THE issue of illegal trailbike riding is a problem in many parts of the City of Casey but particularly in areas where there are parks, reserves or large tracts of vacant land.
Not only is illegal trailbike riding dangerous, it can cause nuisance and environmental damage.
Following complaints from several residents of Cranbourne to Cr Steve Beardon, a letter signed by myself and Cr Beardon has been forwarded to Cranbourne residents seeking their help in eradicating illegal trailbike riding in the area.
Illegal riding is subject to both local and state laws so, in alerting residents to the issue, we are also urging those who have specific concerns or complaints to contact the police or the council’s local laws team.
Victoria Police and City of Casey local laws officers have powers to respond to complaints about trail bikes, illegal riding on private land and in public places as well as unlicensed and unroadworthy trailbikes.
Trailbike riders are responsible for complying with relevant laws and, where the rider is aged under 18, this responsibility rests with their parents or guardians. Under present legislation offenders can be fined up to a maximum of $1000.
The council is aware that many people in the community enjoy recreational trailbike riding and is looking at potential land sites to enable a safe, legal riding environment. The council is expected to consider an application for a proposed trailbike riding facility in the near future.
Readers who are aware of illegal trailbike riding in the neighbourhood or who would like to alert the police or council to an area of potential concern should contact Victoria Police, phone 000, or City of Casey Customer Service, phone 9705 5200.
Kevin Bradford,
Mayor,
City of Casey.
READ in disgust the council’s reply to Chantelle Nolte, whose puppy had died of strangulation while wearing registration tags (News, 15 June).
Two-and-a-half years ago my ragdoll kitten Myci got his registration tag caught in lace curtains. Fortunately I was close by and could hear a choking noise. On entering the room I saw my kitten dangling above the ground with his registration tags caught in the curtains. I have no doubt that if I had not been close by he would have died.
For Casey Council to say that no one has reported a similar incident is untrue. I emailed Casey Council to let them know what happened and to request that the council change its registration tags to a flat tag as opposed to the loop style.
Casey Council replied to my email saying that no one had reported a similar incident and that it was a freak accident. Does that sound familiar?
Lyndall Slaney,
Narre Warren.
THE City of Casey has adopted a new policy that discriminates against property owners who have a driveway that only services their own property. That includes the part of the driveway from the footpath all the way to the road it joins. This new policy will impact on the majority of ratepayers in the City of Casey.
The new policy, which was adopted last month, means that the property owner whose driveway services their home is responsible for vehicle crossings including culverts and structures as well as stormwater laterals. This new policy also has the detrimental effect of the property owner bearing the risk of public liability and being sued if a member of the public happens to injure himself on this place, which cannot be closed to the public, and which the owner now has to maintain. A child hurt while riding a bike on a driveway and the child’s parents sue the owner because there was a crack in the driveway.
The council is immune from the risk of public liability, however, through the Highway Authority Protection Act, but property owners are not. It is unlikely the owner will be covered for this risk by standard building insurance.
However, if the driveway serves two or more properties then those driveways are to be considered council-owned assets and will be maintained and repaired by the council.
There is no public liability risk therein to home owners whose driveways serve two or more properties.
The council forecast that the savings per annum will be $100,000. That amount will now be paid by individual property owners plus associated public liability costs and insurance. In the absence of legislation or regulation the City of Casey has taken it upon itself to make this law in the city. Readers who are at all concerned about this decrease in service and increase of costs and personal risk should contact their local MP.
At a time of government reaping massive increases in revenue from petrol taxes, governments increasing road funding to the council and the council increasing its rates, why are councils reducing road services to the community who pay their wages?
Why do the present ratepayers of Casey have to suffer cuts to services and pay for the additional development of infrastructure required for the new subdivisions? The developer reaps the profits of these new subdivisions – why should we be subsidising them?
Steven Waters,
Pearcedale.
IT IS regrettable that Casey’s rate rise has been lowered by 1.1 per cent only. Good financial management would enable Casey Council to lower its rate to 3.68 per cent instead of the 6.68 per cent that has been voted.
Before the special meeting was convened, Cr Steve Beardon had made a number of propositions for a sensible reduction in expenses by the council.
But, in considering the outcome of that meeting, his sound request for a judicious financial policy has fallen on deaf ears.
This is unfortunate for all Casey ratepayers.
If only we had three more councillors like Beardon, Paul Richardson and Lorraine Wreford, the rate definitely would be much lower than 6.68 per cent. How?
They are the ones who are putting ratepayers’ interests first.
In the name of transparency, could ratepayers ask mayor Kevin Bradford how much it will cost Casey Council annually to maintain the fish, which other councils like Greater Dandenong have refused?
Eliezer Francois,
Endeavour Hills.
