My Council Is Selling off The Popular Central Carpark in Glen Waverley (VIC) to Developers, Do You Know/Care?

• 

  Muzeeb on 01/04/2024 - 06:10

  +1

  Hello fellow Ozbargainers from South East Victoria

  Why does anyone from Gippsland care about your issue?

  • 

    Prosp24 on 01/04/2024 - 11:24

    +1

    Appreciate that this is a local issue, have added on the word 'metro'.

    • 

      Baysew on 01/04/2024 - 21:03

      -5

      Glen Waverley is in the North Western Metropolitan region.

      • 

        zachwright95 on 01/04/2024 - 23:47

        +2

        I think you may need to look at a better map if you think it's north western.

        • 

          Baysew on 02/04/2024 - 09:42

          @zachwright95: That is what the VEC calls it.

          Less confusing if the OP called for residents in the Monash Council area, as a local area issue. It's not really relevant for someone living in Pakenham or Dandenong.

  • 

    morse on 02/04/2024 - 03:21

    +1

    Because if councils go unchecked it will be a similar issue elsewhere soon.

    • 

      Baysew on 02/04/2024 - 13:13

      Next thing you know, the Vogons will be demolishing the earth for an intergalactic highway construction project for a hyperspace express route.

• 

  Dollar General on 01/04/2024 - 06:15

  +5

  There’s a popular car park? What goes on at this car pack? Do the cars speed date?

  • 

    Muzeeb on 01/04/2024 - 06:20

    +6

    It's popular because even if your parking is shite they leave a note under your wipers that's says:

    Parking Fine

  • 

    Hardlyworkin on 01/04/2024 - 08:21

    Lost my V plates there. It's a magical place.

  • 

    Baysew on 02/04/2024 - 13:09

    What goes on at this car park?

    Dogged if I know.

• 

  EightImmortals on 01/04/2024 - 07:43

  +1

  Is it Darradong Local Council by any chance?

• 

  mskeggs on 01/04/2024 - 07:52

  +2

  Did you make a submission? Did it take longer than a month to write?
  Have you registered to speak at the council meeting? Have you spoken with your council representatives?

  But perhaps first, have you spoken with shopkeepers who might be keen on the additional business development might bring? Have you considered the benefits a renovated library would bring over a car park?

  It is hard to inspire people to retain a car park if the alternative is better use of space and improved facilities now, versus an unfounded vision of making things better one day.

  • 

    Dollar General on 01/04/2024 - 10:04

    +4

    That’s a lot of effort compared to just posting it on ozbargain

• 

  mrdean on 01/04/2024 - 08:02

  +3

  Good on you for pushing back.

• 

  87percent on 01/04/2024 - 08:48

  +1

  They want everyone to park in that multi level car park around the corner from Chemist Warehouse on Kings Way, and also the multilevel near the train station

  • 

    Prosp24 on 01/04/2024 - 11:20

    Yep, the Bogong and Euneva carparks. As i understand, they are also getting a new multi level next to Euneva from the Suburban rail loop authority, as compensation to compulsory land acquisition.

• 

  avoidfullprice on 01/04/2024 - 08:58

  +3

  Elaborate April’s fool?

  • 

    JIMB0 on 01/04/2024 - 09:44

    +1

    They could've picked a better day to make the post.

• 

  burningrage on 01/04/2024 - 09:00

  +2

  I know the car park OP's talking about. It's indeed a very popular car parking space because it is the centre to very short walking distance to everywhere (<50m to Kingsway eating precinct vs at least 150m-200m from Bogong Multi deck or Euneva Multi Deck). I didn't know they are selling it and quite frankly, should be opposed.

  • 

    Dollar General on 01/04/2024 - 09:08

    I can understand if it’s a park or some other green space but bitumen isn’t sacred

    • 

      EightImmortals on 01/04/2024 - 10:39

      +1

      Unless there's a dollar in it

    • 

      Prosp24 on 01/04/2024 - 10:49

      Ultimately, its the land thats important (not the bitumen). It can become anything the public wants/needs. For example, a park, parking, a library, theatre, community center etc.

      The sale of the land is by far the worst option on the table, and much worse than an earlier option/vote council had in 2018 to turn the carpark into library/open space.

      Once sold, the land no longer serves public interests. In a place with heaps of upcoming private high rise, the last thing you need, is well… more private high rise.

      The area itself is a bit like the CBD (large towers popping up everywhere), and the carpark holds a very strategic and important location (right in the middle, next to the station).

      • 

        1st-Amendment on 01/04/2024 - 12:10

        +2

        Once sold, the land no longer serves public interests.

        The proposal reserves 1000m2 of the land for public use, and sets development controls on the sold land to ensure public amenity is maintained.
        The funds from the sale also pay for other public amenity projects, resulting in a net improvement. So to say it serves no public interest' is not accurate.

        the last thing you need, is well… more private high rise.

        Actually it's the first thing we need. The housing issues across Australia are a direct result of lack of supply. The only solution to that problem is more to encourage building of more new homes.

