Melbourne on the path to ruin

Haven’t written for a while, though there have been quite a few articles on population issues; I feel disheartened that nothing ever seems to change regarding the problems faced, and that governments and business remain in denial of overpopulation’s negative effects.

“Fast-growing Melbourne heading towards becoming Australia’s largest city”, H-S, 3/4. Dismaying news for my home city, and this will completely destroy its livability, despite the positive statement of the apparently-delusional Premier. At 4.35 million now, traffic on the roads virtually grinds to a halt at times every day, and public transport is beyond capacity. Victoria’s population has also been growing rapidly as a whole (from overseas and interstate), currently at 5,768,000, most of whom head to Melbourne. It has become too popular and this is ruining it. But all Premier Denis Napthine does is “welcome” the strong growth.

“Mumbai: Bright lights, tight city”, The Age, 21/2: article from February on the extreme overcrowding in an Indian city. The situation is quite horrifying, and the people questioned are obviously unhappy about their situation – “We have already reached saturation point. We’ve got skin-to-skin contact on the trains. How much closer together can we live without going mad? There is nowhere to walk, nowhere to throw a ball or have a picnic”. It is obviously extremely unhealthy both mentally and physically. The proponents of high-density living in other countries (including those in Australia) should read this as a cautionary tale: an ultimate outcome of uncontrolled population growth and urbanization.

There has been a lot of recent attention on foreign buyers purchasing residential property in Australia – estimated at one-fifth of all buyers – particularly those from China. Our lax laws encourage this, and it is a major factor in driving up property prices to ridiculous levels, along with strong population growth. Canada recently (and sensibly) cancelled its own 28-year-old visa scheme designed to attract wealthy foreigners to the country, so Australia is now the next easy target for buyers. Of course such attention inevitably attracts criticism that such concern is “racist”, but a government’s priority should be toward its own citizens in providing essential services – shelter is a basic human right – and in this it is failing. The trend is also fuelling unwanted demolitions and inappropriate developments in once-pleasant suburbs, as a columnist laments.

Some collected letters:

High-density hell

Every time I visit Melbourne CBD (every few months by train) I am reminded why I don’t like cities and certainly wouldn’t want to live there as a resident! It is noisy, stinky and increasingly crowded, not to mention unbearably hot in summer with all the asphalt and concrete smothering the ground, the streets claustrophobically overshadowed by towering buildings. And this is the city again voted world’s most livable! I shudder to think what less-livable cities are like.

A new resident to the CBD made the mistake of complaining about how noisy it was – the main offenders being music venues – and oh was he castigated, both in the article comments and elsewhere (Reddit’s mostly-younger members being a predictable example). Well, seeing as governments are pushing for higher-density cities, this sort of conflict is going to happen a lot, so I don’t know why those castigating him were so offended. Is there any law that says cities have to be noisy, aside from fatuous bullshit about noise contributing to “vibrancy”? A lot of what passes for “music” is just loud noise pollution and the environment is better off without it.

There was a quite vitriolic post on Reddit – Urban Sprawl now biggest impediment to Economy – where those who objected to high density/urban consolidation being touted as the ultimate solution to our woes got downvoted and called NIMBYers (the usual predictably tired insult). They are anti-backyards (a wasteful allotment of space according to their philosophy) and think everyone should live crammed into apartment towers with a park or two providing lonely oases of greenery. I have given up arguing with people of that mindset as they have a quasi-religious conviction that high-density is the only acceptable way to live. Not so – reducing population growth would enable people to live in detached houses with gardens and backyards, and contain urban sprawl – it would also ensure that land is retained for local food production. But this alternative solution is unthinkable to high-density advocates.

I also found disagreeable this later related post, You want housing up, not out? – the HD advocates (I really need a catchy name for them) want to brainwash children into their cult:

My idea is to use an art/design competition to harness the imaginations of older children and effectively use their drawings as covert propaganda for the type of places we want to exist, after steering their little minds towards what we want them to draw. It’ll be asking primary school children to draw how they foresee their dream Australian lifestyle, or dream city in X amount of years. What will streets and cities look like? How will people live?

This Sustainable Living webpage from NSW Save Our Suburbs gives arguments against urban consolidation. (They don’t, however, advocate restricting population growth; rather, they encourage regional decentralization.)

My little utopian vision is of cities being mostly depopulated, and people living in smaller regional towns, each having its own sustainable power and food supplies, and connected by high-speed rail and Internet. A slower, environmentally-friendly and more relaxed society. I would like to see a “small, smart and sustainable” future for Australia; I emphatically reject the “big Australia” and frantic unsustainable push for endless economic growth that currently has us trapped.

Battery-hen living

“Hong Kong’s High-Density Housing & Cramped Living Conditions”, ChinaSMACK.com, 23/5 (via Kotaku). These are a series of photos showing the incredibly cramped living conditions that are normal for that city. To my view it looks rather hellish, though I suppose someone who grew up there would regard it as normal. I guess such cramped apartments are preferable to being homeless, but it seems a very Nature-deprived way of living – humans did not evolve to live like termites. I can’t imagine such conditions as being good for their long-term health. Many regard such dense living as desirable for its supposed reduced “ecological footprint”, but the people in the buildings still need all their supplies brought in from elsewhere. I would hate to have to climb up and down hundreds of stairs, or rely on lifts, just to go outside! If a fire took hold in one of those apartments, it would be a major disaster if the residents could not access fire escapes.

