The New City - Feedback

Dear Labor Right Mouthpieces,

Your articles bashing Clover Moore, the Dane and integrated public transport are ridiculous. A decent public transport system would reduce congestion Sydney's streets. Just have a think about it for a moment, its pretty simple. More people on buses, trains and light rail means less cars, less congestion. Its a win-win situation, people who have to drive will get to their destination quicker and so will those who take public transport. Sydney's west (and the entire city) would benefit greatly from higher density and the improved amenities and public transport that can come with it, including parks and public space. All it requires is good planning, listening to experts rather than accountants in Treasury.

Hope you are enjoying the kickbacks from our corrupt, and useless state government.

Cheers,
Daniel Kogoy

You are right when you say that Labor hasn't been doing the right thing.
But your conclusions are wrong. Labor hasn't been representing its supporters,
not the bleeding heart left or the working class conservatives.

Labor wants to blame inner city elitism for their loss of relevance. But that's way
too easy. 'Inner city elitism' is just an expression for ordinary people
having to do it for themselves because they can't rely on the party to do the
right thing. What are those people supposed to do when Labor no longer listens?

Are they meant to be like good Catholics and just sit still, shut up and
have faith?

Working class people in the western suburbs who have never been exposed to
a principled party with a real commitment to social justice seem to prefer
the Libs and why not, they are nasty and unprincipled and have never pretended any different.

If you are only concerned about your mortgage and worried about interest rates then why
not vote Liberal?

The Labor Party has been taken over by hacks and apparatchiks who have
had no time for rank and file contributions. Heaven forfend. They have no
principles and it shows. Why would any smart person with principles want
to join the Labor Party at the moment? What influence could one person have
on the policies and functioning of this party? How could that person be preselected for a start?

Labor councillors on Inner city councils are seat warmers doing the
bidding of the party. They are lazy and have no dialogue with the local
communities and only stir when they are forced by their opponents. No wonder ordinary
people prefer Independent or Greens councillors, who firstly respond to
their calls and emails, then respond to their concerns.

It's not the fault of progressive people who are actually doing the job
they were elected for if they are being supported by their communities. It's
the fault of the lazy, power hungry factions in the Labor Party and the unions
who for too long have ignored their base and have preferred to keep all
the power and control with the executive, and are suffering because their
membership has deserted in droves and now they have to hustle for
political donations to pay for political campaigns that in past days were run by the
branch members.

Labor look to your own behaviour and examine your consciences and you
might come up with a solution instead of continuing in a state of denial.

Sorry folks, if I want to vote for the Liberal Party (which I
certainly would never do), I am not going to give my vote to the Alternate
Liberal Party. I don't believe Howard would have been able to achieve as much
of his evil deeds as he has, if it hadn't been for the Hawke/Keating
'reforms'.

For example: we so badly need the People's Bank back in govt hands to
keep the insatiable other banks in line (the CBA is, of course, probably
the worst in Australia now for out-and-out greed).

What this country needs is a good, solid Left-wing party. You are not
going to win too many votes for the ALP being Liberal-lite.

Regards,
Ron ...

To the Editor, New City

The Vision We Have to Have

In the latest neighbourhood diary section is an article about the redevelopment of East Darling Harbour with reference to Paul Keating’s participation in the design. I am not particularly happy with the design as it incorporates too much commercial and residential building which tends to crowd out the remaining public space.

The parkland is to be commended however, particularly as it incorporates the harbour foreshore boundaries. Undeveloped headlands are so important as they provide a green transition to the harbourfront, maintaining the visual shape of the harbour and providing breathing space between the tall solid structures of the city and the natural environment of the harbour itself.

Similarly, the very valuable and extensive White Bay/Glebe Island area, which is currently under review, needs a plan which will provide essential public foreshore access, much-needed public amenities, transport alternatives eg ferry terminal, light rail extension, and breathing space for the high density residential areas of the inner-west. The area does not need more residential development. Nor does it need 24/7 industrial facilities that would be far better situated in designated industrial areas such as Port Kembla or Newcastle, which are in need of further employment opportunities and have the infrastructure in place for such industrial activity. Revenue and employment can still be provided at White Bay by a mix of suitable uses (possibly including light maritime) that does not conflict with the provision of public facilities and the breathing space the inner west desperately needs.

It is thanks to Jack Mundey, the BLF and community groups that the beautiful, historical Rocks area of Sydney was saved for our benefit and that of future generations. Let’s keep this in mind when considering further major developments in valuable areas of our city.