        • 

          burningrage on 01/04/2024 - 20:29

          @1st-Amendment: City of Monash is not poor. Home to many wealthy permanent residents and prestigious public and private schools. I was told they even charge every eatery along Kingsway $100k per annum for car park levy. The council is not poor.

          If they are building public housing, I would imagine there would be a far stronger pushback from the locals due to the potential devaluation of the precinct associated with such initiative. Now I am not seeing from their website they are intending to use this land for public housing but with council election around the corner, I think they might be hiding it and trying to portray the sale as for "library" which sounds very noble.

          • 

            1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 09:00

            @burningrage:

            I was told they even charge every eatery

            By whom? Maybe don't believe everything you hear…

            If they are building public housing

            That is not mentioned anywhere, how did you jump to this conclusion?

            I think they might be hiding it

            Lol, council meetings and decisions are all published publicy and you are free to attend those meetings if you wish.

            and trying to portray the sale as for "library"

            They are not doing that either. They are simply selling the land. Once it's sold the new owner will probably build a high rise with commercial retail and residential which will benefit will everyone.

            • 

              Prosp24 on 02/04/2024 - 11:39

              @1st-Amendment: New levels of high rise are appearing all along kingsway, for example at 73-75 kingsway and I support development on PRIVATE land, good on them (more stores/apartment, more housing).

              Monash councils planning scheme clause 52.06 car parking, table 1 specifies the parking requirements and rates applicable to most land uses (that is, parking demand generated). For example for a restaurant, 3.5 parking spaces are required per 100sqm leasable area. These are councils own rates.

              Now i love new restaurants near to me, but people need to be able to get to them for them to succeed, these new private high rises have no land to sacrifice towards car parking, they rely only on nearby public infrastructure and car-parking in order to get new customers and grow. Like the apartments and stores that are growing up, public services need to grow up as well to meet new demand.

              The central car park currently holds approx 250 spaces at ground level, if a future multilevel were constructed there, this could easily exceed 1000 spaces and could provide other mixed use purposes (e.g. "sky garden" on top, storefronts on ground floor, architectural facade). This is the true loss from Councils proposal, the loss of an opportunity to meet upcoming/future demand. Instead we have an engineered narrative of a "surplus" using creative accounting, short-sighted fanciful spending at the cost of long term planning.

              If the s173 conditions were reasonable i wouldn't have created this post, but i was disappointed. Obviously delivery of any such project would be better dealt with in private hands, but with public conditions, specifying explicit minimum requirements even prior to thinking of sale.

              Now people will argue that other transport modes should be put first and prioritised and i agree. But its not as simple as black and white (carrot and stick).

              For local travel (the idea of 10 minute cities like in nordic countries), yes we need more bike paths/bike parking, and public transport to take cars off the road, and priority should always go to traffic calming measures and pedestrians and bicycles over cars in local area traffic management.

              But it cannot be denied that Glen Waverley is also a significant regional trip generator, and that the trips generated come from all over SE metro victoria. Many of these other areas have poor access to PT, or long transfer times between PT services, they are too far for feasible bike trips and behaviorally people choose to use a private vehicle for all sorts of other reasons (e g. Safety).

              As others below have said, Glen Waverley needs to continue to cater for all modes of travel (as it currently does), and the services and infrastructure need to keep growing too. (Not be sold off like this!)

              Just look at the SRL precinct plan and the density proposed in there, realistically how much of the proposed rezoning will be infrastructure/public land/parking….

              Council needs to stop trying to sell essential services/infrastructure/land from the people, to fund short-sighted interests. I use the library myself all the time, and frankly all these calls of urgency to spend in excess of $100mil+ on a renovation are over exaggerated, and all those excuses about office space, well look at other councils who are reducing their space due to WFH…

              Regardless, Council is proposing to address one problem by creating a much bigger one.

              • 

                1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 13:23

                @Prosp24:

                Monash councils planning scheme clause 52.06 car parking, table 1 specifies the parking requirements and rates

                Obviously you never read this either. Nowhere in there does it say "charge every eatery along Kingsway $100k per annum for car park levy."

                have no land to sacrifice towards car parking

                What is basement car-parking…
                The document you linked to but didn't read explains how this works. If a new construction creates a demand for x car-park spaces then it needs to provide them at their own expense. But what is reading…

                Council is proposing to address one problem by creating a much bigger one.

                Only if you can't read, which is now obvious…

• 

  DingoBilly on 01/04/2024 - 09:54

  +3

  I'm actually more in favour of removing parking. It's an eyesore and such a waste of land. So much space is reserved for it - with less of it hopefully it would encourage people to take other modes of transport or to build communities differently.

  • 

    1st-Amendment on 01/04/2024 - 12:14

    Agree. I know nothing of this location, but it looks like they are building out better public transport options in parallel, so removing car-parks and building high density homes within walking distance of stations will encourage more alternatives to cars.

    • 

      burningrage on 01/04/2024 - 20:24

      You need to be local to understand.

