by Rod Mitchell | 9 March 2024

Recently Campbell Spence wrote an article on What is Woke in response to a recent open question by a Councillor on the Cook Statue debate. The woke concept of dividing by race, gender and sexuality as opposed to the commonality that unites us, all also seeks an extension of uniformity through group think.

“Groupthink occurs when a group of well-intentioned people make irrational or non-optimal decisions that are spurred by the urge to conform or the discouragement of dissent.” – Psychology Today

Group think in its worst form leads to poor decision making, lack of creativity, resistance to ideas, and believing only facts that support existing opinions.
Group think occurs more frequently in government organisations (including our Councils) due in part through monopoly or market power. When an organisation does not transact in a competitive environment, behavioural change that focuses on group think, uniformity and internal as opposed to external focus tend to dominate.

Decisions made in these environments do not bare the same consequences as the “consumer”, read rate payer cannot seek Council services elsewhere.
Lack of market competitiveness in the context of a Council, will more than likely lead to inefficiencies, greater emphasis on internal staff needs and demands, as opposed to client service (rate paper) outcomes and overpayment for goods and services. Contractors and service providers also see them coming!

In the City of Port Phillip, average salary rates and conditions are higher on average than those in the private sector. Over staffing and working from home appears to also be out of control. The result is a sluggish inefficient workforce that remains internally focused. To exacerbate and consolidate the group think, senior appointments are like a round robin of employment offers from other Councils, where similar thinking is entrenched with staff with little exposure to market forces and the private sector.

Nothing could be more evident in the group think culture of the City of Port Phillip than a recent “self-promoting” LinkedIn conversation while shameless in its public display, is to many, also nauseating.
This conversation of senior Council employees and heads of trading associations talk about the $65 million brought into the CoPP through various events neatly packaged on a Council film promotion entitled “City of Port Phillip – Reflections in 2023”. Incidentally, the price of the film clip and the reason for the film clip beyond unnecessary self-promotion, are not disclosed. Neither does there appear to be much rigour in the film clip with lack of benchmarks and no previous year’s data for comparison.
“Huge thanks to you, your team and the CoPP for the efforts and focus on returning the vibrancy back into our high streets and communities”. The praise goes back and forth and yet it takes little time to work through the fog of low-level sophistry with a dose of unmentioned reality.

• Acland Street with the worst rental vacancy in Victoria,
• Unsettled traders in Carlise Street which made the news throughout 2023,
• The problems within Clarendon Street with homelessness and drugs (along with Fitzroy and Acland streets) and the
• Myth of the rejuvenation of Fitzroy Street- Its more spin than reality.

In relation to Fitzroy Street, a recent walk through and discussion with a local retailer was met with derision on the “vibrancy” of this high street. The self-assessed praise by some on Fitzroy Street is comparable to the Hans Christian Andersen folktale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

Our high streets which are our life blood, remain in various states of anaemia and frankly embarrassing. No master plan, just more playing around the edges with thought bubbles.

What does get discussed in the film is only part of the CoPP story which includes some achievements not driven by Council and cosy non-bread and butter issues (yes, it’s nice that the library is being used.)

Major issues that created a lot of unrest among the rate payers – the Rubbish Collection contract including service standards and the Current Affair expose on street cleaning staff at the CoPP were not touched on. There has been no audit review of the allegations pertaining to the street cleaning staff, and many would argue a breach of Council governance in not having a full independent audit with findings made public. Do not hold your breath on anything happening there. And when rate payers are crying for a return to the traditional Council remit of rates, rubbish and roads, we get poorly maintained infrastructure, graffiti filled streets, litter and rubbish. My home, St Kilda is a disgrace and a testimony to this council failure. A proper plan for rejuvenation of our urban centres and high streets including a focus on the basic remit, sells itself. It would not need a self-promotional film clip to gloss over the reality we currently face.

Under group think, if there is something to see, we the rate payers should not need worry. Just keep paying your rates and please keep the noise down – alternative facts go against the culture!

By Josh Szental | 23 February 2024

I am a resident in St Kilda East, and I oppose Council’s proposal to construct a separated bicycle lane on Inkerman Street between St Kilda Rd and Hotham St with the removal of 116 car parks (option A). I spoke at Council on 21 February 2024 in relation to Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy.