A recent Daily Mail article shows the even more nightmarish-looking Kowloon Walled City in China before its (thankful) demolition, an unplanned, unregulated and claustrophobic rabbit warren housing 50,000 or so residents. I don’t envy the children growing up there! They would undoubtedly have many health problems, given China’s pollution, and be very Nature-deprived if they never went outside its walls. The io9 sci-fi site mentioned the place a few times – a few commenters there seem to have romanticized views of the place as it resembled a science fiction dystopia.

Families are squeezed together in tiny apartments, with all their possessions crowding the rooms. (I have to admit that my increasingly cluttered bedroom does not look too different! But at least I can go outside into the backyard or for a walk around the streets.)

“No room for a view”, The Age, 14/5. Melbourne CBD residents are increasingly facing a problem with overshadowing from the many tall apartments being erected, though on a much smaller scale than Hong Kong. Planning here is generally poorly-thought out, with developers given far too many concessions. Problem is that most cities have not been planned properly from their inception and have grown in a messy organic fashion over the decades or centuries – Kowloon was an extreme example of this – so new developments are shoehorned in as best city planners can.

“Population clock shows Japan faces extinction in 1000 years”, 13/5. Yet another alarmist article concerning Japan’s ageing and declining population! It seems to have become a favorite trope. Given their advances in technology (somewhat exaggerated in a satirical Onion article from 2007, “Earthquake Sets Japan Back To 2147”), perhaps they will have robot helpers by then, and people won’t stop having children altogether, so the article is just silly. A couple of letters in response, 16/5:

Falling population

ANYONE who has battled crowds on Tokyo’s trains will welcome the news that Japan’s population is declining (“Population clock shows Japan faces extinction in 1000 years”, theage.com.au, 13/5). Japan is an overcrowded country with few natural resources, and its population needs to decline.

As for disappearing altogether, it’s not going to happen. When the population gets close to what is deemed ecologically sustainable, all the government needs to do is introduce baby bonuses to boost the fertility rate. After the baby bonus was introduced here, our fertility rate went from 1.7 to 1.9.

As for ageing, look at the Okinawans. They live to a ripe old age and are largely independent as they age. Other Japanese can do the same once they are given a bit of space and fresh air – splendid side effects of a lower population.

– Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

Act on East Timor

IT’S good to see the “urgent” matter of the extrapolated extinction of the Japanese race in 1000 years being raised.

But we never hear about the doubling of the population of East Timor (an infertile and seasonally dry country already food-insecure) within 25 years due to unwanted and preventable births happening now.

The Japanese may well decide to have more children – for example, when an average couple can afford a home with more than one bedroom. In the meantime, they have everything to gain from population shrinkage. The East Timorese, on the other hand …

– Jane O’Sullivan, Chelmer, Queensland

Addendum: Letter from MP Kelvin Thompson regarding Melbourne’s sorry excuse for high-rise planning, 27/5:

THE article “Chasing the sun among high-rises a heated issue” (20/5) raises very important issues about Melbourne’s headlong rush to high-rise.

The loss of sunlight is a very important point. As is the fact that high-density high-rise buildings have big carbon footprints, consume more energy, generate more pollution and detract public amenity through the large shadows they cast. The proliferation of high-rise development is threatening not only our environment, but also our social fabric.

I am a fan of the suburban backyard. I believe children who grow up in concrete jungles are subject to more bullying and are more vulnerable to traps such as crime and drugs. What do you call a kid in a backyard? A free range kid. I think free range kids have a better time of it than battery kids. The more high-rise developments that are shoved down the throats of local communities, the more our communities will be suffocated.

– KELVIN THOMSON, MP, Federal Member for Wills

Humans vs. kangaroos

Last night an ABC documentary, Kangaroo Mob, was screened, about the increasing competition for living space between kangaroos and humans in Canberra. Predictably the kangaroos are on the losing end, their habitat being eroded by the expansion of housing estates over grassland. The comments about supposed kangaroo overpopulation in the narrative could equally be applied to humans! I kept envisioning some aliens coming to Earth and deciding to “hold an annual cull to ‘manage’ the problem by keeping [human] numbers at ‘sustainable levels’ ”! To quote from a PDF from the documentary site.) We certainly would not like it if that were done to us. I previously mentioned the hypocrisy around animal culls in my 7/7/2010 entry.

I was infuriated at a news item on ABC TV last night (I don’t have a link) about how property developers are lobbying the Bailleu government to remove environmental controls and release more land around Melbourne for development. They are loathesome parasites who care only about making profit, no matter at what cost to the environment. An article in The Age today, “Native grasslands suffer ‘death by a thousand cuts’  ”, describes the threat to the remaining volcanic plains grasslands around Melbourne which are a valuable ecosystem but are viewed by many as open space to be built over.

Letter in The Age, 20/2:

OUR number plates should now read “Victoria – a property developer’s paradise”.

– Margaret Ludowyk, Brunswick

Land grab

“Farm sale just like winning Lotto”, H-S. This is a dismaying trend around Melbourne and other cities, of farmers selling off valuable arable land to developers. They obviously don’t care about what will happen to their land or the environment (some of the land was initially put aside for native grassland); they are only greedily focused on short-term gain. We will all suffer for this in the future, and indeed are doing so now as the city relentlessly continues its cancerous population and urban growth.