      That Glen area is growing that successfully because it is accessible via ALL mode of transport. I would imagine it is covering places as far as Knox municipality to the East, Kingston to the South, Whitehorse to the East, and Manningham to the north. If your anti-car argument is to be successful, it will become like what City of Melbourne is, slowly dying and even their Mayor doesn't want to deal with it even though she was the cause of it all.

      Furthermore, Glen has many restaurants that open really late (some even 24/7) and parking in that central area is very well lit and centre enough to have plenty of foot traffic and you would feel safer at night walking around that area instead of walking from Euneva or Bogong (150m to 200m and not as well lit footpath along the walkway) to the Kingsway entertainment precinct.

      What should have happened in my opinion is they should have built 1 multideck in that central space instead of 2x Euneva and Bogong building.

      • 

        1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 09:12

        +1

        You need to be local to understand.

        I've worked in town planning, the processes are all the same. It's not rocket science, if you attend council meetings or read their website all this stuff is transparent.

        If your anti-car argument is to be successful,

        I didn't make an anti-car argument. The simple fact is that urban areas grow, it's physically impossible for everyone to drive everywhere for every journey. So you need other transport options as well. The common solution is to add trains and buses, then allow higher density around those locations so that some people don't need a car. This appears to be exactly what is happening here.

        to have plenty of foot traffic

        If you read the council plan that is included. As part of the sale the council has reserved 1000m2 of the site for public use, likely to add footpaths, seating. lighting etc The site will also likely end up with more retail so it will be more pedestrian friendly than a car-park.

        What should have happened in my opinion

        Did you make a submission to council? OZB forums are not part of the public consultation process.

        • 

          Prosp24 on 02/04/2024 - 12:30

          @1st-Amendment: In transport planning/ modelling, there are four major components, trip generation, distribution, modal split and trip assignment. These show up in most transport planning units taught in universities.

          You can't ignore the modal split, the local trips/traffic generated from within Glen Waverley area are a much smaller and much less significant proportion when compared to the trips and traffic generated from outside of glen waverley catchment.

          Local area traffic management (LATM), works for local traffic (reduce car usership, prioritise other modes), but with regional traffic, you are subject to all of the issues from all over the whole SE transport network (this falls more to state government and DTP than local).

          A similar example is Chadstone, how many customers live nearby compared to >5km? Why do they have so many multilevel carparks distributed on all sides, even with a significant investment in PT.

          The sale of this land limits Glen Waverleys potential and future growth as a regional destination and diminishes its reputation as a well serviced and planned area.

          • 

            1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 12:43

            @Prosp24:

            In transport planning/ modelling

            Cool story. This is a sale of land, not a transport solution. Did you just google this because it sounds like you cut and paste some stuff without understanding what it means.

            The sale of this land limits Glen Waverleys potential

            Another cool story. Why are you telling us? Did you make a submission to council?

• 

  Hardlyworkin on 01/04/2024 - 10:54

  -1

  That nice council and developers are looking to ease the housing crisis? NIMBY!

• 

  1st-Amendment on 01/04/2024 - 11:55

  +3

  what i see as an attempt to take from the public without adequate consultation.

  I Googled this and spent 5 minutes reading the proposal. Some facts that I gleaned in less than 5 minutes:
  The initial proposal was announced Sept. Consultation went through to November, a recommendation was made in December
  A public consultation was performed that "complied with council's obligations under Section 114 of the Local Government Act 2020 and Council’s Community Engagement Policy"
  This consisted of ads in the newspaper, on the council website and on notice boards onsite.
  Central Carpark has 247 parking spaces and Council built 523 new parking spaces at the Bogong Carpark (about 150m away) to ensure no loss of amenity.

  What specifically did you you have a problem with there?

  It seems that the Council has done very little to include the locals and communities affected in the decision-making, before rapidly progressing ahead.

  It's now April so this thing has been going for at least 6 months, how long would you like council to take to do things?

  and concluded public consultation after only receiving SEVEN submissions,

  Public consultation is time based, not quantity-of-submission based. Out of those 7 submission only 3 were against the proposal. Do you think a Local Council should stop any project because 3 people aren't happy about it?

  The Council seems determined to move ahead in the background, particularly if they do not get called out or subject to scrutiny.

  They followed their processes. It seems like you are just a Karen that is moaning about something you don't like because you weren't paying attention.

  • 

    jjjaar on 01/04/2024 - 17:11

    Out of those 7 submission only 3 were against the proposal.

    To have more than 55% of submissions in support is really substantial. People don’t usually provide submissions in support of things, as people don’t think it is worth their time. It’s more common that the majority of submissions are against.

    • 

      mrdean on 01/04/2024 - 17:47

      +2

      Submissions in support are usually from those who benefit in some way or are proxies for others.

      • 

        jjjaar on 01/04/2024 - 18:25

        Exactly my point.

        Submissions against come from everyone who isn’t happy. Residents, workers, someone who read a social media post and got angry. Average people.

        But average people don’t bother putting in submissions when they do support things. Only those that, as you said, benefit in some way - usually directly.

