Below is a collection of published letters from The Age over the last week, most opposed to the Victorian Government’s undemocratic takeover of planning issues.
15/6:
Population fallacy
It is a fallacy that we need high population growth to sustain our economy. Denmark has a stable population of 5 million, with a low birth rate and immigration rate. Its unemployment rate is the lowest in the European Union and is lower than Australia’s. The country exports more then it imports, its GDP per capita is similar to ours, and it provides a high level of foreign aid. In Australia we use population growth as an excuse to destroy our environment, our amenity and our democratic processes.
– Jennie Epstein, Little River
Sustainability=density
It’s not surprising that Justin Madden is under siege. A minority of wealthy people don’t want their suburbs disturbed. They speak in terms of “lifestyle”, “heritage” or “ambience”. But let’s get to the heart of it. They don’t want more people in their area. They especially don’t want more poor people. But they won’t express it in those terms.
If you look at the sustainability of cities, one factor stands out. Density of population. This is why Singapore is much more sustainable than Melbourne. A small minority is putting their own narrow interests ahead of the future. Go in hard Justin, and keep your eye on the scoreboard.
– Andrew Jennings, Frankston
[No, people simply don’t want to be crowded together like caged battery hens!]
18/6:
Cheers and jeers
Goodness me. All those building lobby groups so upset at the blocking of development assessment committees (“Building groups slam Opposition”, The Age, 17/6).
As a resident living in one of the “designated” (for maximum development) areas, I say thank you – many times over – to the State Opposition, the Greens and others who blocked the legislation in the upper house.
Please hang in there. We locals have been excluded from this so-called planning process by the State Government. How obscene, to watch one’s suburb treated as a mere resource, to be exploited to the max by the circling vultures.
– Olga Kimpton, Coburg
19/6:
Business as usual as state gives up
Justin Madden has announced 41,000 hectares of land is to be released to house another 415,000 people. This equates to a density of just over 10 people per hectare. At such a low density, we must assume this will be a car-dominated expansion with McMansions with one or two people per house as the standard. What happened to Melbourne 2030? What happened to sustainable development? Where are the green wedges?
The Government has clearly given up on all these things. Once again it is business as usual, with windfall profits to the tract housing developers and another huge chunk of our ever expanding city locked into a totally unsustainable growth pattern. C’mon Justin, you can do better than that!
– Peter Hogg, North Melbourne
Levy development stage
When is Justin Madden going to realise that land owners in the expanded urban growth boundary are not as stupid as he thinks? The growth areas infrastructure contribution, in its proposed form, will be a disaster.
In Madden-world, the boundary is a millionaire’s playground, a place where no one gets sick or divorced, where everyone is content to sit on their properties for decades, happily paying exorbitant rates while enjoying the sub-standard infrastructure they have put up with for years. Then when urban sprawl reaches them and they can sell (or their land is compulsorily acquired), they will hand over vast percentages of the sale price in tax to pay for infrastructure they won’t use and thank the Government for the privilege of being rezoned.
The Labor Government needs a serious reality check. The majority of land owners in the growth boundary are ordinary working families, who often have to sell because of illness or divorce or because they want, or need, to live elsewhere. This proposal will take away this basic right. Because the infrastructure contribution is levied at the “first property transaction” rather than at development stage, land owners must wait until development of their land is imminent before they can recoup enough money to pay their liability of $95,000 per hectare.
Infrastructure is expensive and the money for it must come from somewhere. But this proposal is unworkable and unfair. The infrastructure contribution should be paid at development stage.
– Jeanette Laffan, secretary, TAXED OUT Northern Group, Beveridge
Gluttony of growth
The Government’s plans to acquire 15,000 hectares of native grasslands and establish new reserves to “offset” the loss of 6918 hectares of grasslands that will be given over to new developments is pure tokenism and green-washing. The cancer of suburban growth will continue at the same rate under our present population growth rate. How can native grasslands absorb the greenhouse gas emissions, compensate for heat emitted from the extra concrete and roadways, increase our water catchment areas or offset the amount of water used or the infrastructure costs that will be relayed on to the public purse?
Not one problem is solved by this continual growth! In fact, it will exacerbate existing ones and add new ones. The only groups to benefit from this gluttony of growth are land developers, the construction industry and the State Government as it ensures the votes of the pro-growth sector.
– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights
22/6:
What to eat when the farms are gone?
When rows of lookalike houses are sprouting on rezoned rural land around Melbourne, I wonder where all the beautiful, productive vegetable farms will be located.
I can’t believe that our Melbourne-centred Government is so obsessed with develop-mania that it will not attempt to protect producing farms in proximity to the hungry city. Who on earth is going to provide the fruit and vegetables, dairy products, lamb, pork and beef that we all demand? Do we really want to import food from Asia or Europe that we can grow or breed so successfully here?
There should be a subsidy that not only protects food farmers from the outrageous taxing that is mooted for land sales, but actively supports them so they may continue to produce the fresh food that nutrition experts are so anxious for a new generation to consume.
Let us insist that the ruthless rezoning and chopping into the so-called green wedges is reconsidered, and the beautiful farms remain for future generations to benefit from. I can never vote for a government that is so arrogant and stupid about zoning precious farm lands.
– Virginia Linton-Smith, Paynesville
It’s time, Mr Baillieu
Like many Victorians who feel that Victoria is reaching the tipping point – the point of no return with its population growth – I believe it’s incumbent on the Liberal Party and leader Ted Baillieu to enunciate exactly what policy his party has on the destruction of green wedges, slowing urban sprawl, providing adequate water and getting population growth under control.