“Celebrity heritage protesters should butt out of planning issues, says lobbyist”, H-S. The Committee for Melbourne chief executive criticized celebrities for supporting anti-development groups. The CFM is essentially a front for developers and business, neither who have interest in preserving the amenity of neighborhoods. A comment I sent in:

Developers are doing a lot more to “ruin the future of Melbourne for the future population” with their ugly high-density apartment towers! Residents should have every right to defend the livability of their suburbs, and if celebrities can aid them, so much the better.

“Brace yourself, highways to hell coming”, 5/2. Population growth and inadequate public transport are seeing freeways frequently gridlocked with increasing traffic. All the Government can think to do is scar the landscape with more roads, not tackle the problem at its source.

Collected articles

I have a backlog of various articles from the last 4 months that I meant to comment on, so much linkage follows!

High-rise hell

Some letters from the last few weeks:

6/11:

Ever-thinner slices

THE latest United Nations human development index (“Not quite Norway, but still a great place to call home”, theage.com.au, 3/11) shows it is clear that a nation’s population has little relationship to its ultimate economic strength. Countries that are better off per capita than Australia are smaller - Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Norway.

High immigration is the key driver to a “big Australia” but is this likely to make Australians better off? No. According to the Productivity Commission’s annual report for 2010-11, two benefits often attributed to immigration, despite mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth and that it can alleviate the problem of population ageing.

Among the 187 nations surveyed, Norway, Australia and the Netherlands topped the annual index while Congo, Niger and Burundi - with the highest population growth - came last. A rapidly increasing population mostly serves the interests of a few rich businesses, and produces more taxpayers for the government. For the rest of the public, it means our capital and social capital is cut into ever-thinner slices.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

16/11:

We always pay

THE controversial north-east road link connecting the ring road and the Eastern Freeway remains a threat.

It’s all about perpetual growth, and removing obstacles. “Big Victoria” requires monolithic concrete infrastructure and transport access for the (mainly) imported goods to all the mega-stores and shopping centres. It also requires ignoring peak oil and common sense. Corporate Victoria has the power to hijack our government’s agenda.

The link would destroy parklands, wetlands, heritage artists’ sanctuaries, Yarra River walking tracks, havens for wildlife, picnic areas, and sporting facilities.

Without government funding, this tunnel/freeway would involve tolling and private operators. The costs - including the loss of Melbourne’s intrinsic values - are always passed on to average Victorians.

– Chris Hooley, Viewbank

26/11 – these are in response to a 25/11 letter, reproduced below them:

Still happy to fight

I’M SORRY the people of Toronto either had no success in protecting the sunlight on their balconies or were too dispirited to even try (Letters, 25/11). The people of Melbourne still have a bit of spunk left to speak out about unwanted high-rise and other developments that are seen as disadvantageous to them. Canada, like Australia, suffers from high population growth and developers flourish and dictate terms in such an environment.

– Jill Quirk, president, Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch), East Malvern

At mercy of speculators

WHAT’S good for Toronto is not necessarily good for Melbourne. Most Melburnians don’t appreciate high-rise human “termite mounds” (as one Southbank resident called this blot on the landscape) overlooking and overshadowing our Yarra River and surrounding residential neighbourhoods (“Southbank skyscrapers ire”, The Age, 24/11).

These apartments are probably not even for sale in Australia. With another big Southbank development, apartments were sold off the plan overseas. It seems we poor suckers are at the mercy of developers and property speculators.

– Lewis Prichard, Hawthorn

Rankings have message

MELBOURNE the most liveable city in the world? Too right. So, to all the planners, developers and councillors, why would you want to change it? And just where did those cities jam-packed with apartments, crawling traffic and block buildings abutting each other with no garden in between rank? All the way down there.

– David Cathie, Mordialloc

The letter from Toronto:

Get over it

TO A Toronto resident, the controversy about a skyscraper in Southbank seems almost quaint (“Southbank skyscrapers ire”, The Age, 24/11). The location for this building is the centre of a major metropolis, right? If the tower is well designed, everyone should just relax and get used to the fact that big cities have big buildings. And Freshwater Place residents have to get over themselves. Do they expect the city to stop growing just to spare them the hardship of less sunlight on their balconies? Perhaps they should have opted for property in Poowong instead. Ironically, an article about a proposed 240-metre residential tower in downtown Toronto also appeared in the Toronto Star: “Toronto’s skyline heads for the clouds”. The article quotes the architect as saying, “I think 100 storeys is completely do-able in Toronto; that’s sort of the next generation of height.” The residents of Freshwater Place should check out the accompanying photo and prepare themselves for their future.

– Michael Harris, Toronto, Canada

“In city's middle-ring burbs, many towers rise”, 26/11. The dismaying sight of high-rise towers is now beginning to blight many suburbs, no thanks to the dysfunctional planning laws. People who oppose them are derided by architects and developers as “NIMBYs”, but the towers are an ugly eyesore and have a dehumanizing effect on the landscape over which they loom arrogantly. They block out sunlight and the sky, and give one a feeling of claustrophobia. They are touted as being enviromentally-efficient, but virtually all current structures require vast amounts of power and water imported from elsewhere, and certainly could not be self-sufficient. They are primarily built for investors and to make money, not to help the environment.

A quote regarding such structures from a science fiction novel:

She glanced down between her boots through the transparent deck of the ship as it passed over the center of Jejeno. The city was both a tribute to isenj engineering skills and an indictment of their stupidity. The forest of asymmetric towers – bronze, brown, copper, tan – and narrow streets created endless canyons. Shapakti said that it was an echo of isenj origins as termite-like animals living in giant mounds, but Esganikan had seen almost identical soaring buildings in the images of Earth. It was how greedy species built: it showed space was at a premium because they had filled it and out-priced it – yes, she understood Earth’s economy now, she understood it very well – and they didn’t care about the intrusion on the landscape. It was a statement of their contempt for all other life.

