to be affected more by the proposals have a greater right to decide what happens to THEIR bit of Australia that THEY- not you or me- have paid for. Just like YOUR right to do what you have to, to protect YOUR interests in the area that YOU live in. Nothing new with that either.

And BTW I hate the f'en elitist way that you so-called business professionals/developers/leaders blah blah use BS expressions such as "emerging this" and "emerging that" as if they are some sort of organic entities. New suburbs or markets, as the "buzz" phrases go, don't "emerge" from anywhere, they are simply new suburbs or new markets. You all do it to sound intellectually superior and just that little bit smarter than anyone, to justify charging your exhorbitant "consulting" fees.

[Stefcep]

And for heaven's sakes is it too much to ask in this day and age that we have a discussion about class/economics without evoking 150-year old stereotypes or be haunted by the ghosts of economic theories 50 years out of date. We'll be quoting Adam Smith next.


It sounded very very Marxist to me: you know the whole "proliteriate revolting against exploitative, no-grip-on-reality upper classes and taking whats rightfully theirs" theme. Not meant to insult, just highlight the similarity.

Who's Adam Smith?

[Stefcep]

The council had no issue building a TACKY gambling and drinking den next to my house (and a primary school)!!

The council also had no issue rushing through approval for other 'less important' developments in Maribyrnong so why turn around and ask the Bulldogs to wait in line???


It all depends on the individual circumstances. specifically what objections if any were raised by the locals? people need to know that silence on an issue is taken to be acceptance.

but to suggest the council has a vendetta aginst the bullies is hard to believe.

[Stefcep]

What makes it the right thing to do? Why do you get to decide where it is ok to have a hotel / bar?

There is never a right place to build anything at all but all of these things need to be built in order for us to prosper as a society.

What rights do the residents of Edgewater have that the residents of Footscray and Maribyrnong don't have?

I don't, the people living there do, as you also have a right to a say about what happens in your local area, because you will be affcted by it more than anyone else coz you're closest to it.

There ARE right and wrong places to build things, thats why we have local planning departments and the right of local residence to influence what happens in their little patch of Australia.

The residents of Footscray have the same rights to a say as to what happens in Footscray as do the residents of edgewater have to say what happens in edgwater, but the residents in foostcray have less of a right say what happens in edgewater, as do the residents in edgewater having lees of a right to say waht happens in footscray.

[Stefcep]

Good point!

basically because "if you build it , they will come".

the point being argued was that by putting the machines in edgewater you will get the edgewater locals losing their money and that would somehow redress social inequality. i maintain that it would be drawing on the surrounding areas at least as much

and BTW there's no IF about it: Melbournes' West has more machines per capita and lost more on gambling per capita than any other region. thats not surprising, its common to all cities over the world that gambling is highest in so called low socio-economic areas-

[LostDoggy]

It all depends on the individual circumstances. specifically what objections if any were raised by the locals? people need to know that silence on an issue is taken to be acceptance.

but to suggest the council has a vendetta aginst the bullies is hard to believe.

Doh, perhaps the Mayor saying that the Dogs 'could go broke for all she cared'!!!!!!!!!!

End of thread - Goodbye Mayor.

[Stefcep]

Doh, perhaps the Mayor saying that the Dogs 'could go broke for all she cared'!!!!!!!!!!

End of thread - Goodbye Mayor.

Whatever. There'll be no Bulldog Hilton in Edgewater, the residents will see to that. All that anyone has contribute on this debate is the stereotypical victim mentality "we're poor, we get discriminated against, why do we have get poker machines but Edgewater don't". Why? Because the people living in Edgewater give enough of a shit about what happens in their community, and are smart enough to band together and use their democratic rights.

[The Coon Dog]

All that anyone has contribute on this debate is the stereotypical victim mentality "we're poor, we get discriminated against,

That's insulting Stefcep!

By & large, you & Lantern & had a reasonable crack & getting your opposing points of view across, no problems there. No one has to agree with each other on every issue.

I haven't gotten into any stereotypical victim mentality at all.

My concern is all about people running the 'we don't need anymore poker machines in our suburb' argument when infact it's a reloaction of existing poker machines a few kilometres up the road.

How is that stereotypical victim mentality?

[ledge]

Councillors are wannabe politicians and learn spin doctoring as a councillor, what TCD pointed out is just that.

[Stefcep]

That's insulting Stefcep!

By & large, you & Lantern & had a reasonable crack & getting your opposing points of view across, no problems there. No one has to agree with each other on every issue.

I haven't gotten into any stereotypical victim mentality at all.

My concern is all about people running the 'we don't need anymore poker machines in our suburb' argument when infact it's a reloaction of existing poker machines a few kilometres up the road.

How is that stereotypical victim mentality?

I got fed up with the juvenile name-caleing eg"Mayor" insults by several people here, none of which actually acknowledged the points I was making.

What most have ignored are these facts:

1. That the proposal is MORE than just a relocation of existing pokies, the Club wants to sell liquor 20 out of 24 hours per day. Would you want a gambling drunk/gang of drunks pissed off at his/their losses walking past your house throwing a bottle into your car's windscreen/walking past your house at 3 am in the morning?

2. That under our by-laws, EVERYONE has a right to object to ANY development (Bulldogs or not) about what gets built in THEIR neighbourhood. One factor is " Does it fit with the character of the area?". I believe in the rights of the locals to argue what that might mean for them. No-one living in Footscray or Maribrynong or Sunshine or Deer Park has any right to cry sour grapes that just because pokies got put in their neighbourhood then they should go into Edgewater as well. They all had an opportunity to object and argue their case, but they probably didn't, so whose fault is it? Thats the victim mentality that I'm talking about.

3. Everyone is clouding the issue because its their footy club thats bank-rolling it. Would they honestly feel so passionate about it if it was just some faceless corporation? Right lets deny the rights of the locals so that our club can earn more money off gambling and selling alcohol.

[Stefcep]

Councillors are wannabe politicians and learn spin doctoring as a councillor, what TCD pointed out is just that.


As regards to local planning, a Councillor- especially a Ward Councillor's- duty is to protect the interests of the locals they represent, not the business interests of corporations or even (blasphemy, dare I say it)............ a football club. How exactly does the Councillor "win" by denying the bulldogs what they want? OH I get it: he represents the interests of his constituents, which means he may get their Council votes again (or maybe if he/she later runs for State or Federal seat). In other words the Councillor gets rewarded because -wait for it- HE DOES HIS JOB.

Unless you've fought a developer who wants to put something up that will make a heap of money for him AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR LIVING QUALITY you don't know just how important the local planning laws and Council is. This is no different.

[Dry Rot]

Than you for your opinion Mr Marx.

Elitist? Your post smacks of the victim-mentality if some of those who find themselves at the lower end of the soci-economic ladder: Lets blame the better-offs who were all born with a silver spoon in their mouths for all of our failures, lets stick these pokies in to get their money so that we can drag them down to our level and make them pay. I grew up in Yarraville (Severn St), my old man worked for 12 hours a week for 25 years in Borthwicks, Smorgans meats, and later Arnott's biscuits driving a forklift, my old lady was a cleaner, we never had a phone or a car until I was 14, or a color tv. But i took a job at the Coles in Footscray when i was 16, studied hard-and worked- during my time at Uni, and yeah i've got a good job now but I've paid $350,000 in income tax in 16 working years (which has found its way to the unemployed, the single mums, the disabled, the less well to do) and I STILL have a $200,000 mortgage and I now work 50 hours per week raising a family. I don't live in Edgewater, but I thought about doing it, and most of the people there aren't ex-Toorak Toffs, they are people like myself who thought they would buy into an inner-city locality with good facilities, a good environment to raise a family, even if it cost more.



You seem to have such a chip on your shoulder that it makes Tom Williams look fit and ready to play this weekend.

I can't comment on the rest of your post, partly because I have no knowledge of Melbourne geography and demographics and partly because I'm grimly amused (as a Sydney resident) at outrage over a few pokie machines.

We're very familiar with NIMBYs up here.

Having said all that, I'm dead against pokies in general and any small victory against them, anywhere, is welcome.

[Dry Rot]

Adam Smith was cool.

As a single guy, the invisible hand comes in useful sometimes.

[BulldogBelle]

More news on the subject...

Battle lines drawn (http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/62147)
Star News Group
29th July 2008

MARIBYRNONG’S Edgewater residents are gearing up for a long battle after a controversial $23 million development has been taken to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Prizac Development and George Adams – the respective landowner and developer of 31 Edgewater Boulevard – last week lodged an appeal against Maribyrnong City Council’s decision to refuse a planning permit in May.

The original application included a four-storey hotel, bistro, café, and a pokies venue with 65 machines – which has now been increased to 70.

A liquor licence that ran from 7am to 3am was also on the cards. The appeal is based on seven grounds.

The council refused to grant a permit in May and said it was an inappropriate development for the area.

The decision was met with applause from more than 100 residents.

Enzo De Fazio, spokesperson for the Edgewater Community Association (ECA) subcommittee Residents Against Inappropriate Development in Maribyrnong (RAIDM), said the appeal was not unexpected.

He said the group was concerned by VCAT’s growing reputation for approving applications that councils opposed – but vowed the residents would give it their all.

“Of course it worries us, and that’s why we’re continuing to work hard and throw everything at it,” he said.

“(We’re) not resting on our laurels. From our point of view, its just all systems go.

“The momentum’s still there, and the fight is still on.”

Mr De Fazio said the residents did not want situations like the recent assault outside Angler’s Tavern happening on their doorsteps.

The City of Maribyrnong had the second-highest poker machine expenditure for the 2006-07 financial year, with $1148 per adult.

The Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation has yet to grant a permit for the poker machines. A hearing date has not been set.

Fellow resident and president of the ECA Ian Tippet said the residents had not ruled out taking class action against Delfin Lend Lease, which sold the site to Mr Adams.

“Delfin never ever made anybody aware that this type of development would be in our midst, and there’s a lot of anger from practically all of the residents,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Western Bulldogs have wiped their hands of the ruckus.

A spokesperson said the Bulldogs would only be interested in taking up a lease on the development if the VCAT application was successful.

Maribyrnong City Council declined to comment, saying it did not want to jeopardise the outcome of the appeal.

A date for the appeal has not been set.

[Dry Rot]

Just saw this later post

I got fed up with the juvenile name-caleing eg"Mayor" insults by several people here, none of which actually acknowledged the points I was making.

What most have ignored are these facts:

1. That the proposal is MORE than just a relocation of existing pokies, the Club wants to sell liquor 20 out of 24 hours per day. Would you want a gambling drunk/gang of drunks pissed off at his/their losses walking past your house throwing a bottle into your car's windscreen/walking past your house at 3 am in the morning?



Is the proposed development in a commercial or residential area?

If the latter and I lived there, then I'd oppose it too.




2. That under our by-laws, EVERYONE has a right to object to ANY development (Bulldogs or not) about what gets built in THEIR neighbourhood. One factor is " Does it fit with the character of the area?". I believe in the rights of the locals to argue what that might mean for them. No-one living in Footscray or Maribrynong or Sunshine or Deer Park has any right to cry sour grapes that just because pokies got put in their neighbourhood then they should go into Edgewater as well. They all had an opportunity to object and argue their case, but they probably didn't, so whose fault is it? Thats the victim mentality that I'm talking about.



There are NIMBY limits to this. Where do we draw a reasonable line?



3. Everyone is clouding the issue because its their footy club thats bank-rolling it. Would they honestly feel so passionate about it if it was just some faceless corporation? Right lets deny the rights of the locals so that our club can earn more money off gambling and selling alcohol.

I'm not - I have a very, very dim view of our club as an organisation.

[Stefcep]

You seem to have such a chip on your shoulder that it makes Tom Williams look fit and ready to play this weekend.

I can't comment on the rest of your post, partly because I have no knowledge of Melbourne geography and demographics and partly because I'm grimly amused (as a Sydney resident) at outrage over a few pokie machines.

We're very familiar with NIMBYs up here.

Having said all that, I'm dead against pokies in general and any small victory against them, anywhere, is welcome.