        Hence, you can infer that there are more people in support of projects than those who do put in submissions. They just keep to themselves.

        The balance of those against more often than not outweighs those in support, especially in contentious proposals. But in this situation, very few people - average people or otherwise - were against it, which is an unusual outcome… likely meaning people do actually support it.

        • 

          mrdean on 01/04/2024 - 19:21

          @jjjaar:

          … likely meaning people do actually support it.

          Disagree, most people wouldn't be aware of it, just like all the public consultations done for all manner of legislation, eg digital id bill, misinfo/disinfo bill & thousands more. These type of activities whether it be local council, state or fed govts, parliament are not exactly advertised everywhere are they? No, & that's deliberate, the less the general public know, the less resistance the changes will face.

          If that council properly asked the members of that community whether they agreed or not (without propagandizing them with "we'll make money that can be used for much other good" etc), my guess would be a lot would say no. Maybe most would be indifferent.

          • 

            jjjaar on 01/04/2024 - 21:08

            @mrdean: They’re not bloody hiding it. No councils are. In Vic at least, they all have a “Have Your Say” page on their website with upcoming, current and past consultations.

            Find yours. Bookmark it. Check in every few weeks.

            You can’t be mad you didn’t know about something if you’re not willing to find out. Councils usually letterbox drop and sometimes even doorknock addresses close to the proposal, but otherwise, people need to at least try. They can’t just expect council to knock on the door of every single person living, working and visiting the municipality.

            Previously this information would have been in the local paper, and you’d have to open the paper when you got it and look for the council news page. If you didn’t do that, you couldn’t have just cried “oh woe is me, I didn’t know”. It’s on you to keep up to date.

            Here’s the Monash page by the way. There’s a few things there and a link to even more. Hiding in plain sight.
            https://www.monash.vic.gov.au/Home/Tabs/Have-Your-Say

          • 

            1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 09:22

            @mrdean:

            most people wouldn't be aware of it,

            That's their problem. Part of being an adult is doing things for yourself. All of this stuff is published, it's your decision if you want to participate or not.

            These type of activities whether it be local council, state or fed govts, parliament are not exactly advertised everywhere are they?

            They are actually. Each level of government has processes, all of which is public.

            If that council properly asked the members of that community whether they agreed or not

            They did.

            Maybe most would be indifferent.

            Most are, like yourself. All it would take is for you to look up your local/state/federal .gov.au website and it's all there.

      • 

        morse on 02/04/2024 - 03:47

        This ⬆️ also staff, friends and sock puppets are instructed and sometimes paid to skew perceived public opinion on planning issues using traditional and social media.

    • 

      1st-Amendment on 01/04/2024 - 18:27

      People don’t usually provide submissions in support of things

      The 3 in support were developers that wanted in on the deal (not kidding)
      https://hdp-au-prod-app-mon-shape-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.am…

      See appendix 2.

      1 was just asking for the price. So it was 3 for, 3 against, and 1 token idiot.

      • 

        Prosp24 on 02/04/2024 - 12:47

        +1

        7 responses….in a suburb of 42,000+ Its such an abysmally small number on such a significant local issue.

        Not everyone is subscribed to the age, or happened to read that page on that specific day (i didnt). Nor do they read formal notices in small texts on notice boards in carparks when/if they happen to be there.

        Compared to the councils 30 days, in the 1 day since this post was created how many responses have been received?

        One really has to question whether council genuinely attempted to notify and consult the public or simply treated it as a closed off, backdoor, tick-box exercise.

        The council is not ignorant, this has been a controversial topic since 2013…

        Regardless, public attention and robust debate are healthy, and if planners and councils have nothing to hide, then they should welcome this thread.

        • 

          mrdean on 02/04/2024 - 12:51

          -1

          @Prosp24:

          One really has to question whether council genuinely attempted to notify and consult the public or simply treated it as a closed off, backdoor, tick-box exercise

          Bingo.

          • 

            1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 13:07

            @mrdean:

            Bingo.

            But they did genuinely notify the public, it's all there on their website.

            But don't let logic interfere with your waving fists at the sky…

            • 

              mrdean on 02/04/2024 - 14:52

              @1st-Amendment:

              But they did genuinely notify the public, it's all there on their website.

              But don't let logic interfere with your waving fists at the sky…

              Yes, they did. They all do. There's nuance here. You are right. It is all out in the open.

              However, the nuance is that people are so busy & distracted (deliberately in my opinion) that they generally leave decisions like this that directly affect them (local state fed int level) because they either believe things are being done in their best interests, or they are unaware.

              My bet is on them being unaware, coupled with the fact these things are not easy to find, even though they are listed on councils website. They appear & disappear. They are not left up for long. They are shifted around. Pages disappear. I have direct experience of this following fed & state govt public submissions.

              • 

                1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 15:07

                @mrdean:

                However, the nuance is that people are so busy & distracted

                So how do you think this should be done? Every one of the thousands and thousands of decisions at local/state/federal should be a $400M nationally televised referendum that drags on for a year? It would take a thousand years to do one year's work. And who pays for that?