– Karen Traviss, Ally

Victoria: open borders

“Interstate raiders buying up Melbourne properties”, 2/4. More unwelcome competition for housing – but Premier Ted Bailleu reveals his true colors in this remark:

Despite pressure on housing affordability from rapid population growth, Premier Ted Baillieu said he was not about to close Victoria’s borders. He said he would never “put up the stop sign” to curb population growth, but warned Victorians will have to “endure” the problems of a growth rate that saw Melbourne increase by more than 1500 people a week last financial year. “You’d like to think, in government, that you could invest for the future. We’ll be investing to catch [up] because the previous Labor government allowed Victoria to fall behind,” he said.

Well, Melbourne is ruined. No hope from him, then, of curbing growth – just the opposite, continuing the insane growth mania begun by Jeff Kennett’s government and continued by Labor. Melbourne’s population is closing in on Sydney’s.

I wonder if one solution might be to introduce some sort of residential permit – that if a person wishes to live in Melbourne, they would need to apply; if there were no room they would be refused. Preference would be given to Australian citizens, and then long-term residents of the city first. The State Government should, ideally, refuse to issue any more land releases to developers, and set a firm boundary to limit expansion. I doubt anyone would have the courage to take those measures, though – there would be an outcry of “We should be able to live where ever we want!” A hotel, though, can’t accommodate an infinite number of people, and neither can a city – not if it is to stay liveable rather than turn into an overcrowded slum.

Trying to get people to move to regional centers is no solution – these are often poorly serviced and, despite vague Government assurances, will remain so for a long time. Most people thus tend to want to live in well-serviced areas, which the established regions of Melbourne provide. Successive governments have done a poor job of managing growth – it is a game of catch-up, and they never quite manage to.

Dick Smith suggested that families be discouraged from having more than two children, though the Herald-Sun article linked was something of a misquote, according to this post at PublicPopForum. Some clueless fool did respond:

MacroPlan economist Brian Haratsis said Mr Smith was an alarmist. A population of 40 million was inevitable and that “the only choice is if we want a really big Australia of 40 million to 80 million”. He said population debate in Australia had been stolen by “anti-growth people with a Green sentiment”.

80 million? What has he been smoking? Much of Australia is infertile desert, so populations are mainly limited to thin strips of land along the coastline. Where is he planning to fit them all, and where will their food come from?

Collected letters

A lengthy backlog of printed letters from mostly The Age, collected from the last 3 months, on overpopulation, overdevelopment and property planning issues. Unfortunately, none of the few I sent were published.

(I just found out how to make cuts so I don’t clog up the front page with long entries!)

Livable – for now

Adelaide was voted Australia’s most livable city, with Sydney getting the most negative votes. Population growth has contributed to the latter, and Melbourne is not far behind in increasing unliveability. The surveyors were the Property Council of Australia, a body which has a vested interest in promoting growth. Adelaide has a comparatively small population – a major factor in its livability – but if the PCA has its way (one representative on a TV news report was all but foaming at the prospect of the city’s growth), the city too will be ruined by inflated house prices, overdevelopment and lagging infrastructure.

“Baillieu Government releases land for two new Melbourne suburbs”, Herald-Sun, 23/1. This gets me foaming at the mouth in rage – the Liberal Government is continuing the reckless growth policy of its predecessors. More open land (and carbon sinks) around Melbourne will be smothered in housing estates, contributing to the environmental degradation of the region. It won’t result in lower house prices, not with investors and developers looking to make profits. It also further jeopardizes the city’s food security, with arable land disappearing under housing estates.

“Population 7 Billion”, National Geographic, January 2011. An overview of the world’s population numbers, but the article optimistically suggests that reducing consumption and good old “human ingenuity” will solve our problems rather than reducing growth.

But one can also draw a different conclusion—that fixating on population numbers is not the best way to confront the future. People packed into slums need help, but the problem that needs solving is poverty and lack of infrastructure, not overpopulation. Giving every woman access to family planning services is a good idea—“the one strategy that can make the biggest difference to women’s lives,” Chandra calls it. But the most aggressive population control program imaginable will not save Bangladesh from sea level rise, Rwanda from another genocide, or all of us from our enormous environmental problems.

But aggressive control certainly would help mitigate such disasters! Only a totalitarian world government could implement such a policy, though.

“No 11 - and yes, it was the milkman”, H-S, 21/1. If this isn’t a flagrant abuse of government-funded IVF, I don’t know what is! 11 children – plus 3 from a previous marriage (natural or IVF is not stated) – and she still wants more. Apparently she’s got nothing better to do than contribute to overpopulation. Educated women supposedly want smaller families – that is one of the benefits stated for family planning aid in developing countries – but Australia appears to be going backward in that regard. Whether the children are “wanted” or not is irrelevant – her having so many is selfish and irresponsible. Removing government benefits for having 3 or more children (i.e. the 3rd child onward would not receive benefits) would prove a big disincentive, as well as providing IVF funding only for a woman’s first child. No government seems to have the courage to do that, however.