Since the Integrated Transport Strategy was written in 2018, and protected bicycle lanes have been rolled out in various locations, residents and traders have widely objected, because these bike lanes have caused safety issues, made driving and parking very difficult, caused economic damage to local businesses and are not used by the majority of residents.

Examples of poorly considered transport infrastructure are unfortunately plentiful in Port Phillip: the introduction of the tram super stop in Acland Street, which resulted in road closure to traffic and loss of car parking which has resulted in economic losses and shop vacancies, is one. Another is Fitzroy St, which suffered from the loss of car parking when the separated bicycle lane was introduced.

It was therefore encouraging that Council amended their Integrated Transport Strategy at the 21 February 2024 council meeting, changing Action 18 from

“Deliver a network of dedicated and continuous protected bike corridors to create safer routes for all ages and abilities.”

to

“Deliver a range of interventions to build a network of connected, safe riding options, ensuring safety for people of all ages and abilities and continue to explore opportunities for the provision of protected bike lanes in the City of Port Phillip.” and also to “advocate to State government to deliver protected bike corridors on state-managed arterial roads”

The removal of protected bicycle lanes as the only option to create safer cycling routes is a rare win for common sense. Councillors voted along party lines to adopt these changes:

For: Cr Bond, Cr Clark, Cr Crawford, Cr Cunsolo, Cr Pearl, Cr Sirakoff

Against: Cr Baxter, Cr Martin

Abstained: Cr Nyaguy (who walked out of the meeting prior to the vote)

I strongly support this amendment, especially considering the time and cost blowouts reported by council, and wholeheartedly congratulate Council for their sensible amendment to this strategy. Many residents would be aghast to learn that Council now projects that the Inkerman St bicycle lane will cost almost $10 million.

Community consultation is a key pillar of making community-minded decisions. However, the way in which surveys are conducted determines whether the results can be relied upon as a true gauge of community sentiment. The community survey undertaken by Council for the Integrated Transport Strategy change is instructive of how survey results can be biased, and it is promising that the majority of Councillors were able to recognise the flawed results and vote accordingly.

The community survey (Item 10.1 at https://portphillip.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/02/ORD_21022024_AGN_AT_WEB.htm) had 78 responses, where 87% of respondents said they currently ride a bike. Compare this to the National Walking and Cycling Participation Survey 2021 (https://www.cwanz.com.au/national-walking-and-cycling-participation-survey-2021/) where only 18% of Australians rode a bike over the previous week and 40% over the previous year (and this was during the COVID pandemic where bike riding increased). Why did 87% of respondents say they rode a bike regularly vs. 18% of the Australian public?

Because, Council specifically sought feedback from the Port Phillip Bicycle Users Group who are actively lobbying council to adopt Option A for Inkerman St (https://www.ppbug.org/bug-blog/tag/inkerman+st), which would result in 116 car spaces being removed.

This is a good demonstration of selection bias in a small community survey, where the vast majority of residents in Port Phillip have not “had their say”. The survey responses are not indicative of community support, but of what a dedicated group of bike enthusiasts believe. Residents of Port Phillip know that most of our local roads are quiet and safe for cyclists.

I am happy that council are talking a more holistic and considered approach to the complex issue of transport, and agree entirely with Council lobbying the Victorian Government to fund bicycle corridors along State-managed arterial roads.

Sensible strategies can be implemented if the views of the whole community are taken into account.

Proposals which remove car parking spots from our roads, which the majority of residents use and require, should be voted down by Council. Council should instead promote cycling infrastructure to improve safety only where there is objective safety data to demonstrate risk, and the needs of the wider community can be carefully considered. Balanced approaches to transport in our community will ensure that Port Phillip remains a great place to live and work.

Have you ever wondered how Port Phillip rates compare with neighbouring Councils such as Bayside, Stonnington or Glen Eira? Here is your chance to find out with our newly updated 2023 Calculator.

