Went for my usual Saturday constitutional this morning and noticed the 'heritage' maker on the Esplanade boardwalk near the Willi Lifesaving Club. The image is taken from a photograph of a rescue crew from yesteryear and an acknowledgement by the City of Hobsons Bay thanks the Williamstown Historical Society for permission to reproduce it. That would be the same 'City of Hobsons Bay' as the one trying to boot the Historical Society out of their longstanding meeting room at the Mechanics Institute, presumably. I understand that the Altona Lifesaving Club aren't too happy with the way that our beloved council does business either.

When Jobson Street had its big makeover a few years back, someone at the Civic Centre signed off on it in spite of the fact that there was obviously a vehicle parked in these two spots when the final layer of asphalt was rolled out. Can you imagine anyone in their right mind letting a contractor get away with this? Where is the accountability? Where were the relevant councillors? Busy fighting amongst themselves instead of putting residents' interests first?

Someone signed off on this shoddy job (plus a few others around town) in the past and I am hoping that we get a little rain before our council officers sign off on the new roadworks in Wellington Street. Last time we had a shower the water seemed to lie in a puddle right where pedestrians are supposed to cross at the chiropractor's corner. So much for the brand new bluestone guttering!
Perhaps the second layer of asphalt will make a difference, but I doubt it. If there is evidence of a problem I'll be posting a photograph.

One of the council officers missing from the 'walking council meeting' was Mr Eric Braslis, our Planning and Environment Manager. I would have loved to have questioned him about the calibre of planning decisions, especially in view of some of the inconsistencies that have come to my attention courtesy of friends and neighbours.
We could have started with something simple, like crossovers. Some time ago (I have a formal query in to determine exactly when) a decision was made to give the council power to refuse an application for off-street parking and a crossover unless there was a nett gain of on-street car spaces. What it means is, unless you can accommodate two cars on site, one to make up for the loss of kerb space your crossover took and the second to create a 'vacancy' in your street, you won't get your permit.
Most residents who have not applied for a crossover would be unaware of this restriction and its ramifications.
There appears, on the face of it, to be a select group of citizens (and I am amongst their number) who have been told to fence across the access to their on-site parking after an unsuccessful application for a crossover permit.
At the same time, there are some wonderful recent examples of hard surface going down, double gates being installed in fences, openings left in front fences, or frontages being left unfenced so that residents can drive onto their hard surface, all in the absence of a crossover. Perhaps these people have more sense than to go within coo-ee of our beloved planning department and that's the secret of their existing access.
Whatever their motivations, we have amongst the citizenry a select group who cross the 'un-crossovered' footpath with gay abandon.
Given the fact that the only access to my home (for over two years now) is via a roller door into a side lane and that's the only way that anyone can get in to read my water, gas and electricity PLUS the water for the property at the rear of mine, I don't really blame defaulting residents for avoiding 'Eric's Experts' like the plague. The again, I don't see why some people can circumvent the requirement for a nett gain of on-street parking simply by not applying for legitimate access.
One of the other pieces of information I am currently seeking concerns the minimum dimensions of a primary and secondary on-site parking space as set down in our council regulations. If the measurements that I was given back in 2003 were correct, a few lucky developers appear to have been given an exemption. As soon as I have all the information (direct from the horse's mouth, as it were) regarding required dimensions for on-site parking spaces, the date the 'no gain, no permit' by-law came into effect and the definition of what constitutes a legal crossover, I'll be right back with my picture gallery.
And if accessing a property by other than a legitmate crossover and obstructing the footpath because the rear of your station wagon overhangs it, are issues of concern for our by-laws officers, I expect to see some action taken near my favourite chicken shop.
Of course, as always, I won't be holding my breath.

Remember the good old days when there used to be a footpath in Wellington Parade down by the Salvation Army Hall? Presumably we will get it back as part of the reconstruction. Certainly that was one of the questions asked during the 'walking council meeting' held on Saturday 5th November.
Mentions was also made of the cigarette butts scattered around the base of our trees in Douglas Parade and the unkempt state of our street bins, but the issue that really inflamed passions was that of drainage. I realised that I wasn't the only person who had noticed that there were problems. Stevedore Street is a shocker as far as the gutters go. As if that's not bad enough, the footpath out the front of Burke's and the section in Stevedore Street opposite the Vic Inn become impassable after a decent shower even though they are under verandahs.
Given our council's record of holding forums, community consultations etc. and then ignoring feedback and/or taking no action, I am not going to get excited by the prospect that someone appeared to listen. I'll be waiting for ACTION. If it happens, I will be very glad to give credit where it is due.
Participants will be given a written report of the proceedings. I am eagerly awaiting mine.

I was in touch with Martina and Amnesty was under the misapprehension that they had actually been given the green light for all of the days they applied to be allowed to collect on. They were advised of their mistake and moved on.