Route 86 submissions due today

If you haven't already done so, please consider making a submission on the Tram Route 86 Corridor Project by close of business today (14 April), which is the deadline for the initial consultation. Details on how to make a submission are available in this post, or at the Route 86 project page.

For those who are interested, my submssion is now available as a web page at Google Docs. Agree, disagree, or discuss here, but make sure you have your say to Council. Community input at this stage will be very valuable as consultation progresses to the next stage and the project is further refined.

Comments, anonymous or otherwise, are most welcome.

One week to make your Route 86 submission

While the consultation for the Route 86 project has been extended, your submission should still be sent in by Tuesday 14 April 2009 - the first business day after the Easter break commencing this Friday.

You can have your say by completing an online survey, completing the survey in person at a customer service centre or Darebin Library, sending your submission by email, or by mailing it to Transport Management and Planning PO Box 91, Preston, 3072 (clearly marking it as a submission for the Tram Route 86 Corridor Project).

Inquiries can be directed to 8470 8341, and you might also like to contact your Rucker Ward Councillors. Mayor Diana Asmar and Councillor Trent McCarthy have been active participants in the consultation process, so let them know your concerns and ideas, as well as including your views in your submission.

Before penning your submission or completing the survey, it's a good idea to have a look at the Route 86 project page, the Westgarth Residential Access page, and the related posts published on this blog.

Remember that, following last Tuesday's public meeting, Council officers have explicitly ruled out using the service road on the western side of High Street south of Westgarth Street as a sliplane to enter Westgarth Street/Merri Parade. However, it can't hurt to acknowledge this in your submission and to briefly say why you think that decision is so important in addressing community concerns.

Other key areas you might like to cover include the positioning of the tram stops in and around the Westgarth strip, the potential impact on residents and businesses from any loss of parking in the strip or nearby (especially from Ruckers Hill), the integration of cycling in the plan, and, of course, issues of safety and access to public transport.

The Route 86 project page sets out the consultation process following the close of submissions on 14 April, and offers notes on recent public meetings, so all the issues are now pretty much on the table - it's now a matter of what gets done with them. I encourage you to have your say to make sure this worthwhile project proceeds in a form that meets everyone's needs as far as possible.

Strong concerns emerge at Route 86 meeting

A public meeting held at Northcote Town Hall last night saw big concerns emerge about the City of Darebin's Tram Route 86 Corridor Project as it applies to Westgarth. There was a strong message that options for the project must get a whole lot clearer much more quickly if there is to be any sort of result for the community from consultations that are set to end on 14 April.

Among a large audience, overwhelmingly of residents living south of Westgarth Street, it was also clear there is staunch opposition to the current treatment of traffic and use of the High Street service road as a left-turning sliplane under the proposals.

Specifically, the meeting extended the two options available until now on the project website, inviting on-the-spot feedback to quite complex diagrams that were not at all clear when projected on screen. They all, however, feature the use of the High Street service road as a sliplane diverting traffic - estimated at 200-300 vehicles in peak hour - past the doors of some eight houses, then west along Westgarth Street/Merri Parade to St Georges Road.

Other issues to emerge included the vagueness of the design of the High Street lanes at the intersection (one north-bound lane and a dedicated right-turning lane); the incompleteness of traffic modelling for the broader area; the potential restriction of emergency access to the service road; the consequences of a mechanical breakdown there for banking traffic; and the impact of additional traffic on Westgarth Street/Merri Parade - including for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing further to the west at McLachlan Street.

Following a previous meeting at the Jika Jika Community Centre, concern was again expressed about the danger of cyclists having to ride over raised tram stops in High Street, where pedestrians, including the elderly and people living with a disability, would be waiting to catch trams. It emerged that, while there have been discussions with Bicycle Victoria (claimed to be 'generally supportive') and Darebin Bicycle Users' Group, no formal written advice has yet been received by Council.

The loss of parking received limited air-time at the meeting, and there was poor representation from local businesses. One business owner I spoke to on my way to the meeting didn't know it was on, and the facilitator referred to the previous meeting for businesses at Jika Jika Community Centre, despite Council's website inviting 'Westgarth residents and businesses' to last night's consultation.

The loss of parking - up to 78 spaces from Ruckers Hill, and up to nine within the strip, is a major concern for traders - especialy in the absence of specific research showing how customers make their way to the Westgarth shops. There is an additional concern that the parking shortfall could also be distributed across local streets, resulting in further parking pressure for residents.