No chip, just trying to make a point about the attitude of some here towards the Edgewater residents ie that they didn't earn it, that they exploit the less well off and must be chopped down.

NIMBY"S= Nimban=hippies? right?

If supporting the rights of the locals to have a say about what gets built in their neighbourhoods that they've paid a shitload of money for makes me a Nimby then I guess i am.

[Dry Rot]

No chip, just trying to make a point about the attitude of some here towards the Edgewater residents ie that they didn't earn it, that they exploit the less well off and must be chopped down.



Fair enough and it's not my attitude.





NIMBY"S= Nimban=hippies? right?



No, but I don't hold it against you living well away from Australia's true capital = Sydney.

NIMBY = Not In My Backyard, happens all the time up here.




If supporting the rights of the locals to have a say about what gets built in their neighbourhoods that they've paid a shitload of money for makes me a Nimby then I guess i am.

Kind of, but depends upon the circumstances.

You reckon you have problems? Hell, someone up here paid several million for a Hunters Hill mansion built on a poisonous cancerous 1916 uranium dump.

[Stefcep]

Just saw this later post


Is the proposed development in a commercial or residential area?

If the latter and I lived there, then I'd oppose it too.




There are NIMBY limits to this. Where do we draw a reasonable line?



I'm not - I have a very, very dim view of our club as an organisation.

I enquired about Edgewater at stage 1. It was promoted as a new inner city community with strict restrictions on design and even builder choice, promoting a family focused environment with restaurants, boutique shops, parks, kids playgrounds within walking distance of most homes. There is no way they would've openly promoted a pokies venue/ 20 hour per day alcohol joint because it would have been at odds with what they were trying to achieve and would have affected sales of those properties closest to that venue.

Reasonable line: you ask the questions:

1. what's the likely impact on the locals if the venue is built? Were the locals misled by the developer to the point that it affected their decision to purchase?

2. whats the likely impact on the surounding area if the venue is not built.

3. what alternative locations are there for the developer?

[ledge]

The only point im making is that the councillor said that they didnt want anymore pokies in the area, the fact is there wont be any MORE pokies in the area, they already exist.
The councillor saying we dont want anymore is insinuating more poker machines are coming, that is not true but will fool some people into thinking more pokies are being added.
Thus getting peoples backs up in support of something that just is not true.
That is spin doctoring.
Why cant the councillor just say we dont want the pokies to be moved to Edgewater?
On a personal note I dont have an opinion on it as i dont live in Edgewater.
Whether the pokies are there or not is not what I or TCD are alluding to, its the statement made that is wrong.
Of course residents should decide on things like this but its the councillors job to tell the truth also, not mislead.

[Stefcep]

Fair enough and it's not my attitude.




No, but I don't hold it against you living well away from Australia's true capital = Sydney.

NIMBY = Not In My Backyard, happens all the time up here.



Kind of, but depends upon the circumstances.

You reckon you have problems? Hell, someone up here paid several million for a Hunters Hill mansion built on a poisonous cancerous 1916 uranium dump.

Interesting. i opted not to go into edgewater because its built on landfill because the original site was the Australian Defense Industries site: where they made explosives using toxic chemicals that had leached into the soil..most people living there now don't know this either..

[Stefcep]

The only point im making is that the councillor said that they didnt want anymore pokies in the area, the fact is there wont be any MORE pokies in the area, they already exist.
The councillor saying we dont want anymore is insinuating more poker machines are coming, that is not true but will fool some people into thinking more pokies are being added.
Thus getting peoples backs up in support of something that just is not true.
That is spin doctoring.
Why cant the councillor just say we dont want the pokies to be moved to Edgewater?
On a personal note I dont have an opinion on it as i dont live in Edgewater.
Whether the pokies are there or not is not what I or TCD are alluding to, its the statement made that is wrong.
Of course residents should decide on things like this but its the councillors job to tell the truth also, not mislead.

Fair enough, they're not telling it 100% straight then. There's still the lengthy alcohol trading hours though. Agreed the Councillor SHOULD say that the residents at edgewater don't want this, its THEIR neighbourhood, we agree with them that its not what they bargained for when they bought there, and the Council has a duty to uphold their democratic rights on their merits, just like evreyone else. What's gonna happen to the current venue?

[ledge]

Interesting. i opted not to go into edgewater because its built on landfill because the original site was the Australian Defense Industries site: where they made explosives using toxic chemicals that had leached into the soil..most people living there now don't know this either..

And who has hid the fact of it being a toxic dump
Why wasnt the council out protesting about it if they care about peoples health and other problems?
Wouldnt be because of the almighty dollar would it?
So council cares about 40 poker machines but doesnt care if they all get cancer?
Not having a go at you stefcep just asking the question.
Wouldnt that have been a more important issue?

[Stefcep]

And who has hid the fact of it being a toxic dump
Why wasnt the council out protesting about it if they care about peoples health and other problems?
Wouldnt be because of the almighty dollar would it?
So council cares about 40 poker machines but doesnt care if they all get cancer?
Not having a go at you stefcep just asking the question.
Wouldnt that have been a more important issue?

its the same deal in Cairnlea. i had the opportunity to speak to a developer at Cairnlea- he came into out store- and I asked him about this. He said they dig away the natural ground and fill it with clean soil. they then take soil samples and test for toxic levels of heavy metals to make sure they meet safety standards, and these independent tests are submitted to Council with the permit. So the Council only knows what the scientists/testers/health departments tell them. With this info, council can't knock the application back. i expect its the same with Edgewater.

But for ME i thought "how many times do you here them say 10-15-20 years later when kids start getting cancers coz they play in the dirt that they thought those levels were safe AT THE TIME but now know they are not." Maybe there is no safety issue, but I wasn't gonna find out with my 2 year old playing in the dirt.

And there are structural issues when building on filled land as well to consider.

Thats why I chose not live there.

[Dry Rot]

I enquired about Edgewater at stage 1. It was promoted as a new inner city community with strict restrictions on design and even builder choice, promoting a family focused environment with restaurants, boutique shops, parks, kids playgrounds within walking distance of most homes. There is no way they would've openly promoted a pokies venue/ 20 hour per day alcohol joint because it would have been at odds with what they were trying to achieve and would have affected sales of those properties closest to that venue.

Reasonable line: you ask the questions:

1. what's the likely impact on the locals if the venue is built? Were the locals misled by the developer to the point that it affected their decision to purchase?

2. whats the likely impact on the surounding area if the venue is not built.

3. what alternative locations are there for the developer?

Fair points on the face of it - living away from there, I have no feel for what is happening down there.

[Dry Rot]

The only point im making is that the councillor said that they didnt want anymore pokies in the area, the fact is there wont be any MORE pokies in the area, they already exist.
The councillor saying we dont want anymore is insinuating more poker machines are coming, that is not true but will fool some people into thinking more pokies are being added.
Thus getting peoples backs up in support of something that just is not true.
That is spin doctoring.
Why cant the councillor just say we dont want the pokies to be moved to Edgewater?
On a personal note I dont have an opinion on it as i dont live in Edgewater.
Whether the pokies are there or not is not what I or TCD are alluding to, its the statement made that is wrong.
Of course residents should decide on things like this but its the councillors job to tell the truth also, not mislead.

Sorry, but I'm laughing from a NSW pokie POV.

However, let's take my local govt area - the City of Sydney. Relocating a late night booze and pokies joint from say Kings Cross to say suburban Annandale would be a huge difference. And impact on the locals.

[Dry Rot]

Interesting. i opted not to go into edgewater because its built on landfill because the original site was the Australian Defense Industries site: where they made explosives using toxic chemicals that had leached into the soil..most people living there now don't know this either..

They will find out when their kids do really well at school, and overlook that their kids have two heads.

[Sockeye Salmon]

As a single guy, the invisible hand comes in useful sometimes.

That's the first post on this thread worth reading.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Interesting. i opted not to go into edgewater because its built on landfill because the original site was the Australian Defense Industries site: where they made explosives using toxic chemicals that had leached into the soil..most people living there now don't know this either..

Actually no.

Craiglee is built on the old Albion Explosives Nitric Acid plant. I don't remember seeing that on the brochure.

Edgewater is built on the Maribynong Ordinance offices and laboratories, no nasty stuff happened there.

I did my apprenticeship alternating between both.

[Dry Rot]

That's the first post on this thread worth reading.

Thanks, but I won't post pics. ;)

[ledge]

I thought ICI next to Cairnlea was where all the explosives and stuff were detonated.

Actually I played footy and cricket at what is known as the Merv Hughes oval nowadays 30 years ago and Edgewater as it is known now I always thought was just the local old tip.

Dry Rot i see your point about Kings cross and the pokies and moving to an outer suburb, but this is just a kilometre down the road and the same suburb.

Alcohol might be more a problem and drunks but the main point was "the pokies".

In the years of poker machines coming into pubs i believe it has lessened the amount of drunks as pubs are forced to have a good environment or close down.
I feel a lot safer in a poker venue than a pub with no pokies.

[LostDoggy]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/fixtures-hawthorn/hawks-hit-jackpot-with-gaming-licence/2008/07/29/1217097241994.html

Hawthorn get approved to build a pokies venue in our backyard, miles away from thier area but we can't move a few machine that were already there down the road?

[The Coon Dog]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/fixtures-hawthorn/hawks-hit-jackpot-with-gaming-licence/2008/07/29/1217097241994.html

Hawthorn get approved to build a pokies venue in our backyard, miles away from thier area but we can't move a few machine that were already there down the road?

'THE Hawthorn Football Club's climb up the AFL ladder has again been emphatically matched by the club's off-field success with the awarding of a multimillion-dollar gaming-machine licence at Caroline Springs.

Only hours before last Friday night's anticipated clash with Geelong, the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation granted the Hawks a licence for 80 poker machines at the soon-to-be-built West Waters development — the only hotel in Caroline Springs.

The gaming licence is believed to be the biggest awarded in Victoria in seven years and is expected to add more than $1 million to the Hawks' annual profit.'

Thanks Ern, interesting.

[Stefcep]

I thought ICI next to Cairnlea was where all the explosives and stuff were detonated.

Actually I played footy and cricket at what is known as the Merv Hughes oval nowadays 30 years ago and Edgewater as it is known now I always thought was just the local old tip.

Dry Rot i see your point about Kings cross and the pokies and moving to an outer suburb, but this is just a kilometre down the road and the same suburb.

Alcohol might be more a problem and drunks but the main point was "the pokies".

In the years of poker machines coming into pubs i believe it has lessened the amount of drunks as pubs are forced to have a good environment or close down.
I feel a lot safer in a poker venue than a pub with no pokies.

the land that Cairnleas is built on was fenced off with hazardous materials signs for many many years. I can confirm that someone working for the developer did say to me that the land was contaminated, but that it would be safe, and he said that during the time that they had just started digging and filling it. Beyond that I don't know its history.

[Stefcep]

Actually no.

Craiglee is built on the old Albion Explosives Nitric Acid plant. I don't remember seeing that on the brochure.

Edgewater is built on the Maribynong Ordinance offices and laboratories, no nasty stuff happened there.

I did my apprenticeship alternating between both.

Speaking to someone at their sales office after i noticed a lot of soil was being removed and replaced, i asked the sales staff about it. they said the natural soil was contaminated in some places but would be totally safe after development works had finished. Whether thats right or not I don't know but there sure was a hell of a lot of soil being trucked in.

[Stefcep]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/fixtures-hawthorn/hawks-hit-jackpot-with-gaming-licence/2008/07/29/1217097241994.html

Hawthorn get approved to build a pokies venue in our backyard, miles away from thier area but we can't move a few machine that were already there down the road?

The question needs to be asked though: why do footy clubs from OUTSIDE THE WESTERN SUBURBS choose to open gambling venues IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS? same with Collingwood I think. Why choose the West?

Again its a local planning issue. Did the locals object? On what local planning grounds? Is the proposed development in a commercial or primarily residential area etc.
,

[Stefcep]

'THE Hawthorn Football Club's climb up the AFL ladder has again been emphatically matched by the club's off-field success with the awarding of a multimillion-dollar gaming-machine licence at Caroline Springs.

