Should cars been banned from Swanston St?

Posted to Melbourne Weekly (28/4/2011) on 30/4/2011 at 1:03 AM
Commenting on “Should cars been banned from Swanston St?”
http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/outrage-over-swanston-car-ban/

Robert Doyle is full of hot air, promises and a member of NATO - No Action Talk Only.

God only knows why he wants to close off Swanston Street from cars, taxis and delivery vehicles. Swanston Street is NOT an alternate road but the main thoroughfare that joins the two end boundaries of the City. Only very idiotic person can strategise in this most ridiculous way. Congestion, if managed properly, leads to vibrancy of a City. Stopping traffic to move through Swanston Street is no different from doing likewise to Glenferrie Road in Hawthorne, or Lygon Street in Carlton.

The City blackspot is not Swanston Street, but the intersection of Swanston and Flinders Streets. Pedestrianisation of Swanston Street will not make the CBD safer.

That's the price to pay for NOT casting your votes with your eyes open. That's the price to pay for voting someone who can do back-flip better than a Chinese gymnast. What's the price? $25.60 million.

Also
http://sinfongchanleader.blogspot.com/2009/11/swanston-street-shuttle-bus-ban-plan.html
http://sinfongchanleader.blogspot.com/2009/12/melbournes-15-million-party-to-bring-in.html

Cranbourne methane estate residents to share $17.5m

Posted to Cranbourne Leader (25/3/2011) on 26/3/2011 at 1:50 AM

Commenting on “Cranbourne methane estate residents to share $17.5m”

http://cranbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/settlement-expected-in-cranbourne-methane-estate-class-action/

Slater and Gordon’s share was a cool $3.9 million after all the costs incurred, or 16.6% of $23.5 million.

Since the Council can recover much of the $13.5 million, so the Mayor said, and we assume that to be 80% will come to $10.8 million. If the legal fee is at 16.6%, then the recovered amount will be reduced to $9 million.

What it means is that the Council will have to pay ($13.5 - $9) million, that is $4.5 million.

Where is the money coming from? Oh, no – it must be from my next rate valuation notice, where else!

Yarra traders fume over smoking bans

Posted to Melbourne Leader (21/3/2011) on 25/3/2011 at 12:16 AM

Commenting on “HAVE YOUR SAY: Yarra traders fume over smoking bans”

http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/yarra-traders-fume-over-smoking-bans/

I strong disagree with Peri's view that "If I am not enjoying the atmosphere I simply move seats. It's called tolerance." No, Peri, it is called apathy.

Unfortunately, most people in the society take the attitude that “it’s not my problem”, “has nothing to do with me”, “let someone worry about it” and “who cares?” We read about whingers, and hear their moaning and complaints, and yet they don’t take their grievances to the authority, customer relation departments, consumer affairs, etc. During election time, they close their eyes and their hearts and simply voted some good for nothing representatives in the council, state parliament or federal parliament. If everyone continues to live for his own self-interest, our social fabric will decline to a state of no return! We MUST intervene!

According to Food Standard 3.2.3, Div 2, Para 3(d), "The design and construction of food premises must to the extent that is practicable – exclude dirt, dust, fumes, smoke and other contaminants." That paragraph alone is more than sufficient to support the banning of smoking at outdoor café.

Cashed-up Councillors

Posted to Waverley Leader (19/5/2009) on 23/5/2009 at 8:56pm
Commenting on "Cashed-up Councillors"
 http://Waverley-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/cashed-up-councillors/

Unlike Mayor Paul Klisaris who “… goes to work and gets paid for it”, Councillors were, once upon a time, well respected, distinguished members of the community serving the it for free.

Although there are provisions in the Local Government Act for the Councillor’s allowance review after taking office for seven months, there is nothing in the Act to say that the allowance has to be increased; which means the allowance can be decreased or remained unchanged.

At this difficult time, I could not see any justification for such substantial increase of about 35%. Do keep in mind that payment to the Councillors is allowance and not annual salary. The money cannot and should not be used for other purposes except for Council-related matters. $24,000 is more than excessive for many Councillors, whose role is only on part-time basis. If the increase is performance-base, then they will have to demonstrate their productivity has increased by 35%.

If the Mayor and other Councillors are not happy with what they are getting, there are volunteers with a lot more experience can take over their places. Many voluntary organisations are chaired and managed by unpaid volunteers.