Fat city

A short news article from the 10/6 The Age on a statement by MP Kelvin Thomson:

Melbourne growing obese: Labor MP

Federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson has described Melbourne as “obese” in a scathing attack on the Victorian government’s decision to expand the urban boundary by thousands of hectares. “Melbourne is becoming an obese, hardened-artery parody of its former self. Extending the urban growth boundary is like a man rapidly gaining weight who thinks he can solve the problem by loosening his belt,” he said in a statement. He said the expansion would destroy nearly 7000 hectares of volcanic plains grassland, would add thousands of cars heading to the CBD every day, would create a massive infrastructure bill and contradicted the state government’s Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint. A planning amendment is before State Parliamentto expand Melbourne’s urban boundary by 43,600 hectares and allow for an estimated 134,000 new homes. It is expected to pass with the support of the opposition.

– Jason Dowling

A more detailed press release is reproduced at the PublicPopForum.

Melbourne is getting more unpleasant to live in as each year passes, the population increases and the city grows further like a cancer. Yet all the media can do is exult over rising real estate prices (good for investors and developers) and how the “building boom” supposedly benefits the economy. The Herald-Sun article below is an example (not available online):

More people, more homes: Victoria leads nation in building boom and urban sprawl

Outer suburbs in Victoria are booming with a mass of new homes built. Victoria is the growth capital of the country and in the past year has had four of the top five fastest-growing regions by population.

The Population and Residential Building Hotspots report by the Housing Industry Association showed Whittlesea north top the list with an incredible $484 million worth of new building approvals in 2008-09. There was 18 per cent population growth in Whittlesea north in the same period. Wyndham south took second place with 13 per cent growth, and Cardinia Pakenham and Melton east were fourth and fifth.

The HIA says Victoria has the fastest growing population, and building works must keep accelerating in areas of demand.

But a leading urban planner said the push to the fringes meant the gap between the “haves and have nots” was rapidly increasing. HIA Victorian executive director Gil King said there was no sign of boom suburb growth slowing.

“Victoria has had the nation’s fastest population growth, meaning demand for housing is higher than other states,” Ms King said. “It is crucial that the Victorian Government continues to introduce measures that aim at stimulating housing supply, including the promised expansion of the urban growth boundary.”

Senior urban planning lecturer at the University of Melbourne Dr Alan March said he was concerned about the low density of developments in growth areas and questioned how growth would spread. “One of the great problems we suffer in this growth is going into areas that are poorer in the levels of services that they have, compared to existing areas,” Dr March said. “And there’s not a great range of housing choice.”

Dr March said first home buyer grants were pushing prices up and there must be more assistance given to people in boom suburbs.

“If you look at data over the past 20 years, we are seeing a greater distance between the haves and have nots,” he said.

Of course the HIA wants more houses built as it profits their members! Never mind the damage to the environment. The fragile native volcanic grasslands that provide breathing space are being subsumed under a mass of housing – but most people tend to see these regions as “worthless” and open land that should be built over.

I get angry and despairing at this continuing destruction, enough so to hope for a firestorm to destroy the housing estates.

Housing greed

“Foreign home buyers backflip”, The Age, 24/4. The Federal Government reversed its baffling decision to allow foreign investors to buy homes in Australia unimpeded. Though I have to wonder if this is due in part to an election taking place later this year.

I am utterly sick of this country’s obsession with housing – more accurately, the property market being regarded as a form of wealth generation. A house is first and foremost a place to live in. I am also sick of living in what seems to be a semi-permanent construction zone, sick of the increasing overcrowding and overdevelopment that is making my neighborhood and many others stressful to live in, sick of the ugly monstrous houses that are blighting once-pleasant streets. This columnist expresses similar feelings:

Our suburbs are changing as swathes of properties are being bought by foreigners seeking a home purely as an investment. Because they’re investors, often they’re not personally interested in the communities they are buying into. For some there’s no respect for community, history or heritage. Perfectly good houses that come with large leafy gardens are being flattened to make way for massive mansions with tiny courtyards. Many of the buyers are families of overseas students, and other temporary residents who have little connection with the area they buy into. The real trouble is that we can’t turn back the clock. Daggy, but liveable – and affordable – houses are being razed and replaced by monstrosities that sometimes soar three storeys.

I honestly wish the property market would collapse. I want the quiet neighborhood back that I used to live in, want these ugly new houses razed. I would like to firebomb the housing estates spreading like cancers over what open land remains around Melbourne.

I have not been writing much out of such despair. I am powerless to do anything to stop this destruction.

A collection of letters from The Age:

10/4:

Population

In the year of biodiversity, Michelle Grattan writes an entire article on population without mentioning the word “environment”.

– Julia Thornton, Surrey Hills

Ever since huge numbers of immigrants have been arriving in Australia, the majority of the population has always been against their arrival. We are continuing the tradition.

– Con Vaitsas, Lakemba

Given the rapid population increase that is putting pressure on housing, hospitals and the transport network, what is the government’s policy on increasing the death rate?

– Roger Farrer, Hampton

Politicians asking wrong questions

If climate change represents the “greatest moral challenge of our time” then population growth represents the greatest moral foundational question of our time, especially considering Australia’s coal-fired per capita carbon emission rate. While we have a moral obligation to accept as many refugees as possible, immigration policy is another matter.

What is the ethic of poaching skills from developing countries? Unfortunately, politicians of both persuasions, in alliance with the business lobby, have pre-empted the outcome of any debate with the dubious premise that rapid population growth is both desirable and necessary, the only pertinent questions being where and when, not how and why.

Crowded cities, choked transit routes, pressure on food and water resources and a general loss of public amenity are just a few likely problems that, according to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, represent challenges we can rise above if “we do it properly”. Do it properly? Hmmm, let’s have a look at the evidence so far. Two words say it all. River Murray.