A key point was also made that Council's parking survey appears to indicate that spaces up to 700 metres distant are considered by Council as conveniently available to the strip. Not only does this paint a false impression of parking capacity in the (not-so) immediate area, it seems to assume Council is comfortable with the idea of women (or those with mobility challenges) walking 700 metres at night to reach the shops, cinema and restaurants.

While it was good to see Mayor Diana Asmar and Councillor Trent McCarthy there to hear from their Rucker Ward constituency, there could have been more from them on the specific substance of the proposals. They did, however, map out in general terms the shape of consultation from here until the close of submissions, and the success of these measures will determine the value of these councillors' contributions.

Between now and 14 April, a series of themed roundtable discussions with Council officers will seek to concentrate on the particular concerns that have emerged - for example, the sliplane, traffic management, parking and cycling. These will have unlimited and open memberships (at the useful suggestion of Mayor Asmar), and community members and other stakeholders can nominate now to take part.

There was strong sentiment among the audience that these groups must be representative, and their work completely transparent to the broader community as it proceeds. If that is achieved, the discussions will not only inform the proposal being developed by Council, but will help the broader comunity shape their individual submissions to the process.

At the meeting, I called for the process to be clearly detailed as a priority on the Council's website for the project, including Mayor Asmar's suggestion that an extension to consultation could be requested if the groups felt there was not enough time to fully resolve the issues. Council had some difficulty with publicly advising the membership of the roundtable groups, but this would add to the transparency of the process.

In addition to detailing this process on the web, Council gave an undertaking to publish online all possible information on which the proposal is based - traffic data, as well as details of feedback from stakeholders such as Bicycle Victoria. Council should also expedite online publication of the new options, including the slideshow presented last night - if the community can do it, Council should certainly be able to.

The community will also be keen to see Council live up to last night's promise to carry out comprehensive letter-boxing in the area regarding the consultation. It is putting very substantial resources into what will potentially be be a multi-million dollar infrastructure investment, so a few thousand leaflets shouldn't be too much trouble to keep everyone informed.

Finally, it is important to reiterate that the roundtable discussions are only part of the input the comunity can have on this proposal. You can respond to a survey, or email your own submission by 14 April. Let's see how Council can now expedite a much clearer process, and what they do with your views. Stay tuned for more updates, and please leave your comments on how you felt about last night's meeting.

See all posts on the Tram Route 86 Corridor Project

MP's allegations cast shadow on public forum

Tuesday night's public forum on the Roberts Street Northcote public housing redevelopment was marred by allegations of 'bullying and intimidation' of tenants by support workers from 'competing' community organisations. The allegations were raised by Fiona Richardson, State Member for Northcote, in front of an audience of 30–40 people, including Upper House Greens MP, Greg Barber, and Federal Greens candidate for Batman, Priya Carey.

In raising the allegations, Richardson was responding to questions challenging her on the lack of independent advocacy for tenants in the recently completed interviews to determine their relocation needs. Some 90 per cent of the tenants were without independent support in the interviews, which will influence the offers of accommodation from which they must choose as the flats are progressively vacated pending demolition.

Richardson portrayed a tug-of-war, with tenants caught in the middle, leading, she said, to the claims of bullying and intimidation. She further claimed that complaints that independent community advocates had been shut out of the process were politically motivated, with a particular group wanting to represent all the tenants, but supposedly having been refused that role by the tenants themselves. The clear implication was that the involvement of independent community advocates had been limited by the choice of the tenants and not the flaws in the relocation process itself.

Richardson refused to identify the organisations at the centre of the allegations.

Those unfamiliar with the Roberts Street issues would do well to ask themselves which scenario is on its face more reasonable and plausible – that a group of disempowered elderly tenants has been denied adequate and independent advocacy because it will highlight their complex needs and render their relocation more difficult for the government, or that the advocates themselves, with a record of sustained but under-resourced support of those same tenants, should intimidate and bully them to gain a more prominent role in tenant support.

Since the forum, I have spoken to a wide range of people working directly with the tenants, and have satisfied myself that the allegations raised by Richardson at the forum are an unwarranted attack on community support workers and a distraction from the real issues. The distinct impression I have formed is that the community organisations working with the tenants have their trust, and in fact work very cooperatively across the various organisations, uniting to ensure as much support for the tenants as is possible within the constraints of the available resources. I leave any more detailed response to the organisations concerned given that I speak independently and not on their behalf.