                The question was 'whether council genuinely attempted to notify and consult the public" and the answer is a resounding yes. They posted ads in the paper, they post all of their proposals on their website, they posted signs on the site. If you're like me I signed up to my council notifications and they send me notices every week of all proposals. What else would you like them to do?

                • 

                  mrdean on 02/04/2024 - 15:20

                  @1st-Amendment:

                  What else would you like them to do?

                  Reach as many people in their LGA as possible. No need to spend $400 million although do you notice how now the states are proceeding with their own versions of that referendum?

                  • 

                    1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 15:26

                    @mrdean:

                    Reach as many people in their LGA as possible

                    And what is the best way to do that?

                    Maybe have a website that anyone can access and post all your notices on it? Oh wait…
                    Have a mailing list that you can subscribe to if you are interested in council activity? Oh wait…
                    Post ads in the papers? Oh wait…
                    Put up signs on the relevant sites? Oh wait…

                    Newsflash, that is exactly what they have.

                    do you notice how now the states are proceeding with their own versions of that referendum?

                    Sounds corrupt, let me guess it's happening in Labor run states only?

                    • 

                      mrdean on 02/04/2024 - 15:33

                      @1st-Amendment: Given that the majority of people still get their "news" via tv, radio & print, not by visiting council websites, not by mailing lists, not by walking by & taking notice of one of a hundred different signs on roads they may rarely walk down, I would say some pretty big ads in major papers would help, followed by letter drops in every single residential address in the area would help for starters.

                      TV & Radio is tricky though. Obviously huge reach, but not exactly local is it.

                      Did council do enough? Yeah, but that's not the point. They're quite happy with the way things work, because they know a lot of people won't be aware &/or can't be bothered.

                      And this doesn't even begin to take into account the way the proposals are structured, written & have bases covered. Council WANTS this, & they will ensure that whoever objects will have the least possible chance at success in stopping council plans. Only large vocal numbers will make them backtrack, which they know isn't likely, based on above.

                      • 

                        1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 16:04

                        @mrdean:

                        Given that the majority of people still get their "news"

                        Running a government is not news. You have the option of participating or not. All the information is available to you.
                        Don't blame others because you are too lazy to get involved.

                        Did council do enough? Yeah, but that's not the point.

                        It is exactly the point.

                        • 

                          mrdean on 02/04/2024 - 17:07

                          @1st-Amendment:

                          It is exactly the point.

                          The point is Councils are more than happy to have an uninvolved citizenry in order to push through agendas from above.

                          • 

                            1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 17:20

                            @mrdean:

                            The point is Councils are more than happy to have an uninvolved citizenry

                            So even though the council notifies the community of all major works through multiple methods it's still not good enough for you. You need it spoon fed to you like a child? The reason the voting age is 18 is because you supposed to be an adult by then and be able to do things for yourself. Maybe we need to raise the voting age to 25 or 30…

                            to push through agendas from above.

                            Explain this conspiracy theory to me in more detail.

                            Have you been to a council meeting? Read any of the minutes they publish? Been to any community engagement sessions? Who is the 'above' in this story?

                            Here's something that might rock your world. Did you ever think that some other citizens want different things than you? And those people attended meetings, and proposed things and you didn't? And that's how things happen?
                            Or do you think it's some sort of cartoon Dr Evil universe where the Mayor takes their orders directly from Thanos with an intent on destroying the universe by converting two smaller car-parks into one larger car-park to free up more space for public amenity? Damn that Thanos and his evil plans…

                            • 

                              mrdean on 02/04/2024 - 17:35

                              @1st-Amendment:

                              Explain this conspiracy theory to me in more detail.

                              You see, this kind of waives off anyone trying to push back against what is happening in the world. Some awake & clued in people are starting to form groups to do just that. Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals are not "conspiracy theories".
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals

                              https://www.communityvoiceaustralia.org/ "Advocate for governmental bodies and their partners to conduct robust and genuine community consultation before approving any plans that impacts the lives of the people in the community." The key word is "genuine".
                              My Place Australia groups are also pushing back on the local level.

                              yeah, ok, a "carpark" sold off isn't high on the priority list for pushback, but it "is" nevertheless something to oppose. Why? Because the "council" should find ways to develop it WITHOUT flogging it off to the highest (probably related) bidder.

                              • 

                                1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 19:33

                                +1

                                @mrdean:

                                but it "is" nevertheless something to oppose

                                So did you write a submission or attend any of the meetings about this?

        • 

          1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 13:02

          @Prosp24:

          Its such an abysmally small number on such a significant local issue.

          So significant that only 7 people responded to the public notice… Why are you failing to grasp that public engagement is time-based, not submission-based?

          One really has to question whether council genuinely attempted to notify

          They did. It's all there in black and white, all recorded, logged and compliant with policy. Moaning about the decision after the fact because you couldn't be bothered to look is not their problem.

          this has been a controversial topic since 2013…

          So controversial that you couldn't be bothered looking at the Council website to check any of the numerous public notices on the subject…

          if planners and councils have nothing to hide, then they should welcome this thread.