– Dave Mack, Macclesfield, SA

Growth end in itself

A point largely overlooked in the debate is that growth has become an end in itself akin to a religious belief. Once, economic growth was a means to the end of meeting people’s needs. Now growth is an end in itself and population growth is the means, feeding it through increases in consumption and the labour force.

Many years ago anthropologist Professor Bill Stanner compared this worship of growth to a cargo cult in which he said “God is goods, and the GNP the outward and visible sign of his glory and his power”. He could have added “and to hell with the environment”.

– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge

Lower family size

The human population explosion is about more than crowded Melbourne trams; it’s a global issue, and I commend Kevin Rudd for reversing John Howard’s policy of denying aid to overseas family planning programs. Rudd pledged up to $15 million over four years to such programs. This means, for example, that East Timor – which now has to import food – might have a chance of lowering its average family size of seven children. It’s also more likely the mother will not die giving birth to her final baby.

Tony Abbott must talk about his policy on aid to family planning and maternal health programs for our neighbours.

– Pamela Lloyd, West Brunswick

Start slowing now

That majority of Australians who are happy with a population of 30 million but not happy with 36 million needs to recognise that unless we put policies in place now, the population isn’t somehow going to slow down at 29.5 million and stop at 30. The bigger it gets the faster it grows, so we need to start slowing down now.

Incidentally, when we reach 30 million there will be the same amount of water as there is now so we’ll need to get used to having about a third less water each. As we will also have reduced our total carbon emissions by then, too, we will have to cut them further by another third.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

Cut complacency

Michelle Grattan’s comments on the broader solution to managing Australia’s population are concerning (Comment, 9/4). The argument for “sustainability” earned a half-paragraph, with reasoning that we will simply work something out. We live in one of the driest countries. Australians do not need encouragement to be complacent.

– Angus Carter, Albert Park

11/4:

Less is more

What welcome news you bring. The Rudd government is going to consider population levels seriously, hopefully as part of a long-term strategy for a sustainable Australia. I believe a population of 20-25 million is a good target. This will allow infrastructure to catch up with demand, environmental degradation to be curtailed, housing pressures to ease, greenhouse gas targets to be met, adequate water resources to be found – the list goes on. Our addiction to raw growth must be changed to an enthusiasm for sustainable development, putting quality before quantity.

– Gordon Payne, South Fremantle

26/4:

Welfare for well-off

While it is heartening that the government has reversed its foreign investment real estate policy (“Foreign home buyers backflip”, The Age, 24/4), it needs to do much more if it is serious about tackling the issues of affordability and access.

Our housing system is increasingly divisive and continues to lock an increasing number of people out of home ownership and into relatively insecure rental arrangements. It is appalling that government policies support this and the wealth creation of an increasingly small proportion of the population – property investors and real estate agents.

Negative gearing and other tax perks that drive demand and inflate prices are a form of welfare. It is perverse that taxpayers are subsidising those who least need assistance, reinforcing social and economic exclusion in the process. Surely the government is responsible for the welfare of all its citizens?

– Sonia Martin, Camberwell

Insensitive agents

Estate agent Adam Gillon might get a “warm, fuzzy feeling” about overseas property buyers being at his auctions (The Age, 24/4) but he clearly doesn’t have adult children like myself who feel hopeless and dejected about ever being able to get into the property market.

In the current real estate climate it is insensitive comments like Gillon’s that give real estate agents a poor reputation.

– Diana Holten, Surrey Hills

Collected letters

The articles linked in my 14/1 entry generated a flurry of letters to The Age. (I did not send one as I seem to have fallen out of favor – the last few I emailed were not published.)

15/1:

Migration’s drain on public purse

Michael Danby justifies our having the highest per capita immigration program by saying it brings in extra tax revenue (Comment, 14/1). A single year of migration like 2008, he claims, can “add more than $800 million to the tax base in the first year”. So what? If this is to be Danby’s economic case for high migration, then surely he needs to ask: do recent immigrants contribute more to the public purse in taxes than they take from it in direct costs and subsidies?

Back in the 1990s, answering this question set the economist Russell Matthews a massive task of disaggregation. His findings are discussed in my book This Tired Brown Land. Professor Matthews found it took the average immigrant about 10 years to become (like the average older resident) a net contributor to the public purse; and the highest costs occurred in the first two or three years after arrival. It seems that the average net cost to the public purse per immigrant back then was some $34,500 – a result so unwelcome to the government that it never funded a follow-up study.

The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figure for annual net migration is 285,000. A very rough calculation suggests this intake might be a net cost to the taxpayer of $9.7 billion – without counting environmental costs or the loss of urban amenities through crowding.

– Mark O’Connor, Lyneham, ACT

Cancer that kills the host

I do not feel reassured that Michael Danby and his parliamentary committee colleagues believe we can cope with population growth. Population policy in this country does not consider the greater good of existing citizens or the long-term suitability of a higher population, but is driven by what suits the electoral cycle and vested interests.

The Government’s contention that Australia was unique in avoiding the global financial crisis does not mention that it was largely on the back of increased demand from population growth. This growth is also artificially propping up house prices, now considered among the highest in the Western world. Business naturally wants more consuming units for its products. The biggest cheerleaders are developers and builders, with the Master Builders Association (“Green wedges lost in the woods”, Online, 14/1) implying that building more McMansions in the urban wastelands on the fringe of the city is an altruistic public service.