An additional concerning aspect of the forum was that none of the Roberts Street tenants were there, a fact reflecting the quarantining of the tenants in the consultation process. Instead, the focus was on the nature of the planned redevelopment, with a small number of surrounding residents attending who would have been substantially outnumbered by the tenants (who are in fact also residents) currently living in the 47 flats on the estate. Despite contributing a good number of well-intentioned and positive suggestions about the development, including ways the tenants could be more successfully included in the community by a better design, the residents' discussion was the poorer for the lack of the tenants' own perpective. This was a direct result of the pre-determined focus of the forum, for which the agenda was made available only on the night. A more appropriate format for the Office of Housing consultation would not submerge the tenant consultation below the level of public scrutiny.

Despite these issues, there were some positives to emerge from the night. Apart from the constructive ideas contributed by residents to inform the initial design, there was a sentiment of general acceptance that the site should continue to be used for public housing for the elderly. There was also a public reassurance by Richardson that the site would be exclusively public housing, managed by the government; there will be no private or social housing on the new estate.

The key aim now is that the development not proceed until satisfactory alternative accommodation is found for the existing tenants. This will be difficult within a public housing system already stressed to its limit, with more than 35,000 people on our public waiting lists. Nevertheless, the logistical difficulties should not be used as an excuse to ignore the tenants' complex needs or the fact that the relocation will sever community connections and supports built up over years. To ensure appropriate support through the relocation, the tenants need independent advocacy, and that means community support workers must be brought more effectively into the process, not attacked for attempting to advocate in spite of it.

Fiona Richardson no doubt has a different view of these issues, and I invite her comments here as part of an open dialogue on the Roberts Street redevelopment. She cannot retract the allegations she raised at the forum; indeed she must explain them.

So what's the real balance of political submissions?

The likes of Preston MLA, Robin Scott, his predecessor Michael Leighton, and Councillor Peter Stephenson have put forward views that submissions to the Darebin representation review seeking a change in council structure can be variously attributed to 'failed candidates' or 'political activists'. Yet actual analysis of the submissions tells a different story.

With more than half of the submissions from the total whose political alignment is known, the weight of politically motivated submissions falls decidedly with the ALP. Indeed, of the submitters of unknown political alignment who were unelected candidates, four out of six supported the ALP position of retaining the current council structure, despite the fact that it makes the election of even well supported alternative candidates very unlikely.

Four Greens submissions, one Independent and one Liberal submission supported change consistent with the VEC's preferred preliminary option of three three-councillor wards elected by proportional representation.

With the bulk of political submissions coming from the ALP supporting a system that has delivered nine Labor Unity councillors, and political opposition coming from diverse political viewpoints, just where does the bias really lie?

Of further interest was the submission from the North East Melbourne Chinese Association (NEMCA). This was submitted by the NEMCA Secretary, but a look at NEMCA's website reveals that its president is none other than Councillor Stanley Chiang.

The review enters the public hearing phase on Thursday night, when submitters will appear from 6.30pm at the council chambers (Cnr Gower and High Streets, Preston) to make their final arguments before the VEC issues its final report to the Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne, on 21 May. Approximately 18 submitters are expected to present, including council, Robin Scott, Michael Leighton, and myself.

Further analysis of the submissions is available as a PDF download

Darebin media release shows timing is everything

Like the only other media release issued this year regarding the council representation review, the City of Darebin's latest appears to have been published on council's website well after the claimed date of its distribution to the media. The web page states that it was last updated on 27 April, but it is hard not conclude that it was in fact first published there on that date, even if it was actually forwarded to the media as stated under the headline, on 24 April.

Why should this matter? Timing, as they say, is everything. The release was likely published online too late to alert website visitors of the deadline for response submissions to the Victorian Electoral Commission's preliminary report [3MB download, PDF] - as it happens, 5.00pm Tuesday 24 April. Council spin doctors also know that any actual media coverage will only appear next week.

It was a similar story with council's 9 March release, likely to have been published on council's website on the 'last updated' date of 15 March, conveniently after the VEC's deadline for preliminary submissions from the public on Tuesday 13 March. In that case, any media coverage generated in local papers was unlikely to influence public submissions, as local papers tend not to appear until at least ... you guessed it, Tuesday.

If that isn't bad enough, both releases focused not on the opportunity for the public to participate, which their timing in any case precluded, but on council propaganda for retaining the voting system that has seen council totally dominated by the Labor Unity faction of the ALP - namely majority preferential voting for nine single-councillor wards, a system prone to dummy candidates.