Christina Ritchie
August 2006

It was certainly a terrible error of judgement by Leichhardt council that has cost ratepayers approximately $10m, paid to Bezzina Developers, for two small blocks of land at Bells Foreshore. It is understandable that local residents did not want luxury apartments built on this prime land adjacent to the East Balmain wharf. Already there are too many expensive apartment blocks on Sydney Harbour foreshore land. However, Leichhardt council should have realised that the value to ratepayers of spending $10m on much-needed infrastructure and services is far superior to hanging on to Bells Foreshore and the staggering cost this has now incurred. The cost to ratepayers of $10m was never envisaged when the unit development proposal was first opposed. Mr Stamolis' comments on the decision are welcome and I agree with your sentiments re the "silliness" of council. Let's hope lessons have been learned and this expensive exercise will not be repeated.

Dear Sir/Madam
Some of the comments you have made about me in your article on Bells are
incorrect. Here is my position over many years:

1. Council, alone, should not have committed to the Bells purchase. I
feel that Councils should not be in the business of buying prestige waterfront
land from high profile developers. Instead, I believe that Councils MUST
provide their communities with vital infrastructure, amenity, safety and
services AND allocate these resources fairly across their communities.

2. Bells was the most expensive purchase EVER made by Leichhardt Council
and what did we get . two blocks of land (in an area already very well
supplied with open space and, some of the best harbourfront open space in Sydney).
The $10m could have purchased a new aged centre AND a new childcare centre
AND a new library, better local footpaths etc.

3. At $5m per block, I expect that this is the MOST EXPENSIVE land
purchase EVER made by any Council anywhere in Australia (on a square metre basis).

4. Council not only made the purchase but delivered a HUGE $5m PROFIT to a
developer, ALL out of ratepayers funds!! Residents are not happy about
this.

5. I am still unable to convince Council that the money spent on Bells
should have been used to purchase other more important needs across our
broader community.

6. The potential risks/gamble of public money by Council showed a poor
level of financial responsibility. If you look at articles over the past 3-4
years, Council played a poor financial gamble saying the purchase should
be $4m, then it became $6m, then $8m and finally its $10m . We hope.

7. Only a very small number in our community are aware of this purchase.
Of those that knew, there was strong division as to whether the Council
should make the purchase.

8. Last year our municipality was hit with the largest EVER rates increase
on our community (many were hit with 24%-28% rates increases!), justified
on the basis of infrastructure improvements, while, at the same time, $10m
was allocated to a small area to give developers huge profits.

9. I stood amongst a rally of 200 people, held by the Reclaim Bells
Foreshore Committee questioning their focus. This was not an easy thing
to do.

I welcome any attempts by you to ensure that our ratepayers funds are used
wisely and fairly for the benefit of our whole community. I fully agree
with the focus of your story as it continues to put pressure on our
Council with regard to their financial decision-making and to ensure that
Leichhardt Council focuses on the very important infrastructure, safety and amenity
needs for our the whole municipality.

Given that you have misrepresented me and referred publicly to me as a
'ratbag', I feel that it would be courteous if you would call me

to discuss this further. I hope that your comments were unintentional and
the result of hearsay. I am happy to speak with you and I will give you
clear and honest responses.

Thank you
John

Hi...I am very interested in what you guys are doing. Attached is a recent LA Times piece that may be of interest. I am also starting a major set of research papers

on upward mobility in the US and also specifically about Houston.

Joel

The commentary in your March editorial on Labor’s discussion paper on urban development, housing and local government, Australia’s Future Cities, has recently been drawn to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to what I consider a serious misrepresentation of the paper and of Labor’s position.

The basic thrust of my paper is that the Commonwealth should once again take some responsibility for the health of Australia’s cities. This includes considering the impact of its own decisions, such as the approval of retail developments in airport precincts and the level of support provided to refugees. It also includes a commitment that a future Labor government will undertake a collaborative partnership with state, territory and local governments to plan and coordinate housing and urban development activities more effectively.

I am pleased that, in introducing my paper, you describe it as comprehensive. It is a shame that the comprehensive nature of the paper is not reflected in your assessment of it, which largely seems to consist of taking sentences and half-sentences out of context to support a pre-conceived conclusion which is based on the false premise that ‘sustainability’ is all about the environment.

To start with, you state that I emerge “as a raving fan” of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage’s Sustainable Cities report, because I say that “Labor strongly supports the vision of the committee”. What you fail to note is that the vision Labor is supporting is explicitly stated to be that: “sustainable cities of the future will be vibrant urban regions which are economically productive, environmentally responsible, and socially inclusive.” I find it difficult to imagine that anyone would oppose such a vision and I note that supporting this vision does not imply support for every aspect of the Sustainable Cities report. Indeed, less than two pages later, my paper questions the conclusions of the committee in regard to the role of the Commonwealth Government.