It is time citizens demanded a voice on this issue, which is being decided behind closed doors. We live in a mostly desert land that is getting hotter and drier. Experience tells us that governments never provide good planning and appropriate infrastructure to support a higher population, only ad-hoc freeways and energy-guzzling desalination plants as an afterthought. Growth should not always be the goal. The only thing that keeps growing is a cancer – until it kills its host.

– Chris Owens, Lysterfield South

Fix the problems first

How out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Victorians is the MBA? It is interested first and foremost in builders making money. It says it supports a larger population because Victoria should sustain more people. Why should it? So the MBA can build more houses and make more money? Victorians do not want continuing urban expansion and do not want to be battery hens locked up in tiny apartments. The MBA dismisses congestion and scarce resources as a management issue despite the fact that it is a huge problem with no solution in sight. I would like the MBA to first sort out these problems and then it can push for the population to grow ad-infinitum. Probably until the whole country is covered with housing.

– Greg Delaney, Amaroo, ACT

Growth that is gentle

Proponents of perpetual growth may not realise that we do not have to abandon all growth. While unchecked economic/population growth is not sustainable, we can indulge ourselves in intellectual growth, humanitarian growth, growth in compassion, demolishing the poverty industry and dissolving the billionaires’ club. The list is endless. This generates employment and income and is gentle on the environment.

– Margit Alm, Eltham

On the home front

While I concur in general with Terry Barnes about consumerism (Comment, 13/1), I do not agree with his convoluted solution to limit the size of houses by imposing a surcharge based on floor space per person.

The problem of the ever-increasing size of private residences has been created in part by the tax-free status of owner-occupied houses irrespective of size or market value. This has resulted in the family home being the best “investment” one can have and in reality forms part of one’s superannuation.

A quick reality check would be for the Federal Government to introduce a capital gains tax on properties over a nominated value, say, $1 million, which would change with inflation. This would no doubt lead to loud dissent by the better off, but would create a fairer system.

– Barry Robinson, McCrae

Recipe for high debt

Let’s debate what is really contributing to rising household debt and not just consider fringe issues such as McMansions and entertainment systems.

In 1996, approximately 30 per cent of an average weekly income was needed to pay off a 25-year mortgage on a median-priced house bought by first home buyers in Australia. This figure was more than 80 per cent in 2008 and will probably be higher again this year. The increasing size of new houses does not explain these figures.

Stopping this debt madness will require tough medicine, including removal of an unfair taxation system and supply policies. Ironically, people who have enough money to buy houses enjoy significant tax benefits on capital gains; what’s more, if it is an investment, the taxpayer helps finance it through negative gearing.

Couple this with a cut in the supply of public housing and a rising population, and you have a recipe for spiralling housing costs and rising household debt.

– Linda Brownstein, Wangaratta

Michael Danby’s view that population growth is required to “maintain our generous care of seniors” (Comment, 14/1) fails to acknowledge that such growth generates future dependency by new generations of seniors, in greater numbers, who will in turn require a growing population to support them.

– Luke Hooper, Northcote

16/1:

Michael Danby (Comment, 14/1) believes we can manage our environment while continuing to grow our population. In medical terms this is called palliative care.

– Kyle Matheson, Mont Albert

Just because economic gurus don’t know how we can grow richer without a simplistic growth in population doesn’t mean it is impossible.

– Guido Stavenuiter, Balmain

“ ‘Don’t pander to greenies’ ”, The Age, 31/12/2009. I sent a letter in response to this, but it wasn’t published:

Mr. Gadiel’s objection to “extreme environment groups“ being enabled to challenge governments in court is hardly surprising, seeing as he is part of the property development industry – a group not known for its regard for the environment or residents’ rights. Hopefully the law changes that reduce the court costs for activists will be implemented, making it more difficult for greedy developers to get their way.

Some that were:

1/1:

Brownwashing the environment debate

Comments by property development group Urban Taskforce Australia (The Age, 31/12) demonstrate the importance of looking beyond the intemperate views of such groups in developing government policy.

Aaron Gadiel provided a scaremongering assessment of recommendations in the Hawke review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. He suggests that reinstating provisions that remove cost barriers to parties seeking injunctions against environmentally contentious projects will “drench Australia in American-style litigation culture”.

However, only four such injunctions were granted under the act from 1999 to 2007, before the provisions were repealed.

It is disingenuous of UTA to paint environmental groups as not-in-my-backyard activists. Most serious environmental litigation is undertaken by those with more altruistic motivations such as species protection and safeguarding the planet for future generations. This may be contrasted with not-in-my-back-pocket industry groups, which, acting on behalf of their constituent members, are principally concerned with financial returns.

Removing cost barriers to the courts promotes access to justice opportunities, enhances scrutiny of government decision-making, and has potential to advance the rule of law in an area that the scientific community suggests will determine the future of the planet.

– Gregor Hupser, Public Interest Law Clearing House (Vic), Melbourne

Bring it on

Aaron Gadiel complains that legislative changes would give people who want to complain more of a voice in court, reducing “opportunities for Australia to get the urban development it needs”. Bring it on. I’d love to see what happens when locals have as much say as people whose only interest in the community is to make money from the community and leave.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

Growth and greed

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

Housing greed

Letters from the Herald-Sun, both concerning housing, 7/12:

Why have our regulators allowed the building of suburbs full of large homes without eaves and with no room for shade trees? These homes require air conditioners and those coolers consume energy while pumping hot air into the small gaps between the buildings. The same developments have no associated energy-efficient public transport. Contact your local councillors and representatives and demand answers and accountability, followed by the appointment of planners who know what common sense is.

