In our article, "Melbourne Planning: Minimum sunlight for parks in city of growing shadows," we noted that Melbourne City Council intended to form a special committee to evaluate submissions already received on this matter. We have a new absurd and revealing update (and include a relevant email from MCC below, filled with unintended or inescapable ironies). Tragically and hilariously, the majority of Melbourne City Councilors have a vested interest in the matter of minimum sunlight (i.e. in property development) and so are unable to form a quorum (!!!). They have needed to excuse themselves on a basis of conflict of interest. What Melbourne City Council intends to do now is to get the council staff to write a report for the consideration of a small 'independent' committee made up of planners (and not including people who want to protect parks). Although planners will doubtless have vested interests as well (if only in keeping their jobs - but most the city goes to are developers) they are considered 'independent' because they are not employed or officiating on the council! Of course, the point about being independent is not whether or not one is associated with the council, but whether one has a commercial interest in a matter under consideration. We are living in such dumbed-down and dishonest times, however, that this meaning has been lost, especially to government. Maybe professional developers and planners and their associates, who always have professional and vested interests in development, should be excluded from councils. Mayor Sally Capp comes to mind.[1] [Illustrations added by https://candobetter.net.]
Planning Policy, City of Melbourne, has recently solicited submissions and submissions about submissions ostensibly to establish guidelines for minimum sunlight for parks. Whilst it claims to be protecting the parks, it is obvious that it is really seeking to establish minimal sunlight rules so that it can continue to add to the bristling thicket of skyscrapers that is presently engulfing the city in shadow at the behest of the property development and immigration lobby/state government and town hall. We attach a submission from the Secretary of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria on sunlight and public parks. It's a fairly simple matter, but can be made complicated. There has been one round of submissions. Now there is a call for verbal submissions on those submissions [1] and for an 'independent' committee to evaluate those submissions, presumably until the opposition to sunlight-theft falls away from exhaustion in the face of the well-paid forces of darkness. [Ed. See update here: 
Recent comments