          Lol. I didn't see anywhere in the Council's Community Engagement Policy where it said, 'read Ozbargain threads 6 months later to see how many Karens are moaning about it.' Do you think that they should add that to the policy? Have you written to your local Councillor with this suggestion?

• 

  JimmyF on 01/04/2024 - 13:27

  Need pictures of the space…. Are you talking the open air carpark? Will it be replaced with a multi story carpark as part of the sale of equal or more car spaces then if so, I'm ok with that.

  • 

    Prosp24 on 01/04/2024 - 14:46

    Yes the open air carpark is being sold off by the council

    Unfortunately no, the description of the sale conditions and controls (s173) do not include any requirement to compensate for parking at the same location. There is only a requirement to maintain the current carpark until such time a new owner is ready to develop (a weak requirement at best, probably an attempt to hide the change until it is too late).

    The Bogong ave carpark is getting more stories (near chemist warehouse) and will add an additional 523 carparks, resulting in a surplus of about 241 carparks, and this has been used as justification for the sale (so new parking is being created in a multilevel elsewhere).
    Of course, these will not be ground floor (at grade), nor as accessible for people intending to visit to businesses near the central carpark (these businesses will likely become more isolated, as parking concentrates into fewer locations).

    Although lumping this together with the Bogong project does result in a net increase in parking (relocated elsewhere into a multilevel).

    There is an overall net loss of public land (sold off for money), and the loss of the important site at the heart of glen waverley, all of which should remain in public hands for public use.

    Buildings depreciate over time (and need to eventually be rebuilt, as shown by the existing library) while land appreciates over time. Selling public land to construct buildings is shortsighted.

    • 

      JimmyF on 01/04/2024 - 18:30

      +1

      The Bogong ave carpark is getting more stories (near chemist warehouse) and will add an additional 523 carparks, resulting in a surplus of about 241 carparks, and this has been used as justification for the sale (so new parking is being created in a multilevel elsewhere).

      Ok, so its not a net loss then of car spaces.

      Of course, these will not be ground floor (at grade), nor as accessible for people intending to visit to businesses near the central carpark (these businesses will likely become more isolated, as parking concentrates into fewer locations).

      They will be accessible, with ramps and lifts. Everyone will be in the same boat as far as being 'isolated'.

      There is an overall net loss of public land (sold off for money), and the loss of the important site at the heart of glen waverley, all of which should remain in public hands for public use.

      That there is, but what do you want out of this? The land to be left as a carpark? Its been carpark for 30+ years that I can remember. Most car parks like that are only there to hold the land until the time comes along to turn it into something useful.

      Would you rather they sold the old library off and built the new library on this land?

      So yeah, the big question is, what do you want to happen with this land? Are you upset the carpark is going? The land is being sold off? The library is getting money spent on it?

      Are you a trader in the small shops who will be upset your 'car parks' are gone for customers?

      • 

        Prosp24 on 02/04/2024 - 13:11

        Council is using creative accounting to engineer a 'surplus'. The project alone is obviously a net loss of parking.

        This is also based on existing demand, but glen waverley is growing, the future of kingsway looks to be 3 to 8 story high rises (see building at 73-75 kingsway). All these new stories, commercial/retail spaces and dwellings will increase parking demand significantly.

        But.. these sites have no more land to contribute towards parking, they rely on public infrastructure and services nearby (which are being sold off!).

        To allow continued growth and prosperity of glen, services and infrastructure need to grow in line with demand, the site (at 250 parking spaces now at ground floor) should provide at least a minimum equivalent + any increased demand as a result of the new development at the same location. This should be captured in a s173 agreement on title prior to sale (this has not happened, there is nothing)

        The site itself can hold a multilevel carpark and mixed use site with 1000+ parking spaces (e.g. storefronts on ground floor interfaces).This is really what is being sold off

        Large loss of future supply of parking spaces that can be used to meet growing demand and allow for ongoing future growth and success of the area.

        There is only so much Bogong and Euneva can be upgraded from this point forwards.

        Selling the carpark land now for unrelated operational expenses is unnecessary, it is short-term thinking and the opposite of long-term planning.

        If the council needs money it should instead have the courage to make hard and unpopular decisions, like others have. Either cut or reduce unnecessary spending, or start charging for certain services that are currently free (e.g. some carparks).

        • 

          1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 13:27

          +1

          @Prosp24:

          Council is using creative accounting to engineer a 'surplus'.

          Not creative accounting, they are removing 247 car parks and adding 523. 523 is more than 247. You are using creative accounting to avoid this fact.

          All these new stories, commercial/retail spaces and dwellings will increase parking demand significantly.

          The policy you linked explains how this works. I suggest you read it.

          • 

            Prosp24 on 02/04/2024 - 13:57

            @1st-Amendment:

            Not creative accounting, they are removing 247 car parks and adding 523. 523 is more than 247. You are using creative accounting to avoid this fact.

            The Bogong upgrade is a separate project at a separate location. It was never advertised that it would be used to offset or justify the loss of parking from another location.