Only hours before last Friday night's anticipated clash with Geelong, the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation granted the Hawks a licence for 80 poker machines at the soon-to-be-built West Waters development — the only hotel in Caroline Springs.

The gaming licence is believed to be the biggest awarded in Victoria in seven years and is expected to add more than $1 million to the Hawks' annual profit.'

Thanks Ern, interesting.

maybe the dogs should have got in before the hawks at caroline Springs, maybe they should have guaged the public sentiment at edgewater, and that at Caroline Springs?

[Sockeye Salmon]

I thought ICI next to Cairnlea was where all the explosives and stuff were detonated.


ICI is across the road.

Albion Explosives consisted of the Nitric Acid plant (where Craiglee is now), RDX plastic explosive (back towards St. Albans where another estate is now) and NitroGlycerine and rocket propellant behind the Deer Park Hotel. There was also a TNT plant which would be roughly where the back of Craiglee is now.

There is no way to stop making TNT other than to "drown" it. What we used to do was make TNT 24/7 for 3 months every three years (that was enough) and when it was time to stop we pushed the emergency stop button and everything in the process was dumped into aeorated water. This created an enormous Nitric Acid cloud that covered most of the Western Suburbs.

So there were no complaints we did it at 4am.


I heard recently that ICI was to be closed down soon but has received a new lease of life picking up the slack from all the Chinese competitors who have had to close down due to the Olympics.

[ledge]

ICI is across the road.

Albion Explosives consisted of the Nitric Acid plant (where Craiglee is now), RDX plastic explosive (back towards St. Albans where another estate is now) and NitroGlycerine and rocket propellant behind the Deer Park Hotel. There was also a TNT plant which would be roughly where the back of Craiglee is now.

There is no way to stop making TNT other than to "drown" it. What we used to do was make TNT 24/7 for 3 months every three years (that was enough) and when it was time to stop we pushed the emergency stop button and everything in the process was dumped into aeorated water. This created an enormous Nitric Acid cloud that covered most of the Western Suburbs.

So there were no complaints we did it at 4am.


I heard recently that ICI was to be closed down soon but has received a new lease of life picking up the slack from all the Chinese competitors who have had to close down due to the Olympics.

Cairnlea! Sockeye Cairnlea!
Who is Craig Lee, Bretts brother?

[hujsh]

What's that bit about the club only leasing the property?

Will they make less money?

[Sockeye Salmon]

What's that bit about the club only leasing the property?

Will they make less money?

If we lease it we don't have to come up with the gazillion dollars to build it.

[LostDoggy]

The question needs to be asked though: why do footy clubs from OUTSIDE THE WESTERN SUBURBS choose to open gambling venues IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS? same with Collingwood I think. Why choose the West?

Again its a local planning issue. Did the locals object? On what local planning grounds? Is the proposed development in a commercial or primarily residential area etc.
,
I don't give a stuff why they chose the west. Its obvious they think the get rich quick mentality is in the west.
The question is why clubs from outside the western suburbs seem to escape scrutiny when putting pokies in our area while we get stuffed around when all we want to do is relocate some within our area
If one license should be granted it should go to the local community team.

[LostDoggy]

maybe the dogs should have got in before the hawks at caroline Springs, maybe they should have guaged the public sentiment at edgewater, and that at Caroline Springs?

You missed the point. They aren't new pokies.
Edgewater is 5 minutes away from Whitten Oval, they didn't complain when they were there, nor did they when they built the monstrousity at Highpoint just as close or the one across the river at Flemington.
The pokies at Whitten Oval were one of the first in Melbourne I believe

[Stefcep]

I don't give a stuff why they chose the west. Its obvious they think the get rich quick mentality is in the west.
The question is why clubs from outside the western suburbs seem to escape scrutiny when putting pokies in our area while we get stuffed around when all we want to do is relocate some within our area
If one license should be granted it should go to the local community team.

I think clubs read the stats that say even though there's more pokies for each bloke in the west, there's still money to be made because each bloke in the west loses more to gambling than anywhere else. It stinks that the people least able to afford losing money to machines are the ones targeted by footy clubs as much as anyone lese.

scrutiny? council's only act if its brought to their attention by the local residents that they are not happy about the proposed developments. you can be pretty certain that if the residents at Edgewater didn't protest, the dogs would have got their gaming venue licence. It all boils down to a question of location: edgewater residents don't want it in their community. the location of the hawks venue relative to the community may be different and the residents there may not have raised any concerns.

[Stefcep]

You missed the point. They aren't new pokies.
Edgewater is 5 minutes away from Whitten Oval, they didn't complain when they were there, nor did they when they built the monstrousity at Highpoint just as close or the one across the river at Flemington.
The pokies at Whitten Oval were one of the first in Melbourne I believe

No i didn't. They ARE new pokies IN EDGEWATER. That's the difference. The residents of Edgewater don't want them in their estate.

[LostDoggy]

No i didn't. They ARE new pokies IN EDGEWATER. That's the difference. The residents of Edgewater don't want them in their estate.

Only becuase Edgewater is what 5 years old, rebadged from Maribyrnong. The pokies were there before then the suburb existed as I mentioned down the road in 3 directions.

The residents should have kicked up a stink before they moved there.

[LostDoggy]

Scrutiny? council's only act if its brought to their attention by the local residents that they are not happy about the proposed developments. you can be pretty certain that if the residents at Edgewater didn't protest, the dogs would have got their gaming venue licence. It all boils down to a question of location: edgewater residents don't want it in their community. the location of the hawks venue relative to the community may be different and the residents there may not have raised any concerns.
Again the dogs already had their license. Edgewater is just a fancy name Delfin made up. If they believe they are in Toorak good for them, in the end its really just Maribrynong.

My gripe here is what are the Hawthorns, Collingwoods, Geelongs, Port Adelaides all who have/want pokies establishments in the West doing for their the local Western Community?
The Bulldogs get stuffed around but you others are most welcome.

[LostDoggy]

It will be a long drawn out battle over 300 residential objections can see both sides of the coin. Edgewater residents are gung-ho in stopping the Hilton materialising and will battle all the way. The Maribyrnong council will fight tooth and nail to stick it up us there is a big grudge happening re the redevelopment saga. Tough one for the Western Bulldogs to hurdle over. dont like our chances.

[Stefcep]

It will be a long drawn out battle over 300 residential objections can see both sides of the coin. Edgewater residents are gung-ho in stopping the Hilton materialising and will battle all the way. The Maribyrnong council will fight tooth and nail to stick it up us there is a big grudge happening re the redevelopment saga. Tough one for the Western Bulldogs to hurdle over. dont like our chances.

I think you are right and i think the dogs sense this as well.

I agree with the locals on the democratic principle that the locals should have a say as to what happens to something that they will have to live with every day of the year. Sure, sometimes the good of the entire municipality, or city or state outweighs the needs of the locals but i think this not in that category. I've recently been through and won a development dispute against a big shot builder on behalf of my elderly parents in Moonee Valley Council and i can tell you i understand where the Edgewater residents are coming from. I think its an important right that we all have to object and it needs to be preserved. You never know, next time it may not be the Dogs but another developer who wants to do similar, or worse, next door to you.

I agree that the local club should have some preference over outside clubs, but if the proposal isn't wanted by the majority of the residents because it doesn't meet local planning guidelines than thats the end of it, no matter who the developer is.

[Stefcep]

Again the dogs already had their license. Edgewater is just a fancy name Delfin made up. If they believe they are in Toorak good for them, in the end its really just Maribrynong.

My gripe here is what are the Hawthorns, Collingwoods, Geelongs, Port Adelaides all who have/want pokies establishments in the West doing for their the local Western Community?
The Bulldogs get stuffed around but you others are most welcome.

Yes they had a license for their current location, not for Edgewater.

Yes it really is just Maribyrnong but Maribyrnong is a big place whose character (for want of a better word) varies considerably depending on the actual location. The other clubs you mention are probably setting up in locations that meet local planning guidelines and are acceptable to the residents.

In some ways the Dogs do positive things for the local community. Making money from pokies or alcohol sales in not one of them. (but thats just my opinion and a separate argument about whether we should have pokies at all and sell late night alcohol and doesn't make the Dogs any worse than anyone else.)

[ledge]

Has anyone thought it might be a plus for Edgewater?
We are all here saying how bad it will be but it must have good points too,eg, jobs, tourists, entertainment, business.
I bet the council hasnt gone to the residents with the good points also.

Another thing is, they are fighting over the "hilton" ,what has that got to do with the Whitten Oval development ? apart from pokie movement?
Seems to me there is someone who doesnt like the Bulldogs in the council or has a power ego.

Is it because of the Hilton problem that the council has tried to black mail the bulldogs out of it by refusing permits at the Whitten oval?
And now the council has sooked up again by saying well the government has taken over so let them find the million we were offering.

We all know that the Whitten oval developement is great for the west, so why are the council being negative towards it all of a sudden?
Another point, alright Edgewater dont want it, so why cant the council at least pull out a map of the area and show the dogs other plots that it would be suitable?
Wouldnt that be working together???

[Stefcep]

Has anyone thought it might be a plus for Edgewater?
We are all here saying how bad it will be but it must have good points too,eg, jobs, tourists, entertainment, business.
I bet the council hasnt gone to the residents with the good points also.

Another thing is, they are fighting over the "hilton" ,what has that got to do with the Whitten Oval development ? apart from pokie movement?
Seems to me there is someone who doesnt like the Bulldogs in the council or has a power ego.

Is it because of the Hilton problem that the council has tried to black mail the bulldogs out of it by refusing permits at the Whitten oval?
And now the council has sooked up again by saying well the government has taken over so let them find the million we were offering.

We all know that the Whitten oval developement is great for the west, so why are the council being negative towards it all of a sudden?
Another point, alright Edgewater dont want it, so why cant the council at least pull out a map of the area and show the dogs other plots that it would be suitable?
Wouldnt that be working together???

I think the Edgewater residents have weighed up the good with the bad: its like the residents near Mt Alexander Rd in Ascot Vale who have pubs/clubs/pokies halls near their homes and every now and then agroup of maniacs decide to kick in their car doors, scream for an hour or two at 3 in the morning, spew on the road, tear up their letter boxes

From what I've read the Western Oval (WO) issue is because the bullies didn't apply to have approval to use part of the WO development to house the activities of the university, even though the Dogs management intended to use the development in this way about 10 months ago. They eventually put in their application a month or two ago and, as is the law, needed to allow time for community consultation to take place until September, which would have meant construction works couldn't go ahead until after that time had elapsed. The builders then threatened to walk off the job. So whose fault is that? I mean what right have the dogs management to expect one law for them and a different law for the rest of us? For f_cks sake you need a permit to build a friggin' pergola in your backyard. How incompetent are they not to know you can't build without a permit? And with that, that there would be a period set aside for community consultation? Be proud that the Council tried to uphold the law without fear OR FAVOUR, and not be bullied by an incompetent developer.

Its up to the bullies to suggest the location, make a submission for a permit, allow for community consultation and for the Council to hear the grievances of the locals, see the submission of the developer and THEN make a decision. The Council can't predict the outcome of this until it happens.

[ledge]

Its up to the bullies to suggest the location, make a submission for a permit, allow for community consultation and for the Council to hear the grievances of the locals, see the submission of the developer and THEN make a decision. The Council can't predict the outcome of this until it happens.

MMM strange that, i have seen councils bend over backwards to find and lure businesses to there area,
Melton council even did a deal many years ago that wasnt illegal but certainly didnt go to the community to get it passed, when the deal came out the residents were in uproar.

So my point is , the council only follows rules when they suit them.
Your point about the Bullies doing everything, I bet if Richard Branson was building it they would have offered him anywhere he wanted, passed it and given him the key to the city!
The council now knows exactly the building being sort to build and what it entails, so why cant it point out places it has for that kind of thing?

The Bulldogs could spend 10 years going up and down with places it wants the place built, why not get rid of all the bullshit and WORK TOGETHER and at least tell the dogs where they would think it would get through.