Premier John Brumby says 2000 people a week are coming into our state (The Age, 18/6). This is up from the 1200 of only a few months ago.
Surely this sort of population increase would tax any government’s capacity to provide infrastructure and services and to safely absorb. Given this present Government’s record, this does not inspire confidence.
Who is controlling this massive surge in population? Certainly not our citizenry, who indicate time and again that this is not what they want.
The Liberal Party has been quiet on this issue and it’s time for Mr Baillieu to get off the fence and come out with a detailed response and, hopefully, with an alternative to the Brumby Government’s arrogant overriding of public concerns. What about it, Mr Baillieu?
– Tony Davidson, Glen Waverley
23/6:
Change course or wave farewell to our liveable city
I am appalled by the Government’s proposal to extend the urban growth boundary (yet again), and to effectively abandon the principles established under Melbourne 2030. Three years ago I stood in a paddock marked for development in Melbourne’s outer reaches as the then premier and the planning minister, Rob Hulls, launched the Growth Areas Authority. I was optimistic that a more sensible, efficient and sustainable urban form would come forward and define Melbourne’s outer suburbs. How wrong I was. The Government’s revised approach to the city’s urban growth boundary will doom Melbourne to become an average city of lost opportunity.
The fundamental problem is that the people responsible for the management and growth of Melbourne and, more importantly, establishing a long-term vision and strategy, are unskilled at what they do. Justin Madden and John Brumby, are, instead, swayed by developers and skewed economics. Developers are a clever bunch. They can innovate if they are required to. It is not about starting from scratch, it is about building upon some of the good work already done and giving Melbourne the vision it deserves.
– Adam G. Williams, AECOM Design and Planning, London, Britain
It’s Maddening stupidity
Let me try to get this straight. Melbourne is sprawling out of control and that’s why they brought in the 2030 plan. In the areas that they service, the railways cannot cope with passenger traffic and trains are grossly overcrowded. The peak period on the roads now lasts for much of the morning. There is a water crisis, with Melbourne’s water supply being only a quarter of its capacity.
The solution seems to be to cancel the short-lived 2030 and extend the built-up area, build houses over green areas and valuable market gardens and extend Melbourne’s population to 5 million. It is a triumph of stupidity over common sense and could well be described as Maddening.
– John Ackerman, Keilor East
Redress the balance
On a recent trip to Brisbane, we were told that more than 1200 people a week are moving to Queensland. John Brumby says that 2000 people a week are relocating to Melbourne. People are also flocking to Darwin at an alarming rate.
Given this huge internal migration, one can’t help but wonder where these people are coming from and why? There must be a lot of vacant houses in empty towns somewhere, or are these new arrivals coming from overseas?
Anyone wanting affordable accommodation, and work, might be interested in occupying the places these new people leave behind. Can someone tell those wanting to exit the cities where to go … politely of course.
– Craig Cahill, Blessington, Tas
Dreams and darlings
If Rob McClellan, the previous Liberal government’s planning minister, was the darling of the developers, then the Labor Government’s Justin Madden must be their dream come true.
– Don Owen, Hawthorn
24/6:
Where do we draw this grey line?
Week after week, letter writers to The Age suggest that the solution to urban sprawl is to limit Melbourne’s population growth.
We are yet to be treated to suggestions about how this should be achieved. How do we decide who is privileged enough to live here? Those of us who were here first and don’t want to see unit developments from our big backyards? Perhaps you need a family connection? An employment sponsor? A minimum bank balance?
Those who wish to see population growth limited clearly see the advantages of living in Melbourne, or they wouldn’t be so desperate to preserve their personal living standards. I am interested to hear how they propose to deny these advantages to others.
– Abby McKee, Greensborough
[A limit has to be imposed at some point – just restrict further immigration! A hotel, for example, only has a certain number of rooms and thus has to limit guests.]
A populous plague
Articles in The Age regarding urban sprawl bring up the question of “why?”. One day some member of Parliament will let their gut hang out and make the point that is all too obvious – that there are just too many human beings on this planet, and something urgently needs to be done. I taught high school for 20 years, from 1970. Even back then the world was deemed to be overloaded. No one has taken much notice of the breeding rate of humans. We have become a plague species and unless we address growth of our population, will we not survive.
We have basically destroyed the ecosystem and the normal functioning of the entire biosphere. We think we are a clever species, but in reality we are quite the opposite.
If one wants to get out of a hole, the first thing one needs to do is stop shovelling. But we just shovel on at an increasing rate.
I have a feeling that we have left the matter too long and it is beyond rectification.
– Sumner Berg, Beechworth
More The Age articles:
- “Reserves to replace lost grasslands”, 17/6. Native grasslands will be lost with the urban boundary expansion, but the proposed reserves won’t compensate for this.
- “Go-ahead for urban expansion”, 18/6. Farewell to Melbourne’s open spaces and liveability.
- “Opposition to a bigger Melbourne smacks of cultural snobbery”, 25/6. A riposte from Madden himself, accusing those who oppose his planning takeover as “NIMBYs”. He is a former footballer – what qualifications (if any) does he have in planning? (The prospect of this buffoon becoming a policital leader, as he has stated he wants to do, is nightmarish.) The Victorian Government’s approach is one of trying to keep pace with out-of-control population growth by authorizing ill-considered developments.