            The central carpark can be upgraded to a multilevel in future, but there are only so many times you can upgrade the bogoing alone.

            The policy you linked explains how this works. I suggest you read it.

            What is basement car-parking…
            The document you linked to but didn't read explains how this works. If a new construction creates a demand for x car-park spaces then it needs to provide them at their own expense. But what is reading…

            The fact that you are suggesting basement parking, shows that you do not have local knowledge of the Kingsway area, nor do you understand how impractical/unfeasible it is at that location, due to the very high density.

            Imagine individual basement carparks beneath each one of those little stores (one for each store/property title). Would you go down the ramps from Kingsway? How many parking spaces could fit on each floor?

            does it make more sense to have one large shared public multi-level carpark or lots of small expensive dettached private basement carparks for each store each with only a few spaces…(i.e. everyone do your own thing, instead of having centralized systems in place).

            • 

              1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 15:18

              @Prosp24:

              The Bogong upgrade is a separate project at a separate location

              150m away… part of the same precinct upgrade plan. If you had've read the proposal you would've known that.

              nor do you understand how impractical/unfeasible it is at that location

              The site is 6000m2. I am involved with a high rise project on 1/3rd that size block of land that has 3-level underground parking for 250 cars.

              It is you that has no idea. You never read the original proposal, you never made a submission, you have no idea how planning works.

              does it make more sense to have one large shared public multi-level carpark

              Like Bogong you mean? It is exactly what they are doing. Do you even read what you write? One larger shared public multi-level carpark.

              So you are suggesting exactly that they are doing, yet opposing it at the same time…

        • 

          JimmyF on 02/04/2024 - 14:33

          @Prosp24: Ok, so all your issues are related to the car park spaces and nothing else. So you are a trader in the area worried about loss of business as people can't find a car spot?

          Looks to be lots of car parking around.

          https://www.monash.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/planni…

          • 

            1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 15:20

            @JimmyF: I think the poor dear is baulking at the fact they will now have to walk a whole 150m to the next car-park which will have twice as many spaces. Oh the humanity…

            • 

              JimmyF on 02/04/2024 - 16:17

              @1st-Amendment: I honestly can't work out their issue. They are so enraged by this, but the only acceptable outcome would be to replace the space with a multi level carpark. Which to me shows a vested interest in keeping car spaces, so guessing they are one of the local traders facing the carpark area who don't want their customers to walk 150m extra, as they will go elsewhere.

• 

  coffeeinmyveins on 01/04/2024 - 17:48

  The carpark is over 6000sqm of public land located in the middle/heart of the popular Glen Waverley suburb, providing 247 parking spaces

  oh no, those poor car drivers, where will they park.

  If you can:

  nope. Why does the rest of australia care about a local council issue? This isn't your local facebook community page dude.

  I assume by "developers" you mean that they are going to create housing for people in the form of apartments? A much better use of an open air single story car park IMO. But hey, NIMBY.

• 

  morse on 02/04/2024 - 03:31

  If you Salim Mehajer type situation report it:
  https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/report
  https://www.viccouncils.asn.au/what-councils-do/council-resp…

  It can be very hard to prove but counsellors and mayors have been known to make decisions to benefit their developer mates. It’s worth just putting it out there as not in the public interest and have another body look at it. See if it’s consistent with the city plan and other state planning documents.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 09:32

  If you Salim Mehajer type situation report it

  You know that 'corruption' doesn't mean 'did something I don't like'?
  OP is having a whinge because the council is doing stuff he/she doesn't like. From what I read, the planning, the consultation, the decisions are all above board and followed the established process. With any change some percentage of people don't like it, but simply not liking it isn't enough to stop a change from proceeding.

  See if it’s consistent with the city plan and other state planning documents.

  It is, and all of this is spelled out in the council documents that OP clearly didn't read.

  • 

    morse on 02/04/2024 - 19:36

    Most people who do corrupt things don’t advertise the fact and will hide behind a legitimate processes, that’s why if something looks off there’s the opportunity to raise it with an independent body and let them get to the bottom of it. If they find nothing, then no harm done. If there’s not enough evidence to warrant looking into, also no harm done, but no problem raising it.

    • 

      1st-Amendment on 03/04/2024 - 18:35

      -1

      will hide behind a legitimate processes

      Not true at all.

      Corruption is when you are not following the published process and/or the audit trial is not public. Neither of those things apply here.

      that’s why if something looks off

      I've probed the posters here for what they think is 'off' and all they can come up with is 'I don't like it'. That is not justification for an investigation.
      Can you provide any evidence other than 'I don't like it? Or is NIMBY all you have?

      also no harm done, but no problem raising it.

      There is harm done because frivolous complaints and investigations cost taxpayer money.

      • 

        morse on 03/04/2024 - 19:18

        Corruption is when you are not following the published process and/or the audit trial is not public. Neither of those things apply here.

