Since 2005 the Local Laws Committee originally consisting of Crs Tang, Ashmor, Robilliard and me and since the 2008 election of Crs Tang, Pilling and me have conducted an exhaustive and sometimes an exhausting review of all of Glen Eira's local laws. The job is now almost complete and the revised laws are being placed on public exhibition for review and consultation.
There are some in our community who have queried the need for so many rules and regulations suggesting that they are invasive and that we are over regulated. That view however is not only unrealistic but ultimately narcissistic. In any society we have rules that regulate our behaviour. That is even more so at the local government level as the day to day invariably affect us, fro having overhanging branches, car parking issues, unsightly properties and more. Isn't it always the way that those who criticise are often the first to seek redress from the very same source that they impugn.
Many out dated laws were either removed or altered. Others have been added to recognise current problems eg, Contractors and Sub-contractors parking at or near building sites.
Nature strips were also considered and the law will now allow property owners to plant under certain conditions.
Is the law perfect? - I think not but a very detailed examination was carried out and it is now up to the community to add suggestions.
3 comments:
Getting rid of the local law denying some licence with nature strips is a good start towards less restrictive practices, without a sensible purpose.
I know resident have until mid September to make their Submissions to Council, but realistically I feel your personal attitude to mutual consultation is less than inviting when seeking public comment. You never seem to be believe there is a little room for improvement Cr Lipshutz, once you've been involved in a process.
Residents appreciate that you give of your time and talent to undertake the review, as you do with your other interests within Council - but you are part of a team of stake holders, of which residents also have a interest in the outcomes.
I feel democracy can be seen as a disadvantage by you because being a lawyer, by nature and training, indicates you're used to controlling the issue.
In local government it is meant to be a shared control of mutual interests, with we residents pretending that we have a voice because we have nine elected representatives who told us they will put us first on their election platform. For the record I know you made no such undertaking, but eight others did!
Overnight Councillor, I given some thought to the subject matter and wondered if you'd elaborate a bit on the following observations.
The last Minutes of the Local Law Review Committee that I could find was dated July 4, 2007. I'm thinking there must have been further meetings in which specific local laws were considered for review. What of the Meetings held with Crs Tang and Pilling?.
Wouldn't a formal record be kept which tracks why specific local laws are considered for review, and why others are discontinued.
Where are the Officers Reports called for by Councillors, to support their decision making process. An example of what I mean would be the Meetings of July 4, which explains What, Why and How an issue is being dealt with by Crs Lipshutz, Robilliard, and Tang with Ashmor being an apology. The Council Officer present was recorded as Duncan Turner, City Development.
Who participated in the decision making process in any subsequent meetings?
I would appreciate your response being published on your blog site for the general information of those seeking clarity in anticipation of their Submission.
I'll be a little more explicit than the above questioner. Have there been any other meetings of the Local Law Review Committee since July 2007? I assume there must have been, since the tracked items on council's website published today list changes from mainly 2008. Therefore, where are the reports/minutes of these meetings? Why haven't they been tabled at full council meetings? It would also appear given the formal tabling, that in the past four years, since 2006, only 3 meeetings have been held. Is this correct? If so, then how can you claim that this review has been 'extensive' and 'comprehensive'. Perhaps the public should simply assume that the Law Review committee in effect had very little to do with the final draft that has been presented.
Post a Comment