I REFER to the proposed development on the high side of Main Street in Emerald, near the Beaconsfield Road roundabout.
How disappointing to see the amendments the developer has submitted to VCAT! A few cosmetic changes here and there, but nothing at all that addresses the fundamental flaws in the proposal.
It remains an ill-thought-out grab-bag of things nobody wants or needs. No attempt has been made to develop uses compatible with the established retirement village to the rear. No attempt has been made to link usage to the developing community precinct around the new library. No attempt has been made to consult with the Emerald Village Committee.
There is still nothing in the design that reflects the rural character of Emerald Village townships. We are still faced with over-built bulk “landscaping” that can be squeezed in around the edges, and alienating, anonymous architecture that is neither rural nor Emerald. How can it be that, while the rest of us have responsibilities to our neighbours and the local community, this developer appears to believe he has none?
My sincere thanks go out to our local councillors, Ed Chatwin and Graeme Legge, and to the Emerald Village Committee, for the huge effort they have put into opposing this development on behalf of the community. But what is the point of all this effort if developers can simply ignore the community’s wishes?
The VCAT hearing is now adjourned until June, to give the developer time to study the vegetation overlay. But even this will not, in the long run, ensure an appropriate development of the site.
Local community frustration with developers are surfacing across Melbourne and throughout our Hills region. They point to the fact that our current planning laws have not yet evolved the right connection between individual freedoms and community values.
Where does the problem lie? There is no legal requirement that developers consult with the community before proposals are developed.
We urgently need amendments to our planning laws that will set a climate of expectations, requiring community values to be taken into account, and placing far greater emphasis on cooperation and consultation right from the outset, before a development gets to the stage of applying for a permit.
After all, bipolar jousting in an adversarial context is a medieval way of going about things. In the 21st century, it is costly and inadequate.
The evidence is in – from the global level of international development right down to the local level of small communities – that imposed, top-down development, uprooted in the community it serves, has a deep-seated, long-term, destructive effect on the people whose lives it impacts.
In the 21st century, good laws should require us to at least try to consult with each other, make a serious attempt to cooperate.
Penelope Lane
Cockatoo
Set straight
I WRITE to correct some of the inaccuracies in the letter from Karu Hewett (Mail, 17 April) about the payments Job Network providers receive for assisting people into jobs.
When an unemployed person signs up with a Job Network member, the fee the Job Network member receives ranges from between $26 to $94 – a far cry from the $1000 Karu Hewett would have you believe.
When a Job Network member places a long-term unemployed person into a job, the payment they receive from the Government can vary from between $550 and $6600. This is much less than the $10,000 indicated by Karu Hewett and appropriately reflects the assistance Job Network members provide to people who generally have significant barriers to employment. I would also like to point out that the information Dr Sharman Stone gave on the amount of government assistance provided to parents was accurate. Ms Hewett either forgot or ignored family tax benefit (FTB) payments.
Karen Massier
Chief of Staff to Sharman Stone
Minister for Workforce Participation
Simplistic, Jenny
READING Jenny Moxham’s recent letters, my frustration comes from her simplistic, not simple, solution to global warming. By this I meant that it was a naive, unsophisticated, crude, one-dimensional, impractical and silly suggestion. I would be less frustrated if she came up with a more thoughtful and complex solution that had some realistic chance of being effective.
I am also worried at the level of serious debate we will achieve on global warming when we have a suggestion from Jenny of “it’s not necessary to eat rice” as a solution to the problem of methane gas release from rice paddies around the world. I suggest Jenny tell that to the two billion people who depend upon rice for their staple food. A major concern of mine is that as well-fed, middle-class Australians get on the climate change band-wagon they will forget those who will “really” be affected by global warming, those who suffer extreme poverty many of which have only one meal (of rice) a day.
Robert Simmons
Belgrave
Time to talk
I WRITE in reference to Peter Smith’s Action Speaks (Mail, 24 April). A few months ago I submitted a letter critical of La Trobe MP Jason Wood’s promotional calendar The Wonders of La Trobe. I too read letters of response critical of my comments and then outlining Mr Wood’s support of the local community.
Mr Smith’s list of the Federal Member’s achievements are noteworthy, but it appears to be an attempt to draw focus away from the bigger issues the La Trobe community faces.
Mr. Posetti’s original question on the Kyoto Protocol remains unanswered by our local member. The same is true of Mr Wood’s position on WorkChoices, during the last Federal election campaign Mr Wood said nothing on proposed changes to IR laws, and since the introduction of Workchoices, which Mr Wood supported, he continues his silence.
If Mr Wood is truly representing the people of La Trobe he needs to be vocal on critical issues. If Mr Wood does not support the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol then he needs to tell us why the 166 states that have signed and ratified are wrong.
If Mr Wood believes that it is acceptable for an employer to sack an employee for “operational reasons” and then re-advertise the same job with a package reduced by 25 per cent, then he needs to explain to the electorate why this is considered by his government as a great step forward in economic reform.
Is Mr Wood being gagged by Canberra on big issues because this is an election year?
Garry Muratore
Tecoma
IN HIS response to my letter questioning La Trobe MP Jason Wood’s willingness to engage the community on issues of importance such as the Kyoto Protocol and WorkChoices, Peter Smith (Mail, 24 April) asserts he knows the mind of Mr Wood.
In his response, Mr Smith declares Mr Wood believes it would be “silly” for Australia to ratify Kyoto. If he is so at one with our Federal Member’s views can I request that Mr Smith also tell me if Mr Wood thinks the 166 countries and government bodies that have ratified the agreement, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, China, India and New Zealand, were also being silly?
Could Mr Smith also advise if Mr Wood thinks national and global luminaries such as Australian of the Year Tim Flannery, former American Vice President Al Gore, as well as our own councillors from Shire of Yarra Ranges are being equally “silly” in encouraging Australia’s ratification.
Personally, however, I’d prefer to hear Mr Wood express his own views on these and a range of other matters, but as mentioned in my last letter I have not much confidence in this.
Dare I ask again, but why won’t he talk to us?
Matt Posetti
Belgrave
