Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

[ledge]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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.

[Missing Dog]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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
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?

[Missing Dog]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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?

[Missing Dog]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

Cos everytime something is wrong we need to make counter accusations.
Obviously no reply then its always true
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]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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.

[Missing Dog]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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

[LostDoggy]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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]

Re: Fight brews over 'Bulldog Hilton'

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