Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

[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.