– Paul Worden. Portland

I suspect such poor planning is because of corruption and influence from property developers, who can bribe councilors and politicians in developers’ favor.

16/12:

Overseas buyers swoop on homes

The decision by Kevin Rudd to eliminate any residency requirements when purchasing Australian real estate has propelled prices into the stratosphere. Even 24-hour junkets are now being organised to purchase property and then fly back over seas, particularly from China.

Any auctioneer would have noted that since March this year, when any form of residency requirement was lifted, the successful buyer was almost inevitably from overseas. How does the PM expect every day Australians to compete with a plethora of multi-millionaires? Prices have become obscene. A million dollars, or close enough to, has now become an everyday benchmark. On the basis that real estate doubles roughly every 10 years, our children can look forward to paying at least $2 million for that same property.

– Lou Coppola, Hawthorn East

I wonder if this baffling and counterintuitive decision to make the housing market even more unsustainably competitive is because the Prime Minister has contacts in China? It makes being a citizen rather pointless – why bother, when non-citizens are given the same privileges?

“High property prices should be a warning for Singaporeans”, Asian Correspondent. Singapore also has a housing affordability crisis, brought on by both inflation and overpopulation. The only people who benefit are investors (a dishonest way to make money, in my view). As pointed out, one’s house might be worth a million dollars, but it is not the same as having money in a bank that can be accessed (unless you sign up for a dubious “reverse mortgage” scheme). High property values also mean council rates go up, making life even more difficult for home owners who don’t have a high income of real money.

And as for the “net worth” of property owners going up – well, yes, that’s true. But it’s not much use to home owners, who don’t actually get that money unless they sell their house and don’t need to buy another one. The only people who really benefit from houses rising ahead of inflation are those with investment properties, and they do it at the expense of those trying to enter the market to buy one single home.

A house should first and foremost be a place to live in. The property market is corrupted by greed and is out of control, and if the government had any sense of social justice, it would abolish investor-favoring schemes such as negative gearing – and also, of course, reduce population growth so housing demand falls.

“Melbourne property market bounces back”, H-S, 21/12. I am sick of seeing articles exulting over rising house prices, this being one. The spokesperson quoted in the article is from the Real Estate Institute Victoria:

Homebuyers would face rising costs if the industry failed to build houses at a rate that matched the population growth, Mr. Larocca said.

“We would like to see an increased rate in construction of housing.

“Unless that occurs, we’re likely to see next year that prices will continue to rise,” he said.

“It really is supply and demand. While the population continues to increase unless more houses are put on the market, the demand will continue to be more pronounced.”

Well, duh, reduce population growth and you won’t have to smother more land with unsustainable housing estates?

“Homing in on the big decisions”, H-S, 1/12. Articles like this make me despair; Melbourne is on its way to becoming a nightmare megacity.

But the days of larger homes may be numbered as new home seekers are pushed farther from the city in search of affordable land. Infrastructure – public transport, schools and hospitals – are incredibly expensive and cannot keep pace. Aside from those who are willing to put up with a commute to the city of more than an hour each way, our rising population will be increasingly squashed into existing urban boundaries aided by government polices that promote higher-density living. Developers will continue knocking down existing homes to make way for multiple units, to the anger of existing home owners, who will be forced to sit back and watch as the character of their neighbourhood changes. Our way of life is about to change dramatically in the next couple of decades thanks to higher fertility rates and the government’s drive to boost our population through migration. Australia’s current population of 22 million is expected to reach 35 million by 2049. To fit everyone in, someone’s dream will have to be shattered.

“Houses too big, say Greens”, SMH, 1/12. Houses built since the 1990s have become obscenely oversized behemoths, as the Greens political party point out.

The Government should consider “putting the brakes” on developers who are building ever larger houses on relatively small lots, he said. He also believed it was time to discuss imposing limits on how large new houses could be.

Of course, some will snipe that this is “Government interference” and “social engineering”, but regulations are necessary in any society. My parents’ home – the one I grew up in (family of 4) – would be tiny by today’s standards; it was built in the late 1940s. I am not sure how many squares it is, but it is a 1-storey weatherboard with: 3 bedrooms (originally 2, before the previous owners added an extension), a hall, 1 bathroom & toilet, 1 kitchen, 1 dining room, 1 laundry, 1 living room. Admittedly an extra room or two would be nice (not to mention another toilet!) as possessions accumulate! The Google Maps image below shows the house (at bottom of picture) beside a newer (1-storey) one built a few years ago.

My published letter – 9/12

This was in response to a real estate ad in the previous week’s local newspaper. My letter got edited a bit.

Original version:

The full-page real estate ad in the 3/12 [local paper] that gloated over rising house prices is an example of how warped by greed the market has become. Increasing property values also mean council rates rise, thus the cost of living goes up. Population growth means overcrowding and overdevelopment, making life ever more stressful for residents. The housing market is out of control, favoring greedy investors and developers, and it is time this trend was reversed back in favor of those who simply want a place to live in. No government so far seems to have the will to implement these measures, however, by curtailing population growth.

Edited for print version:

The full-page real estate ad in the [local paper] on December 2 that gloated over rising house prices is an example of how warped by greed the market has become.

Increasing property values also mean council rates rise, thus the cost of living goes up. The housing market is out of control, favoring greedy investors and developers, and it is time this trend was reversed back in favor of those who simply want a place to live.