In relation to the ‘suburbanisation versus consolidation’ debate, you suggest that I state that the debate “must be managed “in an environmentally, economically and socially sustainable way””. The full paragraph from the paper has a rather different tone and is, I would suggest, in many ways consistent with your own position:

The message here is that we must do better than the poorly planned, energy and water intensive developments that have too often characterised both new outer suburbs and high-density projects in our cities. The discussion paper goes on to discuss a range of practical measures to achieve this, including improving the provision of infrastructure (for example, public transport and stormwater systems) to new fringe suburbs.

The strategy that you claim I have used Orwellian language to describe is actually a proposed National Settlement Strategy. Again, the quote is taken out of context and ignores the fact that the purpose of the proposed strategy would be to understand settlement pressures and plan for expected trends, so as to avoid the ad hoc responses to rapid population growth which have, in the past, caused significant environmental, social and economic problems. If you are opposed to researching expected population trends and planning to meet them in the most effective way, you are by all means entitled to express that view, but it would be more honest to do so in a direct manner.

First, you state that Recsei is “on the mark” in saying that “At the very least it is necessary that sustainability and other objectives be defined and performance indicators set. … Full social cost accounting should be undertaken with external costs included.” Such an approach of defining objectives and identifying performance indicators is exactly the approach being adopted by Labor in proposing the national settlement strategy and a national sustainability charter. Evidence-based responses to the critical issues facing our cities and towns are exactly what Labor is advocating.

Second, you state that “if our leaders were foolish enough to swallow the sustainability spin, they would certainly jeopardise the jobs working people need to even contemplate home ownership.” From an environmental perspective, one can only hope that this furphy has been put to rest by the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change report released on 6 April. Failing to meet the environmental challenges that we face is what will cost jobs and GDP.

Your statement also reflects an extremely narrow interpretation of the term ‘sustainability’, which is inconsistent with the way it is understood in the literature and the way it is being used by Labor. Because sustainability actually encompasses economic and social aspects, it is fundamentally about securing our future prosperity, providing opportunity for all and supporting the vulnerable. It is, in fact, all about creating jobs and making sure people are equipped to take advantage of them.

The jobs of working people are certainly under threat in Australia today, but that threat is from the Howard Government’s extreme industrial relations agenda, not from Labor’s efforts to ensure Australia’s cities remain liveable and prosperous into the future.

Senator Kim Carr
Shadow Minister for Housing, Urban Development, Local Government and Territories

I notice there is no mention of public transport in your
growth-without-limits scenario. Do you envisage yet more petrol-guzzling
commuters traversing an unlimited urban spread, destroying our environment?
Are you happy to pay for the all-new infrastructure when NSW is already
about 50 years behind in its basics? Whence 'affordibility?

And yes, while 'sustainability' has fallen victim to meaningless spin,
co-opted by conservatives to mean something else, try turning the term on
its head. Who is going to support 'unsustainable' policies, either in an
economic or environmental sense?

There is no easy answer to the development question. If you slow it down,
prices go up. If you allow it to spread untrammelled, we live in a concrete
wasteland. Your breezy manifesto is too close to an economic rationalist
miracle scenario for comfort.

For one thing you ignore one of the principles of 'new urbanism' (as do
most of the nimbys who co-opt the term) -- maintaining a stock of older
built stock keeps prices down because its capital has been paid off. This
principle could become a development guideline for councils, tending to
even out pockets of over-development. In the inner city all our old built
stock is being replaced willy-nilly by unaffordable refrigerator-like unit
blocks, so I give you points for recognising that problem.

As an inner city dweller I feel that our culture is being mercilessly
persecuted by a government pandering only to the 'lager' mentality of
tabloid-dominated marginal suburban electorates. Look at the millions spent
on stupid police search operations (with and without sniffer dogs) which
have people every day up against the wall being stripped for no reason and
with almost no result. Why doesn't 'good guy' Iemma release the Ombudsman's
report on the subject?

Your belief that Greens are anti-capitalist is behind the times. Believe it
or not, most Greens know where their morning pint of milk and their
cellphones come from. Read some David MacNight on the subject -- 'Beyond
left and right'. Yet they also know that the last time global temperatures
rose by four or five degrees, 94 percent of life on earth was wiped out.
They have the conscience to act on this. If you don't address that NOW, you
are condemmning future generations. Iemma's addiction to the coal industry
is nothing short of criminal.

So your use of the term 'flaky' puts you right down there with the
Orwellian spin-doctors, and your obvious Labor affiliation is the blind
spot in an otherwise penetrating piece.

Premier Iemma to his credit has saved the Newcastle rail line -- but only
to protect a marginal seat.