Personally i think its all coming down to the council trying to get back the million dollars the previous council agreed to because it was never there in the first place.
And they are using paper work and a few hundred residents to block it.
Back to spin doctoring.

[Sockeye Salmon]

What about the residents who want the development?

[Stefcep]

Its up to the bullies to suggest the location, make a submission for a permit, allow for community consultation and for the Council to hear the grievances of the locals, see the submission of the developer and THEN make a decision. The Council can't predict the outcome of this until it happens.

MMM strange that, i have seen councils bend over backwards to find and lure businesses to there area,
Melton council even did a deal many years ago that wasnt illegal but certainly didnt go to the community to get it passed, when the deal came out the residents were in uproar.

So my point is , the council only follows rules when they suit them.
Your point about the Bullies doing everything, I bet if Richard Branson was building it they would have offered him anywhere he wanted, passed it and given him the key to the city!
The council now knows exactly the building being sort to build and what it entails, so why cant it point out places it has for that kind of thing?

The Bulldogs could spend 10 years going up and down with places it wants the place built, why not get rid of all the bullshit and WORK TOGETHER and at least tell the dogs where they would think it would get through.

Personally i think its all coming down to the council trying to get back the million dollars the previous council agreed to because it was never there in the first place.
And they are using paper work and a few hundred residents to block it.
Back to spin doctoring.

I have no doubt that Councils have done less than honurable deals in the past. Brimbank Council is notorious for rezoning the land that Bunnings and a heap of townhouses are built on along the Keilor Melton Highway opposite Watergardens, shortly after the Bunnings owners gave the Council a 1 million dollar "donation". But is that the sort of Council we want?

My anger is at the monkeys employed by the bullies that are managing the project. Why couldn't they organize the permit before the builders ran out of work? The club's silence on the details released by the Council is deafening. All the club has said is that they've been "frustrated". Why? Because they had to follow normal rules and procedures, but didn't?

I'm sure the Council could suggest a location that would probably be OK, but they couldn't guarantee it either.

[Stefcep]

What about the residents who want the development?
Who are they?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Who are they?

Presumably the 20,000 who aren't whingers.

[Stefcep]

Presumably the 20,000 who aren't whingers.

ah the silent majority, that don't live in Edgewater.

[LostDoggy]

20000 without their headup their backside
Flemington, Hghpoint and Whitten Oval are all within walking distance to Edgewater.

Edgewater must be its own principality, whats the king or queen's name?

[Stefcep]

20000 without their headup their backside

atl east one of whom is a stupid project manager that doesn't know he needs a building permit to build a 25 million dollar development.

[hujsh]

ah the silent majority, that don't live in Edgewater.

So you're saying the majority don't want it? Is there any proof that the majority are upset and not just the wingers.

Maybe the majority is indifferent?

[Stefcep]

20000 without their headup their backside
Flemington, Hghpoint and Whitten Oval are all within walking distance to Edgewater.

Edgewater must be its own principality, whats the king or queen's name?


Ern its a new purpose-built Estate that shares no resemblance to Flemington, Highpoint or Footscray.

Ultimately the Dogs are in this mess because they have had stupid people managing the project.

I hope they resolve it but it probably won't be by puttting up the Hilton in Edgewater.

[LostDoggy]

atl east one of whom is a stupid project manager that doesn't know he needs a building permit to build a 25 million dollar development.

That project manager only gives a shit when its his area?
Far worse developments already higlighted but not in the flood plains.

[LostDoggy]

Ern its a new purpose-built Estate that shares no resemblance to Flemington, Highpoint or Footscray.


They are bordering all three!
People that moved there seem like they thought they were bordering Kew, Hawthorn and Camberwell.

[Stefcep]

So you're saying the majority don't want it? Is there any proof that the majority are upset and not just the wingers.

Maybe the majority is indifferent?

I'm saying that most people who care about the Western Bulldogs want this to go ahead because they don't want to jeopardize the future of the Club. Trouble is they don't live in Edgewater and therefore can't do a hell of a lot about it. I don't think the majority in Edgewater are indifferent, especially if they're nearest to the proposed site. I think its clear that they don't want it.

[Stefcep]

That project manager only gives a shit when its his area?
Far worse developments already higlighted but not in the flood plains.

No he's just an idiot employed by the Doggies who was too stupid to realize that he had better get his arse into gear and make sure the permits gonna be OK so that the next stage can built by the builders. Thats what he's being paid to do: to ensure that the ALL facets of construction including permits, materials, tradesman happen in a timely manner. If I were the CEO I'd be calling him and saying "Sunshine why the f_k have you got us in to this mess? You are out on your arse as of 5 minutes ago"

[Sockeye Salmon]

Mayor MacDonald will be out on her arse next election

[hujsh]

I'm saying that most people who care about the Western Bulldogs want this to go ahead because they don't want to jeopardize the future of the Club. Trouble is they don't live in Edgewater and therefore can't do a hell of a lot about it. I don't think the majority in Edgewater are indifferent, especially if they're nearest to the proposed site. I think its clear that they don't want it.

how is it clear? Apart from a few people who are clearly against it how can you gauge what people want.

It's like going to a feminist group and treating them like they represent all women or going up to Jesse Jackson like he's the leader of all black Americans

[Topdog]

No he's just an idiot employed by the Doggies who was too stupid to realize that he had better get his arse into gear and make sure the permits gonna be OK so that the next stage can built by the builders. Thats what he's being paid to do: to ensure that the ALL facets of construction including permits, materials, tradesman happen in a timely manner. If I were the CEO I'd be calling him and saying "Sunshine why the f_k have you got us in to this mess? You are out on your arse as of 5 minutes ago"

Yep he really is an idiot. I'm glad you have all the facts and know exactly what was going on.

Just because 1 side is not still releasing comments about a situation doesn't mean that it necesarily happened. The Dogs know they still have to work with the council a lot. There is no point harping on about things and to be honest I haven't read a lot from the Bulldogs saying bad things about them. More just praising the State for helping out.

[ledge]

OK so you tell me if this is all about the Hilton, I want to know why the government had to pass permits the council says it couldnt and why are the council threatening to pull out the million they promised at the Whitten oval?
The council seems hell bent on stopping anything the Bulldogs are trying to do.
All about power, like little children.
My thoughts are one or more of the councillors live at Edgewater and dont want the Hilton there so are using there position to rally support and will even put pressure on the Whitten Oval project to get there way.
The Whitten Oval
The mayor came out and said, well the government wants to get involved and over rule us well they can have the Whitten Oval , and they will not get the Million we promised
That is just so full of blackmail and shows they are not interested in the residents at all.
Dont forget Vic Uni, the residents and business want the Whitten Oval project, so why are they not passing that?
The council fights against the Hilton because a few residents do not want it, but the residents want the Whitten Oval and they fight against that!
Which way do they want it? Its all about not spending the million thats what its about.

[Stefcep]

Yep he really is an idiot. I'm glad you have all the facts and know exactly what was going on.

Just because 1 side is not still releasing comments about a situation doesn't mean that it necesarily happened. The Dogs know they still have to work with the council a lot. There is no point harping on about things and to be honest I haven't read a lot from the Bulldogs saying bad things about them. More just praising the State for helping out.

The Dogs haven't denied anything the Council has said. If its false, why say nothing?

Yep, praising the State government for bypassing local laws so that dogs could continue construction without the proper and legal consultation that normally happens when any other project is being built in the area. Next time a developer wants to do the same, they can say to the State government: "Well you did it for the Western Bulldogs, why not me too?"

[LostDoggy]

The Dogs haven't denied anything the Council has said. If its false, why say nothing?

Cos everytime something is wrong we need to make counter accusations.
Obviously no reply then its always true :rolleyes:
Considering the council owe the club $1Million why would they get in slanging match with them?


Yep, praising the State government for bypassing local laws so that dogs could continue construction without the proper and legal consultation that normally happens when any other project is being built in the area. Next time a developer wants to do the same, they can say to the State government: "Well you did it for the Western Bulldogs, why not me too?"

A bit like Hawthorn and Caroline Springs you mean?

[Stefcep]

OK so you tell me if this is all about the Hilton, I want to know why the government had to pass permits the council says it couldnt and why are the council threatening to pull out the million they promised at the Whitten oval?
The council seems hell bent on stopping anything the Bulldogs are trying to do.
All about power, like little children.
My thoughts are one or more of the councillors live at Edgewater and dont want the Hilton there so are using there position to rally support and will even put pressure on the Whitten Oval project to get there way.
The Whitten Oval
The mayor came out and said, well the government wants to get involved and over rule us well they can have the Whitten Oval , and they will not get the Million we promised
That is just so full of blackmail and shows they are not interested in the residents at all.
Dont forget Vic Uni, the residents and business want the Whitten Oval project, so why are they not passing that?
The council fights against the Hilton because a few residents do not want it, but the residents want the Whitten Oval and they fight against that!
Which way do they want it? Its all about not spending the million thats what its about.

Very good questions: We SHOULD be concerned that the State government has intervened so as to bypass our local laws. That represents a denial of the rights of the local citizens to have a say in what gets built in their locality. So if that can be done for the Dogs, why stop there? What happens when the next developer asks for the same deal the Dogs got? What would be the point of local planning laws and procedures? Why bother with a local Council planning department at all? Just go straight to the Premiers office.

The Council now is reconsidering the 1 million because it is no longer involved in the project and no longer has any power to ensure that it meets the local laws that the Council is responsible for. In fact the local law of community consultation has been denied by the State governments intervention. How would it look if they were seen to pay 1 million dollars towards a project which has not complied with the very laws that the local Council is supposed to uphold? How does the Council explain this to the locals when its supposed top be representing the local interests?


Vic Uni's involvement is conditional upon the pokies being removed from the Western Oval because "its not a good look for them" (thats the wording in The Age). The dogs can't build at the WO because they need the Vic Uni dollars. They can't get the Vic Uni dolllars because they can't tell Vic Uni if and where the pokies are going. They can't move the pokies to edgwater because they don't have a permit to go there. Thats the connection between the Whitten Oval hold-up and the pokies relocation to Edgewater. I'm not sure how they can continue to build at the Whitten Oval when they have no idea at this stage if and where, exactly, the pokies are going to go.

The whole mess could have been avoided by surveying the locals at Edgewater 10 or 12 months ago and using that to guage the likelihood of getting a permit. But maybe the Dogs new all along the State government would steam roll the Council and do the same at VCAT when the appeal is heard.

Do you have any proof that a Councillor lives or owns property in Edgewater?

[Stefcep]

Cos everytime something is wrong we need to make counter accusations.
Obviously no reply then its always true :rolleyes:
Considering the council owe the club $1Million why would they get in slanging match with them?



A bit like Hawthorn and Caroline Springs you mean?

Why would a City Mayor go public with lies? Her claims are easily verifiable: minutes of meetings are kept, applications forms have dates on them. There's no need to get into a slanging match if the facts are in your favour: you just state the truth.

i don't know the specific details for Hawthornes development at Caroline Springs. Maybe Tom and Jerry aren't managing the Hawks project?

[ledge]

I said they were one of the thoughts i had about a councillor living there, i dont know, but i do know people in other councils and where they live is definitely the areas that get pushed the most, thats expected because thats why people go on council , to fix problems they had or have.

[Stefcep]

I said they were one of the thoughts i had about a councillor living there, i dont know, but i do know people in other councils and where they live is definitely the areas that get pushed the most, thats expected because thats why people go on council , to fix problems they had or have.

Not having a go at you, i thought you might know something I didn't, if you know what i mean.

I *think* there's a law that requires councillors to declare any interests they have that may prevent them from being impartial or being seen to be impartial when they have to vote on issues.

Anyway this thread has run its course for me. I think I'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. i don't think i'm going to convince anyone of my point-of-view that on the evidence its probable this whole debacle is due to poor project management by the Dogs, with the Council just doing its job. The Dogs failed to properly research the new Pokies location at Edgewater, they failed to apply for a permit on time to continue works at the Western Oval, and then they brought in the State government so that they didn't need to comply with the local laws of community consultation.