Now, in a submission recently published on the VEC website, Councillor Peter Stephenson has argued that there was insufficient time for consultation. It's really a bit rich when council has gone out of its way to keep the lid on the review process for fear of submissions arguing for democratic change to the council's structure - change that has been endorsed in the VEC's preliminary report as its preferred option of three three-councillor wards elected by proportional representation.

Not to be outdone, Councillor Chris Kelly has forwarded a submission including a petition of more than 1000 signatures of people supposedly against the VEC's recommendation for change and for the retention of the unrepresentative status quo. Given the Councillor's vested interest in retaining that status quo and the opportunity squandered by council to promote more actual submissions from the community, the VEC should reject such petitions out of hand as undermining the legitimate consultation process.

The VEC and the public can never be assured of what the signatories understood about the process or what was presented to them in that regard, and we will never be able to see the reasons they might have put forward had they made written submissions to the review. This is exactly the kind of 'straw poll' that the VEC stated it would not undertake in conducting the review, further stating that it would examine the arguments and reasoning of the positions put forward. I trust it will stick to that commitment, despite heavy pressure from the likes of former Preston MLA, Michael Leighton, and current MP, Robin Scott.

VEC persuaded by reasoning, not just numbers

Response submissions are now being published on the VEC website following the VEC's preliminary report on proposed council changes for Darebin issued on 3 April. Overall numbers, including preliminary submissions, thus far continue to strongly favour the the VEC's preferred preliminary option of three three-councillor wards elected by proportional representation, but the tally will not be fully known until later this week.

Despite the ultimate count for and against, the VEC has stated that it is not conducting a 'straw poll' and, though it recognises the number of submissions favouring the preferred option, has so far also found the reasoning of submissions favouring PR to be 'persuasive'.

Understandably, a few councillors have thrown their hats into the ring, with submissions from councillors Peterson, Chiang, Fontana and Kelly arguing for the status quo. Their arguments appear to focus on the accountability benefits of having a single councillor, but what happens if representation is poor? I can only surmise their answer is 'wait another four years until you can vote someone else in'. With multi-member wards, residents would have more than one councillor to go to, and it's likely that a more diverse council would better represent diverse community interests in the chamber.

My submission is not yet up on the VEC website, but is available here. Some of the points I make are:

Under the proposal councillors would need more support to be elected than was needed in either the 2002 or 2004 council polls. Nor under the proposal would the preferences of minor candidates play nearly as big a role in helping them to reach the required quota. Dummy candidates would be far less effective under PR.

In its preliminary submission, council sought to justify its argument for retaining nine single-councillor wards by harking back to the mid-1990s recommendation by political scientist Dr Brian Costar to the Darebin Commissioners. What they don't say is that multi-councillor wards under PR were not then an option for Dr Costar under the legislation. He confirms this is in an email I have included with his permission in my response submission.

Despite councillor Peter Stephenson's protest in his response submission that the VEC allowed insufficient time for consultation, council did almost nothing to promote the review process. Its actions have shown that, rather than seeking to promote broad engagement, it has been more concerned to keep the lid on the review for fear of dissenting views.

My response submission also points out that the City of Darebin's own submission supports the VEC's position because the City concedes that we have non-geographic communities of interest. These are better represented by larger wards under PR because they capture support over wider areas and allow it to be represented by an elected candidate.

Stay tuned for further reflections on the response submissions, and remember there will be a public hearing for submitters at council's Gower Street Preston offices on Thursday 3 May from 6.30pm.

Darebin council review flies under radar

Despite a healthy number of submissions from the politically engaged, the Darebin council representation review is flying under the radar with regard to the broader community. The result could be that, despite a positive preliminary recommendation from the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC), the community doesn't mobilise to ensure fairer and more diverse representation of its views. The community response to the VEC's preliminary report will play a key part in shaping the VEC's final recommendations to the Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne.

The VEC has so far recommended three three-councillor wards for Darebin from the 2008 elections onwards. This welcome but preliminary recommendation would bring with it a legal requirement for proportional representation. A key outcome would be that, given substantial community support, diverse voices would stand a chance of election to council and therefore broaden the representation of the community.