At Council’s meeting of 23rd June, Crs Bond, Clark, Pearl and Sirakoff raised a motion to freeze rates. Unfortunately, Crs Baxter, Copsey, Crawford, Cunsolo and Martin did not support this motion. This is at a time Council is forecasting a $14 million operating surplus, an additional $2.3 million of rates revenue from new properties, and a $4.4 million cash surplus.
Our question remains – if not this year, when would a rate relief for all residents and businesses be supported?
After 16 months of living with COVID-19 and 4 lockdowns (now 5) resulting in devastating financial and mental health impacts on residents and businesses across Port Phillip, a rates freeze would have been a sign of goodwill and support to all the community.
Crs Bond, Clark, Pearl and Sirakoff voted against subsequent motions to increase rates and unrestrained spending from the $4.4m cash surplus, as well as a hardship motion because of unclear eligibility definitions and a lack of detailed program costing (as admitted by council officers). Keeping in mind, council only needed to allocate $2 million from this surplus to avoid any rate increase this year.
• Yes, there will be an average increase across 74,500 properties of $27, but not all properties are equal
• If your property value does not change, your rates will increase by 2.4%
• If your property value increases by 2%, your rates will increase by 4.5%
• If your property value increases by 5%, your rates will increase by 7.5%
• If your property value increases by 10%, your rates will increase by 12.65%

AND: If your property value FALLS by 0.9%, your rates will still INCREASE by 1.5%

Why is this so?This is due to a shift in rates revenue raising from commercial/industrial properties to residential properties, which resulted in an overall 4.5% increase in raised revenue from residential properties.

Do You Think Rates Should Have Been Increased for 2021-22?

**The City of Port Phillip have not authorised the use of the images of Councillors**

Our Councillors and Council have been making it difficult for our long-term senior citizens to stay in their homes.

There are many residents in Port Phillip, like Tanya*, who face the nightmare of Council demanding exorbitant rates from them knowing that with a small fixed income or pension they will never be able to pay. In most cases, these residents are simply the innocent victims of overspending councils and unaffordable rates.

As example, in 1983 when Adrian bought his first home in Middle Park the rates were $500 per annum. Now they are $5000 but the level of services has not substantially increased. Council’s solution to these struggling residents is to reverse mortgage their property to the council or sell and move elsewhere. Council then has a caveat on their homes.

The measly ‘help’ council provides to those on a pension card
https://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/council-services/rates-and-valuations/rates-concessions-and-rates-hardship-relief

Many retired residents in Port Phillip are stalwarts of their communities. Many were born and bred in the areas they now live and are proud to call our suburbs home. When council relentlessly increases rates to levels not seen in other parts of Melbourne, questions must be asked about the fairness of a rates system that forces the elderly to reverse mortgage their homes.

The current high level of Port Phillip rates is adding needless stress to our senior citizens in an already stressful year. They just want to quietly live out their lives, on their fixed incomes, in the homes that they raised their families in.

WE SAY- we should not tolerate this appalling treatment of our senior citizens and we demand that rates for seniors should be cut. Council spend millions every year on frivolous ideologically inspired projects that wastes millions of our dollars and only increases the pressure for those who are retired. With almost 42% of all Council income being spent on employing between 800-900 council public servants, many more than neighbouring councils, one reason for our high rates is evident. Many seem to exist to endlessly write reports and are not directly involved in providing services. This is a massive self-serving bureaucracy that has much room for efficiencies and improved productivity so we can better look after vulnerable people in our community. Real charity should begin with our elderly ratepayers who are long-term residents of the City of Port Phillip. 

Shame on our Councillors and our Council for putting our residents into debt.

*Tanya’s story is real and is one echoed throughout Port Phillip but her name and face has been changed to protect her identity. Council provides retirees with the option to defer payment of their rates until their properties are sold at which time, they collect the unpaid rates plus interest of 5% p.a. which is effectively a reverse mortgage.

Snap Poll – Do you think our Council are serving the needs of all residents and ratepayers? 

Out of touch council are removing car parking spaces with little regard for the needs of residents & traders

Council has a massive financial dependence on car parking fees and fines and are on an ideological mission to remove car parking spaces.

Port Phillip Council Sustainable Transport Policy and Parking Rates
“Council is seeking to achieve a reduced reliance on usage of private cars.”