Those against the Council allege a Council vendetta against the Dogs but no-one can say why. They allege the Council never wanting to give the Dogs the 1 Million all along, which makes no sense as to why they would offer in the first place. Some even allege the Councillors live in Edgewater but there is no evidence of this.

What concerns me is just how happy people are when they see their democratic rights being eroded by the actions of developers and State governments.

I hope the Dogs get their WO redevelopment and I hope the people in Edgewater get what they want because they have a right to. Its not impossible that both can get what they want.

[LostDoggy]

Why would a City Mayor go public with lies? Her claims are easily verifiable: minutes of meetings are kept, applications forms have dates on them. There's no need to get into a slanging match if the facts are in your favour: you just state the truth.
Already mentioned the council seem to have a reputation for lieing. Thats easily verifiable too.
Promised $1Million on a certain date but they haven't delivered.


i don't know the specific details for Hawthornes development at Caroline Springs. Maybe Tom and Jerry aren't managing the Hawks project?
More like Tom & Jerry approved it.

[Topdog]

Very good questions: We SHOULD be concerned that the State government has intervened so as to bypass our local laws. That represents a denial of the rights of the local citizens to have a say in what gets built in their locality. So if that can be done for the Dogs, why stop there? What happens when the next developer asks for the same deal the Dogs got? What would be the point of local planning laws and procedures? Why bother with a local Council planning department at all? Just go straight to the Premiers office.

The Council now is reconsidering the 1 million because it is no longer involved in the project and no longer has any power to ensure that it meets the local laws that the Council is responsible for. In fact the local law of community consultation has been denied by the State governments intervention. How would it look if they were seen to pay 1 million dollars towards a project which has not complied with the very laws that the local Council is supposed to uphold? How does the Council explain this to the locals when its supposed top be representing the local interests?


Vic Uni's involvement is conditional upon the pokies being removed from the Western Oval because "its not a good look for them" (thats the wording in The Age). The dogs can't build at the WO because they need the Vic Uni dollars. They can't get the Vic Uni dolllars because they can't tell Vic Uni if and where the pokies are going. They can't move the pokies to edgwater because they don't have a permit to go there. Thats the connection between the Whitten Oval hold-up and the pokies relocation to Edgewater. I'm not sure how they can continue to build at the Whitten Oval when they have no idea at this stage if and where, exactly, the pokies are going to go.

The whole mess could have been avoided by surveying the locals at Edgewater 10 or 12 months ago and using that to guage the likelihood of getting a permit. But maybe the Dogs new all along the State government would steam roll the Council and do the same at VCAT when the appeal is heard.

Do you have any proof that a Councillor lives or owns property in Edgewater?

Do you have any proof for 90% of the rubbish you have gone on about in this thread?

And BTW the Council don't really have a lot of options in regard to paying the million. They have promised it and will have to come through with the goods.

[Topdog]

How many people live in Edgewater?
How many people have signed the petitions to stop the development?

[LostDoggy]

I doubt its 20000 or even 10000.
Its only a small pocket, I bet a lot of those kicking up a stink are in the old maribyrnong area on the other side of gordon st.

[ledge]

Thats why the mayor only mentioned the against figures and not the for figures.
As i have said, its spin doctoring.
We all know if a project is put up for residents to look at, the only residents who turn up are the ones objecting it.

Thus you will get maybe 300 turn up, all against, but the other 9700 are ok with it so why turn up?
Projects are actually worded that way in public papers, here is the so called project, here is date of meeting, if you have objections please make it known here.

So residents only turn up if they want it rejected, no point turning up if you agree with it.
Same as petitions, We have 300 signatures here rejecting it, but hang on there is 10,000 in the estate!
If your going to get votes on against, get votes for also.
By the way my numbers are just examples, no idea how many live in Edgewater but hopefully you get my point.

[LostDoggy]

And BTW I hate the f'en elitist way that you so-called business professionals/developers/leaders blah blah use BS expressions such as "emerging this" and "emerging that" as if they are some sort of organic entities. New suburbs or markets, as the "buzz" phrases go, don't "emerge" from anywhere, they are simply new suburbs or new markets. You all do it to sound intellectually superior and just that little bit smarter than anyone, to justify charging your exhorbitant "consulting" fees.

Hm?

'YOU so-called business professionals...' -- I can't really see past that chip you have.

1. If other people sound smarter, well.
2. Never said anything about emerging markets. But now that we are talking about economics, of course markets emerge from somewhere. What are we living in, the twilight zone of vacuum economics? Just because Delfin put a wall around a place and changed its name doesn't mean it didn't emerge from somewhere.
3. Exorbitant 'consulting' fees are all about the market. If no one was paying, no one would be getting it. But never mind that I work for BELOW market rates, advising for mostly pro-poor policies in developing countries. Or don't you believe that developing countries exist either, just 'new countries'.

and finally

4. I don't mind the debate/discussion (although I think most of us can see who it is with the 'bias'), but is it ultimately futile when on the one hand I am called a Marxist, and in the next breath a raging capitalist, dishonestly using fancy three-syllable words like 'emerging' to charge premium top-market fees. How does one defend themselves when they are accused of being the two extremes of the scale?

I have already said too much.

[LostDoggy]

As a single guy, the invisible hand comes in useful sometimes.

GOLD.

Ernie, SS, ledge, TopDog et al:
Guys, love your work, and the rabid discussions. Taking my leave from this thread.

[Twodogs]

Than you for your opinion Mr Marx.

Elitist? Your post smacks of the victim-mentality if some of those who find themselves at the lower end of the soci-economic ladder: Lets blame the better-offs who were all born with a silver spoon in their mouths for all of our failures, lets stick these pokies in to get their money so that we can drag them down to our level and make them pay. I grew up in Yarraville (Severn St), my old man worked for 12 hours a week for 25 years in Borthwicks, Smorgans meats, and later Arnott's biscuits driving a forklift.



Smorgons meats-if you're going to use it to give yourself some cred then learn to spell the thing correctly.


Council have discraced themselves over this and now they cant find a way to back out of the corner they've painted themselves into.



but to suggest the council has a vendetta aginst the bullies is hard to believe.


Why exactly?



Why? Because the people living in Edgewater give enough of a shit about what happens in their community, and are smart enough to band together and use their democratic rights.

As opposed to those of us living in Footscray? Who's being elitist now?





What most have ignored are these facts:


Facts? Look up the meaning of the word and then look at the following arguments again



1. Would you want a gambling drunk/gang of drunks pissed off at his/their losses walking past your house throwing a bottle into your car's windscreen/walking past your house at 3 am in the morning?

Where would they get the bottle? Is it a 20 hour bottle shop that being proposed-remember we are talking facts, not "fantasies that back my debating point up"


2. That under our by-laws, EVERYONE has a right to object to ANY development (Bulldogs or not) about what gets built in THEIR neighbourhood. One factor is " Does it fit with the character of the area?". I believe in the rights of the locals to argue what that might mean for them. No-one living in Footscray or Maribrynong or Sunshine or Deer Park has any right to cry sour grapes that just because pokies got put in their neighbourhood then they should go into Edgewater as well. They all had an opportunity to object and argue their case, but they probably didn't, so whose fault is it? Thats the victim mentality that I'm talking about.


Probably? Again you're nominally using facts, not ''probablies"





3. Everyone is clouding the issue because its their footy club thats bank-rolling it. Would they honestly feel so passionate about it if it was just some faceless corporation? Right lets deny the rights of the locals so that our club can earn more money off gambling and selling alcohol.


No argument there-my footy club is so much more important then a faceless corporation, hence the passion in the debate.




And stop it already with the character assaination of the footy club and their planning processesand the 'Council is fantastic' line. How about the QuayWest fiasco? Was it 15 or 20 million that council managed to waste over that? That was only a decade ago so the "Council is more sensible and resposible" argument wont wash with anyone who has a memory;


Maribyrnong Council - operating lease payout


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The City of Maribyrnong will incur total cash outflows of $39 million, comprising a termination payment of $24 million and future interest charges of $15 million, to terminate an onerous leasing arrangement associated with a building constructed as part of the Quay West Project. In essence, the City is committed to a substantial outlay of funds to the year 2012 which will provide no real benefit to ratepayers because of unsound business decisions made in the past in the area of the City's non-core activities.


From

http://archive.audit.vic.gov.au/old/mp99/mp99brf.htm

[Stefcep]

Do you have any proof for 90% of the rubbish you have gone on about in this thread?

And BTW the Council don't really have a lot of options in regard to paying the million. They have promised it and will have to come through with the goods.



As an admin of the site please set a good example for everyone else by listing the 90% that is rubbish and the 10 % thats not. Actually just list 10% thats rubbish, that will be enough.

An HOW do YOU know what options the Council has now that they have no say in the development process?

[Stefcep]

Thats why the mayor only mentioned the against figures and not the for figures.
As i have said, its spin doctoring.
We all know if a project is put up for residents to look at, the only residents who turn up are the ones objecting it.

Thus you will get maybe 300 turn up, all against, but the other 9700 are ok with it so why turn up?
Projects are actually worded that way in public papers, here is the so called project, here is date of meeting, if you have objections please make it known here.

So residents only turn up if they want it rejected, no point turning up if you agree with it.
Same as petitions, We have 300 signatures here rejecting it, but hang on there is 10,000 in the estate!
If your going to get votes on against, get votes for also.
By the way my numbers are just examples, no idea how many live in Edgewater but hopefully you get my point.

I get your point except that when it comes to planning permits its not a "majority rules" situation because the 300 that object may be affected more then the ones that don't object eg the 300 may live closer to the site. Even so the negatives results to the few may be more significant than the positives to the rest. eg what if a highway was built 20 meters from your house, when you were told you'd have a park there when you bought it? You'd care, but would the rest of the neighbourhood 300 meters away really care as much as you

[Stefcep]

[QUOTE=Twodogs;49531]Smorgons meats-if you're going to use it to give yourself some cred then learn to spell the thing correctly.


[/U][/B]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
Yawn

[Sockeye Salmon]

Yawn

The first thing you've written in this entire thread that wasn't complete and utter wank.

[ledge]

I get your point except that when it comes to planning permits its not a "majority rules" situation because the 300 that object may be affected more then the ones that don't object eg the 300 may live closer to the site. Even so the negatives results to the few may be more significant than the positives to the rest. eg what if a highway was built 20 meters from your house, when you were told you'd have a park there when you bought it? You'd care, but would the rest of the neighbourhood 300 meters away really care as much as you

So you have 300 rejections from around the site its going to be built, what about the other 400 who didnt reject it from around the site?
So how does it work then?
Do they check addresses?
Still my point is if you are walking the streets looking for signatures against, a lot of people feel intimidated and sign anyway just to get you away, especially if you have a council badge on mouthing away how bad it is, did we have a person next to them giving the opposite arguement?

[Stefcep]

OK two dogs:

i said the thread had run its course but it sounds like YOU need to be educated about the difference between fact and fantasy:

Council Vendetta: you're kidding me right?

Ok let me think your theory through:

The Council along with its planning department of professionally trained surveyors and town planners, who deal with planning issues every day of their working week and know the local planning laws inside out, all get together AND DECIDE TO RISK THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAREERS AND GO TO JAIL, by colluding with the several democraticallly-elected councillors in secret, and they all decide that they are going to send the Western Bulldogs Footy club broke by denying them a planning permit, meaning that they don't have to pay the million dollars that was allocated by the City's financial officers and accountants in the Councils' budget , all of which is public knowledge. This theory is backed up by the opinions of a few people on an internet forum all of whom fail to produce anything vaguely resembling a skeric of evidence.

Try some facts:

1. WB CEO C.Rose says a planning permit was not issued by Council because, the Council claimed that the Club failed to allow enough space to house 150 Uni students, meaning local planning laws were not met,. Building stops, builders threaten to leave. http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3136

2. The State government then intervenes by "enacting a special part of the planning act" ( C. Rose CEO WB http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3136
) which enables the State government to "take control of the planning process of the Whitten Oval redevelopment" and control is therefore taken away from the Council. http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3166)
The usual representation that locals get through the enforcement of local laws by Council is henceforth made unavailable.

