Three population articles in today’s The Age, two of them pro-growth.
“More people does not equal trashing our environment”: a minister (for migration) argues that population growth (though immigration) can be accommodated for with adequate planning. Given how hopeless the Brumby Government is at planning anything, his is wishful thinking. More immigration might seem to boost the economy in the short term, but those people will in turn grow old, and require even more people to support them – where does this end? We do not have infinite space, jobs or resources, and stating that people should curtail their standard of living is unacceptable – the most severe water restrictions will be futile if the population keeps increasing.
“Green wedges lost in the woods”: a representative from the Master Builders Association of Victoria says urban growth should continue, that people should be able to build big houses, that grasslands are “barren” and thus should be smothered over with housing.
Large homes have long been the obvious signs of affluence, success and in many cases, fertility. These are all social virtues that should be supported.
Greed is good, in short? What a load of self-serving bullshit. Large homes are environmentally-unfriendly and far from being “efficient”.
He was responding to an earlier article, “We need more green areas, not people”, 12/1, by a member of the Green Wedges Coalition.
“Reality check on growth”: by Bob Birrell, says that such a population increase will destroy quality of life for Australia’s citizens, and that the 35 million population projection is over-inflated as high migration programs have historically not been sustained. Both State and Federal Governments, however, have vested interests in maintaining growth:
Those involved in the building needed for the housing, services and employment required by new residents have a direct interest in high population growth. They include Victoria’s state government leaders, who are aware that the state’s main growth industry is city building.
Relying on building stuff can’t be sustained forever, though (as much as the industry would like it too). Mr. Birrell notes that:
Pursuit of the migration-driven 35 million target will generate increasing vexations as governments struggle to accommodate the extra numbers. Opposition will increase, as will critical attention to migration policies.
Many of the responding comments to the first two articles are quite good (and acerbic!). It is reassuring at least to see that commenters share my concerns about unrestrained population growth, though few politicans do, aside from Kelvin Thomson.
Some recent letters on the same topics:
6/1:
Preserving our green wedges
I am heartened that Planning Minister Justin Madden has stated “we are not in hurry to move the urban growth boundary” (The Age, 5/1). Melbourne has outgrown its optimal size, both in population and the surface area it covers. Our green wedges need to be preserved for their ecological value and food production. With the problems of “peak oil” (increased demand but plateauing of supplies) and the need to reduce our greenhouse gas production, it makes sense for farmland to be within closer transport distance. For example, the extensive market garden area on the south-eastern edge of Melbourne supplies much of our fresh produce. It has rich soils and a reliable rainfall. It should be preserved as a national treasure, not an area to be paved over for housing.
– Kit James, Melbourne
A defining moment
At last, democracy in action. Reading that the Government’s ridiculous decision to destroy our green wedges and further turn our once most-liveable city into a monstrous urban sprawl is being put on the backburner, due to Coalition and Greens resistance, is a breath of fresh air.
This is true bipartisanship that will shape what a 21st century Melbourne can be at its best. Let us build more efficiently, effectively and environmentally, improve our land use, curb our hunger for huge backyards and McMansions, and stop developers’ greed getting in the way of good planning. The challenge is upon us.
– Paul Bugeja, Caulfield North
Victoria has a population crisis, not a water crisis. By attacking the symptom (less water) rather than the cause (overpopulation), we live in a fool’s paradise while resolving nothing.
– Luke Hooper, Northcote
7/1:
Yes, there is a choice
Poor old developer, Delfin Lend Lease (The Age, 6/1), unable to open up more grasslands to flog off unsustainable future ghettos. Apparently the only way to afford a home in “Melbourne” is to buy one of its houses and enjoy all the future driving, health and social costs thereafter. There are no shortage of alternatives; for example, living regionally (it’s quicker to get the train to the CBD from Geelong than Berwick) or doing without a backyard and living near a park instead. But, as they say, it’s all about “My Choice”. Well, I would like the choice (having decided to live in a modest house, with no yard) of my countryside to remain as country when I escape town occasionally, rather than becoming one massive sprawl of obese housing estates so that private companies can flip a quick profit.
– Patricia Bakacs, Seddon
10/1:
Vanishing dream
While developers, investors and state government stamp duty coffers grow fat on Melbourne’s property boom (The Sunday Age, 3/1), we should all spare a thought for the average home buyer. With the median home price now $481,000 and rising, the Australian dream is becoming unachievable for the average Melburnian. While the Prime Minister and Premier crow about population growth, the next generation is slowly being locked out of the property market altogether, due to the spiralling cost. And those who are braving the market and purchasing a home are generally saddled with a massive mortgage, that may never be paid in their lifetime.
A debate on future population and migration levels is long overdue, along with a number of initiatives to direct growth to regional towns and cities.
– Mathew Knight, Malvern East