On the other hand he is ignoring the findings of the Cross-City Tunnel
enquiry and sitting on his hands. His inaction, along with Clover Moore's,
plays directly into the hands of a minority of inner city nimbys who want
east Sydney enclosed to increase their property values. You can't convince
me or my neighbours that he's a good guy -- not yet, anyway.

Better to vote Green and force both major parties towards more
environmentally sustainable and socially just policies.

It is interesting that you criticise the use of sustainability in language as you say it lacks the social context of infrastructure, and issues for social justice, education and health. Sustainability is not another abused word from post-modern economic rationalism at all. On the contrary, it underpins the need to uphold a social fabric, as we are, after all, are the people. The poor are neglected. Few poor people can afford to pay tollways. Maybe that is because so many are homeless and even afford to drive cars. So cut the pretence, the crap, and actually do something outside of the anthropological armchairs in Sussex Street.

This will push your party so aggressively to the right is not winning the ALP any friends, it is isolating itself even more, making it impossible to keep its factions together, and vulnerable to inevitable defeat in the next state election in NSW, and almost definitely in Queensland. The Queensland election shows polls so far against the ALP, it might find itself with the highest landslide against it in Australian history! Too many mistakes! Too much arrogance! And no, you are not talking about people at all, you are talking about demographics. People are not numbers. So cut the crap and look again at the meaning of sustainability.

> Hugh Pavletich

Just a brief note to congratulate you guys on your excellent website – which I came across for the first time last evening whilst doing a google search. Its a great credit to all involved and hugely helpful with the current debates surrounding urban issues in Australia and elsewhere. I have sent copies of it around the key people on my email list.

Your editorial on the hazy term of “sustainability” is simply superb. I do hope Chris Steins pops it up on Planetizen.

I do hope you people communicate with Dr Tony Recsei of SOS Sydney. Like me, Tony hadn’t known of your website before and is most impressed with it too.

Keep up the great work guys.

With best regards,

Hugh Pavletich

Co author – Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey www.demographia.com

Christchurch

New Zealand

> Joel Kotkin

I saw your site and appreciate the mention.

You should pick up papers like the NY Times or Toronto Globe and Mail for contempt for middle class dreams.

Keep up the good work.

Hope to meet you when I am next in Australia, likely this November.

Joel Kotkin

A great website.

As someone who has been campaigning against such anti human planning for a decade or more I congratulate you.
You may be interested in this paper I presented in the US on the real ideology behind Smart Growth and the New Urbanism. Socialism it is not.

Owen McShane
Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies
158 Rangiora Road, R.D. 2, Kaiwaka, Northland, 0582
New Zealand.
Phone: 64 9 431 2775
Fax: 64 9 431 2772
See Centre web page at:
http://www.RMAStudies.org.nz
See personal web page at:
http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz

I was introduced to your site by a client (Exec Director of one of your
linked orgs) during an interview for an article which I am writing. Great to
see what you are doing and best of luck with the venture.

Your comments on sustainability revisit a point that I was pondering in an
earlier article about our bad national predilection for taking a really
fabulous groundbreaking thought (my example was Donald Horne's coining of
the term The Luck Country), reducing it to a cliché and then arguing that it
should be dismissed as meaningless.

The bit in the article went as follows - just to show what a fabulous point
he really was making:

Extract reads <Prof. Horne¹s message in OThe Lucky Country¹ in 1964 left no
room for misinterpretation: Australia, through second class leadership and a
lack of ambition and imagination, had been more fortunate than it deserved.

"Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its
luck. It lives on other people¹s ideas, and, although its ordinary people
are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about
the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise. A
nation more concerned with styles of life than with achievements has managed
to achieve what may be the most evenly prosperous society in the world. It
has done this in a social climate largely inimical to originality and the
desire for excellence (except in sport) and in which there is less and less
acclamation of hard work. According to the rules, Australia has not
deserved its good fortune," he said.> extract ends.

Sustainability is another example of the same thing.

It originated, of course, from Brian Lovelock and Lynn Margulis' <spelling
may be sus> Gaia concept and it is a fabulous idea. But I'm sure you will
be familiar with it. Sustainability, in that context, translates across to
resource usage brilliantly and has a very simple and rich meaning - where it
can be used as code for 'responsible resource usage' 'Careful husbanding of
renewable resources' and or 'responsible usage of non-renewable resources'.

Guess the message to be drawn is that we, as writers, can benefit from
understanding why telephone networks have repeater stations built into them
at regular intervals - they pick up messages as they are being transmitted,
refresh them so that their integrity is restored, then send them on their
way again.

Now if that's not something that the ALP is very much in need of at this
time I'll bare my bum in Bourke Street.

Best Regards and every good wish for success with your journal,