3. The Council Mayor then " said the Bulldogs had only filed the planning application in April and knew permission could not be given until September as the proposal had to be taken to the community." http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3140. Therefore no permit had been denied but they had to wait for the usual statutory procedures to take place. ALL EASILY VERIFIABLE AND PERFECTLY REASONABLE and contradicts Rose's version of events.

3. It emerges in a report in The Age 31/7/08 that VUT will pay millions of dollars towards the development, conditional upon the pokies being removed because a Uni spokesperson says "its not a good look for them". BUT its already known that after community consultation and significant objections, the WB's are denied a permit to build at the proposed site at Edgewater, jeopardising VUT funding and therefore the whole project. This directly contradicts point 1 made by WB CEO Rose, who claimed it was the lack of space to to house 150 students that stopped them getting a permit on time.


where do you thin the truth lies?

Sorry but I like to stay grounded on Earth rather than fantasy.

[Stefcep]

So you have 300 rejections from around the site its going to be built, what about the other 400 who didnt reject it from around the site?
So how does it work then?
Do they check addresses?
Still my point is if you are walking the streets looking for signatures against, a lot of people feel intimidated and sign anyway just to get you away, especially if you have a council badge on mouthing away how bad it is, did we have a person next to them giving the opposite arguement?


here's the fundamental concept you're missing: the Council doesn't actively go out looking for objections to push a personal agenda that it wants. When you apply for a commercial permit you must give notice to the community by eg signage on the site, publishing in newspapers, letter drops, telling people where they can view the plans. Its up to each individual person to state their objections, usually by letter or at a general meeting. Now if someone really wants it and is next door to someone who doesn't then they have to state their case as well. If they don't, then tough.

[Stefcep]

So you have 300 rejections from around the site its going to be built, what about the other 400 who didnt reject it from around the site?
So how does it work then?
Do they check addresses?
Still my point is if you are walking the streets looking for signatures against, a lot of people feel intimidated and sign anyway just to get you away, especially if you have a council badge on mouthing away how bad it is, did we have a person next to them giving the opposite arguement?

Yes they do in order to determine how significant the effects are likely to be.

[ledge]

here's the fundamental concept you're missing: the Council doesn't actively go out looking for objections to push a personal agenda that it wants. When you apply for a commercial permit you must give notice to the community by eg signage on the site, publishing in newspapers, letter drops, telling people where they can view the plans. Its up to each individual person to state their objections, usually by letter or at a general meeting. Now if someone really wants it and is next door to someone who doesn't then they have to state their case as well. If they don't, then tough.

Never seen anyone go into a planning meeting and say yeah i agree, meetings are made for the public to put forward objections not to agree we all know that.
And the council does go out and look for objections if they dont like it, we all know that.

[Stefcep]

Hm?

'YOU so-called business professionals...' -- I can't really see past that chip you have.

1. If other people sound smarter, well.
2. Never said anything about emerging markets. But now that we are talking about economics, of course markets emerge from somewhere. What are we living in, the twilight zone of vacuum economics? Just because Delfin put a wall around a place and changed its name doesn't mean it didn't emerge from somewhere.
3. Exorbitant 'consulting' fees are all about the market. If no one was paying, no one would be getting it. But never mind that I work for BELOW market rates, advising for mostly pro-poor policies in developing countries. Or don't you believe that developing countries exist either, just 'new countries'.

and finally

4. I don't mind the debate/discussion (although I think most of us can see who it is with the 'bias'), but is it ultimately futile when on the one hand I am called a Marxist, and in the next breath a raging capitalist, dishonestly using fancy three-syllable words like 'emerging' to charge premium top-market fees. How does one defend themselves when they are accused of being the two extremes of the scale?

I have already said too much.

You conveniently respond to the minor points and ignore the core issues that you can't defend.

The old "I've been caught out so I am taking my bat and ball and going home" routine.

My argument was that a property's value would be reduced if it were next to a gambling house or pub or a place where alcohol was served 20 out of 24 hours, and this was a valid reason for Edgewater residents to object.

You then went on to try to dismiss my point of view by arguing that a properties value would not be reduced if it were next to a pub, by saying that that didn't affect YOUR apartments value, whilst conveniently withholding the fact that your apartment was a rare heritage listed property with a 100+ year old facade connected to a pub, something that only supported the rule of supply and demand in my" Dummies guide to property values" and did nothing to support your own point of view.

So, in your expert opinion, you still believe building a gambling house and place that sells alcohol 20 out of 24 hours devalue a nearby property in Edgewater? Or have you already said too much because you really have no substance to your argument.

[Stefcep]

Never seen anyone go into a planning meeting and say yeah i agree, meetings are made for the public to put forward objections not to agree we all know that.
And the council does go out and look for objections if they dont like it, we all know that.

Probably because most don't care either way, and its only the developer that really wants it, and the nearby people who may be affected badly that really don't.

I have never seen any Council take petitions on behalf of a particular cause. The closest is when they ask residents input on how they should develop Council Land eg how to landscape a park.

[Topdog]

Here is 10% for you.



Try some facts:

1. WB CEO C.Rose says a planning permit was not issued by Council because, the Council claimed that the Club failed to allow enough space to house 150 Uni students, meaning local planning laws were not met,. Building stops, builders threaten to leave. http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3136

4. It emerges in a report in The Age 31/7/08 that VUT will pay millions of dollars towards the development, conditional upon the pokies being removed because a Uni spokesperson says "its not a good look for them". BUT its already known that after community consultation and significant objections, the WB's are denied a permit to build at the proposed site at Edgewater, jeopardising VUT funding and therefore the whole project. This directly contradicts point 1 made by WB CEO Rose, who claimed it was the lack of space to to house 150 students that stopped them getting a permit on time.
.

You do realise that these are 2 different permits and builders would have actually left the WO on Aug 1 if the permit wasn't given. Nothing to do with the Hilton at all.

[LostDoggy]

You conveniently respond to the minor points and ignore the core issues that you can't defend.

The old "I've been caught out so I am taking my bat and ball and going home" routine.

My argument was that a property's value would be reduced if it were next to a gambling house or pub or a place where alcohol was served 20 out of 24 hours, and this was a valid reason for Edgewater residents to object.

You then went on to try to dismiss my point of view by arguing that a properties value would not be reduced if it were next to a pub, by saying that that didn't affect YOUR apartments value, whilst conveniently withholding the fact that your apartment was a rare heritage listed property with a 100+ year old facade connected to a pub, something that only supported the rule of supply and demand in my" Dummies guide to property values" and did nothing to support your own point of view.

So, in your expert opinion, you still believe building a gambling house and place that sells alcohol 20 out of 24 hours devalue a nearby property in Edgewater? Or have you already said too much because you really have no substance to your argument.

Stef.

C'mon. I 'took my bat and ball and went home' because I'm sure it's clear to all and sundry who knows what he's talking about and who doesn't, and I didn't think it was necessary to put you down any further. The only reason I worked on the so-called 'minor points' was because if I took your arguments to pieces it would be humiliating, and I didn't think that was really necessary. Some people know when to stop, but obviously you don't, even though everyone can see that you don't really know what you're talking about, and the more you write, the more your ignorance shines through. You know the saying 'I thought he was stupid, until he opened his mouth and removed all doubt'.

Briefly,

- If my comments were 'one-eyed', it would be silly to expect otherwise. If you want to debate economic theory (which you are ill-equipped to do, believe me), then there are plenty of other places you can do it, and if you wanted a 'balanced approach', you are hardly going to find it on a forum dedicated to the Bulldogs, are you. There are plenty of places you can vent your vendetta, but I don't think this is the right place, do you?

- The heritage listing that my abode now enjoys hadn't always existed. When I first bought the place it was a dump, and it still cost a mint. However, I was involved in its development and subsequent application for a heritage listing, which is what creates true economic advantage -- a creative approach to your surroundings instead of complaining about every old thing. That is what the residents of Edgewater who are protesting clearly lack -- they have a 'victim' mentality that seeks to shut everything out rather than an attitude of being able to use the circumstances to their advantage.. a classic 'new rich' approach to life. Why do you think the Dogs are applying for Edgewater? Because it is not just a pokies venue, is it? It's a high class hotel as well, which should even things out, in your theory, "all things being equal".. If, as you say, you make more money from poor suburbs, why wouldn't the Dogs just move the pokies to another, less affluent suburb, where the residents, in your words, aren't as well organised?

Of course, ideally there wouldn't be pokies (and believe me, I'm as anti-pokies as they come). However, the economic reality is that you have to balance the fact that either: you MOVE EXISTING pokies so that a university can locate its faculty at the Whitten Oval, creating education opportunities that will have a longer-term impact on the economic wellbeing of the Western Suburbs, or block the move for to satisfy the whim of a few homeowners, stopping a development at the Whitten Oval, blocking Victoria University's plans for a sports faculty, and tying up ratepayers money for years and years.

You need to have some humility about the fact that maybe, just maybe, your tiny, narrow, self-centered perspective on the world isn't all there is.

--

Now I really AM taking my bat and ball and going home -- I think we've all wasted enough time on this pointless thread. Oh, don't worry -- you win the debate on a football forum, if that's what's really important to you. Meanwhile, leave the rest of us get some real work done while you rant against the world in your jocks.

[Twodogs]

OK two dogs:

i said the thread had run its course but it sounds like YOU need to be educated about the difference between fact and fantasy:

Council Vendetta: you're kidding me right?

Ok let me think your theory through:

The Council along with its planning department of professionally trained surveyors and town planners, who deal with planning issues every day of their working week and know the local planning laws inside out, all get together AND DECIDE TO RISK THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAREERS AND GO TO JAIL, by colluding with the several democraticallly-elected councillors in secret, and they all decide that they are going to send the Western Bulldogs Footy club broke by denying them a planning permit, meaning that they don't have to pay the million dollars that was allocated by the City's financial officers and accountants in the Councils' budget , all of which is public knowledge. This theory is backed up by the opinions of a few people on an internet forum all of whom fail to produce anything vaguely resembling a skeric of evidence.



So your opinion is that political imperitives never impinge on planning decisions? OK we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying that the planning department is out and out corrupt but IMO they do what they can to please their political masters.


Try some facts:

1. WB CEO C.Rose says a planning permit was not issued by Council because, the Council claimed that the Club failed to allow enough space to house 150 Uni students, meaning local planning laws were not met,. Building stops, builders threaten to leave. http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3136

2. The State government then intervenes by "enacting a special part of the planning act" ( C. Rose CEO WB http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3136
) which enables the State government to "take control of the planning process of the Whitten Oval redevelopment" and control is therefore taken away from the Council. http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3166)
The usual representation that locals get through the enforcement of local laws by Council is henceforth made unavailable.

3. The Council Mayor then " said the Bulldogs had only filed the planning application in April and knew permission could not be given until September as the proposal had to be taken to the community." http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3140. Therefore no permit had been denied but they had to wait for the usual statutory procedures to take place. ALL EASILY VERIFIABLE AND PERFECTLY REASONABLE and contradicts Rose's version of events.

3. It emerges in a report in The Age 31/7/08 that VUT will pay millions of dollars towards the development, conditional upon the pokies being removed because a Uni spokesperson says "its not a good look for them". BUT its already known that after community consultation and significant objections, the WB's are denied a permit to build at the proposed site at Edgewater, jeopardising VUT funding and therefore the whole project. This directly contradicts point 1 made by WB CEO Rose, who claimed it was the lack of space to to house 150 students that stopped them getting a permit on time.


where do you thin the truth lies?

Sorry but I like to stay grounded on Earth rather than fantasy.



Just so we are straight, you do realise that the above relates to the Whitten Oval development and has no impact on The Bulldog Hilton which was what you were objecting to in the first place, wasnt it?




BTW I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about the earlymorningbottleinthewindscrenn. Where does your drunken offender get it from? IIRC A/ Liqour licensing laws prevent the carriage of alcohol from licensed premises and B/ If there's even a bottleshop planned, it'd be closed at 3am or whatever time you were (non hysterically of course) going on about.

