A collection of other people’s letters on overpopulation and overdevelopment, from since the last time I wrote.
It’s no fun living in a concrete jungle
Paul Mees (Comment, 23/11) provides logical thinking about Melbourne residential densities, transport systems and trees. Single-dwelling lots take far too much blame for our transport congestion and overpopulation problems, when they actually offer many positives socially, health-wise and environmentally.
With the past 15-plus years of increased dual-occupancy and multi-unit development of former single-dwelling lots, we have witnessed a substantial loss of large trees (up to 50 per cent in places) throughout the metropolitan area. This is leading to increased urban heat island effects and severe strains on stormwater systems and electricity demand for summer air-conditioners. We need to retain our trees and gardens (with real trees – not urban-designer toy specimens) and sanity while creating more job opportunities near our regional activity centres to reduce demand for freeways and public transport.
We might also learn to grow our own fruit and vegetables again, avoiding the greenhouse emissions and higher prices associated with buying them in supermarkets. Otherwise, “the garden state” will become “just another hot, crowded, concrete jungle”.
– Dennis Williamson, Glen Waverley
Three cheers for Mees
Suburban garden lovers and supporters of the big backyard – that Australian institution – will cheer when they read Dr.Paul Mees’ article.
Dr.Mees, Melbourne’s transport guru, turns the tables on those muddle-headed urban planners who wrongly blame our gardens and backyards for low suburban density, which is in turn blamed for poor public transport and overuse of cars.
He says that, rather, Government should tackle our dysfunctional privatised public transport.
Our great-grandparents, who left overcrowded tenements in Britain and Europe for a new life in Australia, would never have dreamt that the Government would try to get us to abandon our suburban gardens and force us into high-rise units on tram lines or next to train tracks.
– Elizabeth Jackson, Fitzroy
Cut tax breaks
Perhaps, Ric Battellino (The Age, 26/11), the reason for the decline in first home ownership is more financial than anything else. It’s only since the reintroduction of negative gearing and the halving of capital gains tax that Australia has experienced unprecedented increases in house prices. These tax breaks, worth billions annually, perfectly suit the interests of real estate investors and speculators (who already own a home). But they have created record unaffordability for first home buyers.
– John Mason, South Melbourne
Growth is dirty word
Tony Brittingham and Sue Packham (Letters, 25/11, 26/11) expose the core truth about our “civilisation” – limitless growth. “Changing our lifestyles” and “adjusting” to a low-carbon world means valuing a healthy global environment more than a “better (material) life” for our kids. Indeed, such an environment is a must if all kids are to live securely.
Few believe conventional “progress” is possible without economic growth. Yet this is exactly what pressures the planet, through consumption of more and more resources and energy per person.
We all need to get our heads around the psychological, existential and economic challenge symbolised by deleting growth from our list of policy, and lifestyle, assumptions. Then we might get some real leadership in confronting our dire situation, way beyond fiddling with a farcical ETS.
– Ken Blackman, Hampton
Population push
Negative gearing and the halving of capital gains are not the sole factors in rising house prices (Letters, 27/11). An increasing population also drives demand, while the cost of borrowing plays a great part in determining house prices. During John Howard’s tenure the cost of money fell substantially, which in no small measure pushed up prices.
– Tibor Majlath, Greensborough
2/12:
A stand on migrants
I was dismayed to read the article about immigration (“Most back immigration”, The Age, 1/12). There was admiration for those who are happy with high rates of immigration and an implication that those who think we have too much are racist.
I am opposed to high levels of immigration because a higher population will cause some misery to our way of life and country. I am not racist – my antecedents migrated here during each of the past three centuries – but Australia has reached a point where it has suffered enough from man.
The best and worst intentions of an educated democracy are unable to prevent further population pressures from smashing up our beautiful country. Of course, there needs to be some migration flow and refugee resettlement here. More than that may make more profits and jobs in the short term, but wither our fragile land, Australia.
– Benedict Clark, Cape Paterson
SMH, 24/11:
Breaking point
Alan Garrity’s suggestion (Letters, November 23) that Australia is underpopulated compared with North Africa is spurious. Even our small population has strained the resources of this land to breaking point, largely because of how we live and how we exploit the land to feed many more than those who live here.
I dread to think what will happen to Africa when its people raise their standard of living and start exploiting their continent the way we have exploited ours.
– David Emerson, Woolloomooloo
Herald-Sun, 30/11:
There wouldn’t be any argument about climate change if we were honest about the real threat to the planet. The world is overpopulated. But of course, fertility control is taboo.
– Peter Boardman, Frankston