Council are out of touch with residents because we do not expect to pay for a parking permit when we are already paying massive rates and there are not enough car parks.  Council are grasping at any opportunity to claw in cash to fund their massive bureaucracy. Parking is on their $$$ radar with little regard for residents or retail business’s needs. 

RoPP’s Parking Policies:

• One free permit for all eligible properties.
• Encourage customers to shopping precincts with low cost parking.
• We do not support the unnecessary removal of car parks across the community, especially at shopping precincts.
• Use real-world car ownership and parking data to assess the parking needs of the community and traders, both now and into the future.
• Ensure adequate and fair access to parking for homes.
• Ensure all apartment building developments have parking available on site for all apartments.

Council are out of touch with residents’ needs when it comes to parking and traffic management. Despite the vast majority of residents owning one or more cars*,  Port Phillip Council’s ideological focus has been on the removal of parking spaces, even though it is well established that cars are essential to our community. Particularly for families to go shopping, to pick up children from school or sports, to commute to work, or to visit family and friends. This is especially true for the aged.

Council’s ideology has had a detrimental effect on narrowing streets and making it more difficult for drivers and more dangerous for cyclists when bike lanes are placed in the wrong locations. Removal of valuable parking spaces which is destroying business for our traders. Council’s deliberate strategy is changing our growing neighbourhoods – and not for the better.

Fitzroy and Acland Streets once thriving, vibrant icons of our city have been decimated by poor planning. Most street parking has been removed, turning these once thriving and magnetic attractions into quiet retail back-waters. 

Planning for growth 

While Council expect community numbers to grow, they are reducing our road lanes and parking. The table below shows the revenue from parking fees and fines. The lack of adequate car parking and excessive cost discourages our community and visitors dining or shopping in Port Phillip   

https://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/about-the-council/strategies-policies-and-plans/transport-policies-strategies-and-plans

https://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/about-the-council/strategies-policies-and-plans/transport-policies-strategies-and-plans

 https://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/about-the-council/strategies-policies-and-plans/transport-policies-strategies-and-plans  Move – Connect – Live 

https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.pp-haveyoursay.files/1515/9341/5458/Draft_Budget_2020-21_-_Financial_Statements.pdf

Based on the current view from the street, should tell Council officers that 6 months of 2020/21 will pass by and the Budgeted $15M of revenue to 1^st January due to Lockdown will be more likely $10M. ****

Council are alienating their constituents by implementing the “Move-Connect-Live” strategy, which is motorphobic that fails to recognise that car use is necessary in today’s society, and their strategy will impinge on collection of 20% of Council’s total revenue.

Resident On-Street Parking

Rates within the Port Phillip Council are amongst the highest in Melbourne*** yet residents still have to pay for their parking permits. Unlike residents of nearby councils, where Glen Eira residents get one parking permit for free, Stonnington residents get two free parking permits and Bayside residents get four free parking permits. One would think that for the exorbitant amount we are forced to pay we would be at least able to park one of our our vehicles for free outside our own homes. But our council needs the cash so they charge an additional annual “Parking Permit” fee. Another ‘Anti Community Tax’

Recently RoPP asked the Council about these fees and here was Council’s Reply:-

“The Parking Permit pricing is not intended to increase revenue but to achieve a cost neutral outcome”  Council Staff

We Say – If this is the case then why does Council charge this fee in the first place and not just make on street parking to eligible residents FREE? 

Our pledge to ratepayers, should our Candidates gain the balance of power within the Council in the upcoming elections is that we will ensure on street parking for eligible ratepayers is FREE. 

Council should maximise parking availability and minimise costs to residents to provide amenity to the majority of the community that rely on convenient car parking. Parking fees for residents should be reasonable and Council should not rely on excessive parking income from residents as a means to prop up its budget**. Residents and visitors should not be prevented from an outing in Port Phillip due to the cost of parking.

Source Documents

* https://profile.id.com.au/port-phillip/car-ownership

** Parking fees, fines and permits are second only to rates as Council’s biggest revenue source.

*** https://ropp.org.au/fact-check-how-high-are-port-phillip-rates-compared-to-neighbouring-councils/

**** https://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/media/1njpkxws/14-6-att-1-principle-approval.pdf

Snap Poll – Do you think that on street parking for residents should be included in their rates?