[ledge]

Well in all of this, do we have an update on what is happening lately?
It is worrying and no matter what we all think, for and againsts, it is turning into a bit of a mess.
We all want it settled and do we have a date when a meeting is happening between who it matters with to fix it?
Or is the Hilton gone completely? Are the Bulldogs fighting it?
If not how will the pokie problem be solved as far as the university are concerned?

[strebla]

One question i want answered can anyone tell me of the 300 objectors how many actually live in edgewater as the few people i have spoken to that objected do NOT live in that estate but within the city limit.
I will also have to say a 3 am bottle shop licence is not on anywhere if you can't your grog by 11 pm stiff shit.

[Stefcep]

Stef.

C'mon. I 'took my bat and ball and went home' because I'm sure it's clear to all and sundry who knows what he's talking about and who doesn't, and I didn't think it was necessary to put you down any further. The only reason I worked on the so-called 'minor points' was because if I took your arguments to pieces it would be humiliating, and I didn't think that was really necessary. Some people know when to stop, but obviously you don't, even though everyone can see that you don't really know what you're talking about, and the more you write, the more your ignorance shines through. You know the saying 'I thought he was stupid, until he opened his mouth and removed all doubt'.

Briefly,

- If my comments were 'one-eyed', it would be silly to expect otherwise. If you want to debate economic theory (which you are ill-equipped to do, believe me), then there are plenty of other places you can do it, and if you wanted a 'balanced approach', you are hardly going to find it on a forum dedicated to the Bulldogs, are you. There are plenty of places you can vent your vendetta, but I don't think this is the right place, do you?

- The heritage listing that my abode now enjoys hadn't always existed. When I first bought the place it was a dump, and it still cost a mint. However, I was involved in its development and subsequent application for a heritage listing, which is what creates true economic advantage -- a creative approach to your surroundings instead of complaining about every old thing. That is what the residents of Edgewater who are protesting clearly lack -- they have a 'victim' mentality that seeks to shut everything out rather than an attitude of being able to use the circumstances to their advantage.. a classic 'new rich' approach to life. Why do you think the Dogs are applying for Edgewater? Because it is not just a pokies venue, is it? It's a high class hotel as well, which should even things out, in your theory, "all things being equal".. If, as you say, you make more money from poor suburbs, why wouldn't the Dogs just move the pokies to another, less affluent suburb, where the residents, in your words, aren't as well organised?

Of course, ideally there wouldn't be pokies (and believe me, I'm as anti-pokies as they come). However, the economic reality is that you have to balance the fact that either: you MOVE EXISTING pokies so that a university can locate its faculty at the Whitten Oval, creating education opportunities that will have a longer-term impact on the economic wellbeing of the Western Suburbs, or block the move for to satisfy the whim of a few homeowners, stopping a development at the Whitten Oval, blocking Victoria University's plans for a sports faculty, and tying up ratepayers money for years and years.

You need to have some humility about the fact that maybe, just maybe, your tiny, narrow, self-centered perspective on the world isn't all there is.

--

Now I really AM taking my bat and ball and going home -- I think we've all wasted enough time on this pointless thread. Oh, don't worry -- you win the debate on a football forum, if that's what's really important to you. Meanwhile, leave the rest of us get some real work done while you rant against the world in your jocks.

Actually there's at least two other people Pembleton and GVGJr, the moderator who like me suspect the Club's management is not blameless. http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=3140

You rant on for another 3 -4 paragraphs and basically say nothing. If you really believe that having a gambling house that serves alcohol 20 out of every 24 hours next door to your home is good for your quality of life and property values then really you need to go and get another job if that indicates the sort of advice you give to your clients.

The Dogs are applying for Edgewater because its closer to their home base allowing them to maintain a connection to their support base, and also because they wrongly assumed that it would be relatively easy to get the permit given the fact they are not increasing the number of gambling machines in the area. They didn't count on the residence objecting. It highlights how inept they've been that they didn't survey the residence earlier to guage the feeling there.

And regarding your economic analysis: do your sums. The WO development/Pokies development is worth, what $25 million? We have 300 objections, say half of which live in the same property= 150 properties, times $500,000 each (conservative property valuation) equals $75 million (conservatively) worth of properties at risk of devaluation. Its a $75 million "whim" that the residents are fighting to protect. And the economic benefits to the area of having PE students study at the WO are spurious, (but good for the Club because they can rent the space out to the Uni).

[Stefcep]

So your opinion is that political imperitives never impinge on planning decisions? OK we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying that the planning department is out and out corrupt but IMO they do what they can to please their political masters.





Just so we are straight, you do realise that the above relates to the Whitten Oval development and has no impact on The Bulldog Hilton which was what you were objecting to in the first place, wasnt it?




BTW I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about the earlymorningbottleinthewindscrenn. Where does your drunken offender get it from? IIRC A/ Liqour licensing laws prevent the carriage of alcohol from licensed premises and B/ If there's even a bottleshop planned, it'd be closed at 3am or whatever time you were (non hysterically of course) going on about.

I've already acknowledged with the Brimbank Council's example to accept a $1 million "donation" from Bunnings management to rezone parkland along the Keilor-Melton Hwy that Council's sometimes make less-than-honourable decision. i don't believe the Maribyrnong Council did that when it knocked back the Bulldog Hilton.

I'm very straight on it: Just so that YOU are straight:

1. VUT requires NO pokies at WO development, otherwise VUT won't move there NOR contribute funds to the WO development.

2. As a result of 1 (above) the Dogs decide to relocate Pokies to Edgewater. But Planning permit permit for Bulldog Hilton rejected.

3. The VUT rooms at the WO requires space for 150 students and the Dogs knew this 10-12 months ago, but only applied for a permit in April, meaning they had to wait till September for community consultation before THIS permit can be issued. The builders can't wait that long. Rose says Council refused this permit, Council says there is in fact NO decision on the permit because the period for community consultation hasn't elapsed. The Dogs then get the State government to over-rule local by-laws, so that the usual period for community consultation is denied

4. Even if the rooms can now be constructed at WO, the dogs still have to find a place for the pokies to go to or VUT pulls out.

[ledge]

One question i want answered can anyone tell me of the 300 objectors how many actually live in edgewater as the few people i have spoken to that objected do NOT live in that estate but within the city limit.
I will also have to say a 3 am bottle shop licence is not on anywhere if you can't your grog by 11 pm stiff shit.

Here you go Step, I thought you said they checked the addresses of objectors Strebla has just alluded to the fact the ones he knows dont even live in the area!
So to me this seems as i said a councillor, councillors or the council trying to just stop something for there own satisfaction.
All goes back to the million dollars and power.

Question, is it a bottle shop or something like Watergardens Hotel where you cant even buy takeaway beer?
If thats the case there are no bottles to throw at cars etc.

And also as a person who runs a bar and has done bar courses, it is the Hotels responsibilty to make sure people do not get drunk, if they do the Hotel can lose its licence, its that strict nowadays.

Sorry i forgot its the poker machines they are not wanting not the drunks, isnt that why it was rejected?
Poker machines do not cause drunks, its night clubs that do.
Fact remains they are moving pokies not having more as said by the Mayor.

[Stefcep]

One question i want answered can anyone tell me of the 300 objectors how many actually live in edgewater as the few people i have spoken to that objected do NOT live in that estate but within the city limit.
I will also have to say a 3 am bottle shop licence is not on anywhere if you can't your grog by 11 pm stiff shit.

You'd have to look at the addresse of the objectors on the Council records.

Agreed. With all of the recent controversy about serving/selling alcohol late in the CBD you'd think they'd have enough brains to realize that they'd have a hard time getting a permit till 3 am for a hotel in a suburb.

[Stefcep]

Here you go Step, I thought you said they checked the addresses of objectors Strebla has just alluded to the fact the ones he knows dont even live in the area!
So to me this seems as i said a councillor, councillors or the council trying to just stop something for there own satisfaction.
All goes back to the million dollars and power.

There's no contradiction. Yes they DO check addresses, and weigh up what effect the development would have on that that particular objectors property. So if someone lives further away from the site, they can object, but the Council may not attach the same significance to that objection.

And we still have not had anyone say exactly how the Council would achieve satisfaction? What, just to be bloody-minded? Or because someone's bribing them to reject the Dogs application? Or because the Council wants to hold on to the $1 million that its already in the budget publically known. Ok its possible. But isn't maybe-just maybe- more likely:

1. the Dogs didn't put the in the permit for the student rooms soon enough and

2. that the Dogs underestimated the residents opposition at Edgewater?

[Stefcep]

Here you go Step, I thought you said they checked the addresses of objectors Strebla has just alluded to the fact the ones he knows dont even live in the area!
So to me this seems as i said a councillor, councillors or the council trying to just stop something for there own satisfaction.
All goes back to the million dollars and power.

Question, is it a bottle shop or something like Watergardens Hotel where you cant even buy takeaway beer?
If thats the case there are no bottles to throw at cars etc.

And also as a person who runs a bar and has done bar courses, it is the Hotels responsibilty to make sure people do not get drunk, if they do the Hotel can lose its licence, its that strict nowadays.

Sorry i forgot its the poker machines they are not wanting not the drunks, isnt that why it was rejected?
Poker machines do not cause drunks, its night clubs that do.
Fact remains they are moving pokies not having more as said by the Mayor.

i forgot. Getting back to the bottle issue. it doesn't matter where they get. they could pick it up from the street gutter, they don't need a bottle to kick in a car door, they don't need a bottle to rip out your letter box. or set up on innocent kid and kick his skull in. all they need to be is pissed and have a few losses, at 3 am in the morning.

The Council quote BOTH pokies and alcohol trading for 20 out of 24 hours per day.
i know drinking laws are tougher but there's enough evidence out there that pubs still serve drink to people that are drunk. and if the drunk is refused and chooses to "debate" the issue what does the hotel do? throw him out on the street, which pisses him off even more than his gambling losses. and you can guess at what might happen next..

[ledge]

1. Only the Bulldogs and the council know the truth on that one but we have all seen councils put them through when it suits them.
2. Now its coming out some dont even live in Edgewater, just how many "real" residents did reject it?

[Stefcep]

Well in all of this, do we have an update on what is happening lately?
It is worrying and no matter what we all think, for and againsts, it is turning into a bit of a mess.
We all want it settled and do we have a date when a meeting is happening between who it matters with to fix it?
Or is the Hilton gone completely? Are the Bulldogs fighting it?
If not how will the pokie problem be solved as far as the university are concerned?

My understanding is that the Dogs have lodged an appeal with VCAT to overturn the Council rejection of the Hilton application.

Its a gamble: If the Dogs win, problem solved. If they lose...they'll have to find a place for the pokies elsewhere or lose VUT's money.

[hujsh]

What's your agenda Stefcep?

Not a hostile question just curious as to why you're so seemingly passionate about this council. I doubt I'd ever really defend my council. And almost all of your posts in this forum are related to this one topic.

[Stefcep]

1. Only the Bulldogs and the council know the truth on that one but we have all seen councils put them through when it suits them.
2. Now its coming out some dont even live in Edgewater, just how many "real" residents did reject it?

Don't know. But 300 objections is A LOT- even if 35% don't live there thats still over 200 that do. My parents objected and won their dispute against a developer with the support of only two other neighbours at Moonee Valley Council.

[ledge]

Good question Hujsh,
Seeings as your asking Step, I will put in my side, I probably come across anti council, but in fact I have a really good respect for the Melton council, I am only a committeee member of a cricket club but the things they have done over the last 5 years have been absolutely brilliant for the Sydenham Hillside area, they have bent over backwards
.
But go back 10 years and the Melton council was so corrupt, they eventually had the government step in.
Brimbank I believe is heading the same way, I worry Maribyrnong is the same, remember people in council are people off the street, a lot of people are money and power driven, thats why some join councils.

So I am not anti council i just want the truth and am putting up questions i think need to be answered or discussed.
For it to get like this obviously a serious breakdown has happened communication wise and some councillors take things personal.

[Stefcep]

What's your agenda Stefcep?