In contrast, the current preferential majority voting system has delivered Darebin nine councillors who are all members of the ALP's Labor Unity faction. Such a result is too often achieved with the support of 'dummies' – candidates who run only to direct their preferences to another – the more dummies you can muster, the greater your chances of election. A big benefit of the VEC's recommendation is that the role of dummies would be very much diminished, and clear community support for alternative candidates would not be undermined by the preference game.

The bad news is that the VEC's second alternative recommendation leaves open the door to retaining the present unrepresentative council structure, depending on responses to its preliminary report. The ALP's Labor Unity faction and the Darebin council will resist tooth and nail the VEC's recommended shake-up of council. Residents who value more inclusive local democracy are urged to read the VEC's preliminary report and respond by 24 April. The report and preliminary submissions can be found at the VEC's website, http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/darebinrr.html

Community questions and discussion are also invited here.

Rep review preliminary findings due today

Darebin residents will today find out if the Victorian Electoral Commission has recommended multi-councillor wards, or a maintenance of the unrepresentative status quo in the form of continued council domination by the Labor Unity faction of the ALP.

Preliminary submissions to the Commission put a strong case for allowing more diverse representation on council by electing multiple councillors per ward via proportional representation, in which candidates achieving a minimum quota of votes derived by a formula are elected to council.

The adoption of proportional representation would likely mean that Greens, independents and other alternative voices with strong community support would be able to represent, and vote for, widely held community views in the council chamber.

Currently, preferential voting to establish a majority for a single councillor in each ward allows the ALP undue influence on the process via high numbers of candidates with an ALP alignment directing their preferences to the ALP's preferred councillor in any given ward. The number of candidates in a single ward has been as high as 18 in recent Darebin council elections.

The announcement of the VEC's preliminary findings will likely come via the media release page of the VEC website. Following release of the findings, responses must be submitted to the VEC by 24 April.

Watch this site for updates. Please use the comment link to this post (see below) to have your say, or send me an email

Darebin keeps lid on representation review

The City of Darebin has played down the current council representation review in its online and print communications with residents. This despite the fact that the council and the community have a massive stake in the outcome, which will determine the future number of councillors and wards in the municipality.

Late last week, I received the March issue of Darebin News in the mail. Despite a message from the Mayor, councillor Marlene Kairouz, touting the council's efforts to consult with residents, and a 'dates for your diary' page stretching through to October, twenty full-colour A4 pages contained not a single mention of the review.

Surprised by the newsletter, I searched the council's website and found only a single item about the review – a 9 March media release setting out Council's predictable quest to retain nine single-councillor wards occupied by nine ALP Labor Unity faction members. There was no link to the council submission [but it's been published by the VEC], or to the Victorian Electoral Commission's website for the review. Apart from that, there was no coverage of the issue I could find in Darebin's communications, even though the review will determine how residents are represented following the 2008 council elections.

If council can devote substantial resources to communicating with the community – from print newsletters, to the website and even podcasts – then it seems more than appropriate that the representation review, as a vital issue concerning all Darebin residents, should be covered in depth. When that doesn't happen, council is open to the accusation that it is seeking to play down the issue in an effort to protect the vested interests of its councillors, who would be challenged and quite possibly replaced if the review resulted in elections for multi-councillor wards in Darebin.

I can't wait for the April edition of Darebin News, which will no doubt land in my letter-box sometime around 24 April, the deadline for response submissions to the VEC's preliminary findings – judging by the March edition of Darebin's newsletter, it seems doubtful the review will receive much coverage as the last chance for public input quietly slips by.

Readers can keep track of the review at the Victorian Electoral Commission website, where they can also read all the preliminary submissions. The VEC's preliminary findings will be published on 3 April.

Watch this site for updates. Comments and questions are welcome here, or you can send me an email.

Labor set to crowd the Northcote skies

Here's a media release that went out this morning to all major media:

Some of the worst impacts of Melbourne 2030 are set to play out post-election for residents of Northcote, said Darren Lewin-Hill, an independent Lower House candidate, today. He said that, if elected, Labor's Fiona Richardson would carry forward the State Government's disastrous planning blueprint for crowding the skies of Northcote and other inner suburbs.

Residents adjoining Northcote railway station and large tracts of factory land on Arthurton Road ear-marked for rezoning are facing development of up to eight storeys. In an area of densely packed one and two-storey homes, the proposed rezoning will allow development that threatens overshadowing and a marked worsening of the already stressed traffic and parking situation. It will also inevitably heighten the danger from cars faced by children from the nearby Helen Street (Northcote) Primary School.

Read the full media release