        Nope, corruption is dishonest conduct usually from a position of power and often for personal benefit. You would have no way of knowing if this has occurred in this case or not, unless of course you’re involved and even then you could be unaware. You can follow all processes on surface level, but still be corrupt. For example if someone doesn’t declare a conflict of interest, ie they stand to benefit either through material gain or business relationships.

        There is harm done because frivolous complaints and investigations cost taxpayer money.

        Frivolous complaints won’t progress. The fact that there is independent bodies to review these things is a good thing, the staff employed by those agencies are there already and are a function of our democracy and good government. Do away with this and see how much corruption costs society.

        • 

          1st-Amendment on 03/04/2024 - 20:07

          @morse:

          corruption is dishonest conduct

          So think about it before just copy and pasting Google results. If the council is following their published, publicly accessible and endorsed process, AND publishing a full audit trial publicly that complies with this process, where is the dishonesty?

          You imagining dishonesty does not count.

          Can you provide any evidence other than 'I don't like it'?

          Didn't think so…

          • 

            morse on 03/04/2024 - 20:51

            @1st-Amendment: Not my geographic area, not mine to like or dislike, but if a reasonable person looks at something and thinks it is not in the public interest it is legitimate to raise it. It’s not about like or dislike, it seems like OP has local knowledge that would indicate on face value it’s not in best interest of the public and there has been low community engagement. This in itself can be enough to scrutinise.

            I didn’t google FYI, that’s a pretty well known definition, no need to make it up or search for it.

            Your staunch resistance to public scrutiny would ring alarms bells for me if you’re involved in public service, office or contracts.

            • 

              1st-Amendment on 03/04/2024 - 22:45

              @morse:

              Your staunch resistance to public scrutiny would ring alarms bells for me

              Of course, because who needs evidence when you have feelings…

              • 

                morse on 04/04/2024 - 03:03

                @1st-Amendment: This statement makes no sense in context of what I wrote. It’s the kind of statement used strategically by paid sock puppets to gain support in forums with higher readership. Trying to discredit logical criticism by saying it’s emotionally charged and not evidence based to skew debate - but in this case there’s no real audience and there’s nothing of that nature about what I wrote. It’s not even my OP and I simply refer to legitimate and established processes of governance with information available on public government websites.

                Curious to know what your emotional driver is 🤷‍♀️ Commitment to defending a council project and suggesting it shouldn’t be subject to the same scrutiny as any other publicly funded project seems more driven by feelings than my original if then statement with links to government published online information. It’s not up to you or me to judge any evidence, it would be the body receiving the information looking at any evidence provided by a community member. I know nothing about the Glen Waverley community, but have a reasonable handle on gov process. Information is there for OP or anyone else to use if it fits the scenario.

                • 

                  1st-Amendment on 04/04/2024 - 08:52

                  @morse:

                  This statement makes no sense

                  That say more about you than me. If you don't understand the value of evidence then no wonder you are confused.

                  It’s the kind of statement used strategically by paid sock puppet

                  Lol have some more straws to grasp at. 'I feel that you are so you are!'. Is what passes for 'logic' to you?

                  Trying to discredit logical criticism

                  Nothing you said is logical. You said "but if a reasonable person looks at something and thinks it is not in the public interest it is legitimate to raise it."

                  Just thinking "something is not in the public interest" isn't logic. It's emotion. Logic would require some form of objective basis, a premise and a conclusion based on objective evidence.

                  Curious to know what your emotional driver is

                  Another false assumption… There is a pattern developing …

                  seems more driven by feelings

                  If it seems that way to you, it's you…

                  Facts/Feelings, you know the drill…

                  When you can construct an argument based on actual evidence rather just what you feel, then get back to me.

                  • 

                    morse on 04/04/2024 - 08:57

                    @1st-Amendment: Why would I have any evidence? It’s not my post. I suggested that OP may want to ‘if’ they feel it’s appropriate. You seem mighty irate that someone would even suggest using the government structures in place. It would be up to any committee or tribunal looking at it to assess and decide the threshold for evidence. I have 0 ‘feelings’ on the issue - never been there.

                    • 

                      1st-Amendment on 04/04/2024 - 09:09

                      -1

                      @morse:

                      Why would I have any evidence? It’s not my post.

                      What is reading…

                      I suggested that OP may want to ‘if’ they feel…

                      Feel…

                      You seem…

                      Seem…

                      You still can't see the problem here can you…
                      Rather than feelings, how about some facts once in a while? Do facts carry any weight in your universe, or are feelings everything?

                      mighty irate

                      Another false assumption. Projection maybe?

                      that someone would even suggest using the government structures in place

                      Who pays for those?

• 

  Baysew on 02/04/2024 - 10:27

  Personally, i won't be voting to re-elect any current Councillors who supported this.

  Who are the Councillors who supported this?

  • 

    1st-Amendment on 02/04/2024 - 13:06

    Who are the Councillors who supported this?

    OP has no idea becasue they never read any of the proposals published by council, never made a submission, never attended any meetings. They are just having a moan to us as if that will change anything.

• 

  Euphemistic on 02/04/2024 - 19:35

  -1

  Bit disappointed to find out this wasnt April Fool.