Not a hostile question just curious as to why you're so seemingly passionate about this council. I doubt I'd ever really defend my council. And almost all of your posts in this forum are related to this one topic.

no agenda. Don't give a fig about Maribyrnong Council in particular. But how they have handled it is right by me.

Its the principle: I believe in upholding the fundemental right of residents to have a say as to what happens in their community. This right protects against developers with with deep pockets steam rolling the interests of the "ordinary" folks.
Except now its our club who is the developer with the big pockets steam rolling the interests of the ordinary folks at Edgewater, getting the State govt to let them get away with it.

If it was anyone else, and we lived in Edgewater we wouldn't stand for it but because its our club, we don't live there, then bugger the principles, this is about money.

Given our club'c history and origins i thought our club was better than that. A community Club. Its deep down why I've supported them. But i feel really let down. And don't think Rose feels deeply about the Club. He's just a business man thats covering his arse at the moment.

The people in Edgewater aren't a bunch of toffs, despite what everyone thinks. They have a right to have their community develop in the way that its suits them, because they live there. I respect that right, and so does the Council. But people don't wanna see it.

I only intended to post once on this but I got dragged into it by some hostile and what I believe were ill informed remarks. I've posted on several other threads though.

[Stefcep]

Good question Hujsh,
Seeings as your asking Step, I will put in my side, I probably come across anti council, but in fact I have a really good respect for the Melton council, I am only a committeee member of a cricket club but the things they have done over the last 5 years have been absolutely brilliant for the Sydenham Hillside area, they have bent over backwards
.
But go back 10 years and the Melton council was so corrupt, they eventually had the government step in.
Brimbank I believe is heading the same way, I worry Maribyrnong is the same, remember people in council are people off the street, a lot of people are money and power driven, thats why some join councils.

So I am not anti council i just want the truth and am putting up questions i think need to be answered or discussed.
For it to get like this obviously a serious breakdown has happened communication wise and some councillors take things personal.

Now you're getting to the crux of it all.
Wouldn't you be able to accuse the Council of being corrupt if they ignored 300 objections against a gambling and 20- hour a day drinking joint in an area full of young families? Wouldn't you do the same if they approved a development without even giving the locals an opportunity to express an objection as happened with the State governments interventions re: the permit for the VUT rooms at WO? No? why? Becxause its our footy club doing it so that makes it ok?

[ledge]

Has it occurred to you the residents might be wrong and it might be a good thing for Edgewater?

[hujsh]

Interesting.

I can see Stefcep's view that you don't want it to get to a stage where people have no power or influence in what is built in their area. Because you don't want to set up a family home and have a pub move next door for example. (a similar thing has happened to us where some blokes built a house to be rented and some crazy and unstable people moved next door. the story ended with an airlift to hospital for a bloke)

While Ledge doesn't want the council's to make moves to benefit themselves and their own personal gain and forget about the community they're supposed to represent.

Am I correct or do i not understand you views?

If I'm correct then it's a fine line between the two and i think we can't insult Stefcep for providing some balance to the discussion and representing another side to the story.

[hujsh]

Interesting.

I can see Stefcep's view that you don't want it to get to a stage where people have no power or influence in what is built in their area. Because you don't want to set up a family home and have a pub move next door for example. (a similar thing has happened to us where some blokes built a house to be rented and some crazy and unstable people moved next door. the story ended with an airlift to hospital for a bloke)

While Ledge doesn't want the council's to make moves to benefit themselves and their own personal gain and forget about the community they're supposed to represent. Or they might pander to the outcry of the residents to gain support without making reasonable responsible decisions

Am I correct or do i not understand you views?

If I'm correct then it's a fine line between the two and i think we can't insult Stefcep for providing some balance to the discussion and representing another side to the story.

[Stefcep]

Has it occurred to you the residents might be wrong and it might be a good thing for Edgewater?


Its possible, but its up to the residents to present their concerns, upto the developer to negate these concerns and up to the Council to evaluate both sides concerns with the guidance of trained town planners and reference to the local laws.

[Stefcep]

Interesting.

I can see Stefcep's view that you don't want it to get to a stage where people have no power or influence in what is built in their area. Because you don't want to set up a family home and have a pub move next door for example. (a similar thing has happened to us where some blokes built a house to be rented and some crazy and unstable people moved next door. the story ended with an airlift to hospital for a bloke)

While Ledge doesn't want the council's to make moves to benefit themselves and their own personal gain and forget about the community they're supposed to represent. Or they might pander to the outcry of the residents to gain support without making reasonable responsible decisions

Am I correct or do i not understand you views?

If I'm correct then it's a fine line between the two and i think we can't insult Stefcep for providing some balance to the discussion and representing another side to the story.

Thats about the giste of it.

From where I sit it seems far more likely that dogs management didn't put the permit for VUT rooms soon enough and underestimated the outcome at Edgewater, rather than the entire councillors and planning department all colluding in some vendetta to send the local AFL team broke, or to get another 300 votes at the next election.

[ledge]

Now you're getting to the crux of it all.
Wouldn't you be able to accuse the Council of being corrupt if they ignored 300 objections against a gambling and 20- hour a day drinking joint in an area full of young families? Wouldn't you do the same if they approved a development without even giving the locals an opportunity to express an objection as happened with the State governments interventions re: the permit for the VUT rooms at WO? No? why? Becxause its our footy club doing it so that makes it ok?

They can also be corrupt if they are getting objections outside of Edgewater and listening to them.
Corruption is changing things to suit what you want, it can work both ways.

As i understand it the council knocked back the WO permit because they said it wasnt big enough for 150 students. That i find weird as the VUT were the ones who were ok with it and you would think they would know what size they need not a council.

So the government steps in and says hang on thats silly of course it can go ahead.

So then the council decides to spit it and uses the rejection of the Hilton as a way to make it difficult because of the pokies and student worry of the VUT at WO.
All seems to me the council hasnt got the million and are shitting themselves.

Just what was the real reason for not passing the permits at the WO?

[Stefcep]

They can also be corrupt if they are getting objections outside of Edgewater and listening to them.
Corruption is changing things to suit what you want, it can work both ways.

As i understand it the council knocked back the WO permit because they said it wasnt big enough for 150 students. That i find weird as the VUT were the ones who were ok with it and you would think they would know what size they need not a council.

So the government steps in and says hang on thats silly of course it can go ahead.

So then the council decides to spit it and uses the rejection of the Hilton as a way to make it difficult because of the pokies and student worry of the VUT at WO.
All seems to me the council hasnt got the million and are shitting themselves.

Just what was the real reason for not passing the permits at the WO?

No. Thats just what *bulldogs CEO Rose* says. The Council says the application was NOT rejected, but *before* the Council could make a decision on it, local laws require a period of community consultation, which meant no building till September sometime. By which time the builders would have left.

With that many students, there may be parking and increased traffic issues for local residents, there may be safety issues in terms of student numbers per rooms, who knows. But at least the residents should have been given the usual opportunity to be consulted.

[ledge]

Surely if the council knew the problem they could have helped push it through a bit quicker.'

Other point is and this is scary, so a massive building project is going up, the council is putting 1 million to it and its on theyre land but dont know whats going on?

There are and have been drawings up all over the place the last 12 months, would have thought the council, VUT and Bulldogs would have been working together and building it.

Especially if your actually at the stage of having builders there waiting.
Council should have been at drawing up stage!
Is this more council bungling?
If i gave someone 1 million i would certainly be in there having a say, especially on my land!
Those are probably the questions we need to ask.

[The Coon Dog]

ledge, should the above post be in the thread regarding the Whitten Oval redevelopment?

[ledge]

I just think the way the councils blocking of the WO permits and the blocking of the Hilton are both related to the milion dollars the council promised and maybe cant deliver.
The Hilton Blockage is because of the pokies, The WO permit problem started with size and now its about pokies and the Vut.

The council is now trying to have nothing to do with it and claiming its not going to pay up.
They are both related as one cant go ahead without the other.

[Stefcep]

Surely if the council knew the problem they could have helped push it through a bit quicker.'

Other point is and this is scary, so a massive building project is going up, the council is putting 1 million to it and its on theyre land but dont know whats going on?

There are and have been drawings up all over the place the last 12 months, would have thought the council, VUT and Bulldogs would have been working together and building it.

Especially if your actually at the stage of having builders there waiting.
Council should have been at drawing up stage!
Is this more council bungling?
If i gave someone 1 million i would certainly be in there having a say, especially on my land!
Those are probably the questions we need to ask.

The Council acknowledges it knew about the VUT issues 10-12 months ago, but the Dogs didn't put their application in till April. That leaves May, June, July, for the Council to review it and for community consultation to take place, before the builders leave in August. I' ve no doubt the Dogs project manager would've known how long it would take for the permit to be approved, or at least he should've known. Why didn't they put the application in sooner? Why did they allow it to get to the stage of builders waiting? Why put the whole project at risk this way?

BTW the $1 million isn't going to affect construction: its set aside for landscaping at the end of construction, which can be done without if it has to be. Its not such a big deal.

[Twodogs]

If Council arent playing politics then:


1/ Why have council sat by since April when they knew the club would need planning permission?

2/Why are council actively encouraging residents to make objections? As far as I know this is unprecedented.


1 and 2 dont fit together in a fair and balanced procedure. Either it was good enough to inform the club they needed planning permission and also encourage objections or do neither. You cant have both and then try and make the point that Council arent playing politics.

The bigger question here is what exactly is it that Council are trying to hide? Usually when something like is happening they are using it as a distraction

[ledge]

If Council arent playing politics then:


1/ Why have council sat by since April when they knew the club would need planning permission?

2/Why are council actively encouraging residents to make objections? As far as I know this is unprecedented.


1 and 2 dont fit together in a fair and balanced procedure. Either it was good enough to inform the club they needed planning permission and also encourage objections or do neither. You cant have both and then try and make the point that Council arent playing politics.

The bigger question here is what exactly is it that Council are trying to hide? Usually when something like is happening they are using it as a distraction

To me its the million dollars for sure, they havent got it or want to use it else where.

[Topdog]

The Council acknowledges it knew about the VUT issues 10-12 months ago,

This is were the ENTIRE council argument falls over.

They contradict themselves every 2 minutes. Originally they said they had heard rumours of VUT's involvement but didn't know anything. They also said they were working directly with the club....yet didn't feel the need to help them out with the paperwork? Very strange way of working with someone.

[Stefcep]

This is were the ENTIRE council argument falls over.

They contradict themselves every 2 minutes. Originally they said they had heard rumours of VUT's involvement but didn't know anything. They also said they were working directly with the club....yet didn't feel the need to help them out with the paperwork? Very strange way of working with someone.

From my reading of reports in the papers, the Council was in discussions with the Club, but they can't do anything until the Club applies for a permit. Just repeating: the Council DID NOT REJECT THE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE VUT ROOMS. They just told the Club that it needs to wait till the period of public consultation ends in September. It just so happened the builders had nothing to do up until then, and would've left in August. Is it up to the Council to also manage whether the builders have go anything to do or not. What's the project manager's job then?

I've built my own home too and i can tell you you are responsible for managing your materials and tradesman: the Council doesn't get involved.

[Stefcep]

If Council arent playing politics then:


1/ Why have council sat by since April when they knew the club would need planning permission?

2/Why are council actively encouraging residents to make objections? As far as I know this is unprecedented.




1. They haven't. They've just let things take their usual course. How are they responsible if the Dogs builders are going to leave coz the dogs didn't put the permit in say in March.

2. How do you mean "actively encourage"? Everyone who builds has to post a building permit application at the site inviting comments and objections

[Topdog]

From my reading of reports in the papers, the Council was in discussions with the Club, but they can't do anything until the Club applies for a permit. Just repeating: the Council DID NOT REJECT THE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE VUT ROOMS. They just told the Club that it needs to wait till the period of public consultation ends in September. It just so happened the builders had nothing to do up until then, and would've left in August. Is it up to the Council to also manage whether the builders have go anything to do or not. What's the project manager's job then?

I've built my own home too and i can tell you you are responsible for managing your materials and tradesman: the Council doesn't get involved.

Goes absolutely no where near addressing my post of how they can be "actively involved" yet sit by and watch and do nothing.