"We have been clear on this. We won't move the boundary unless the contribution is passed by Parliament. It would be irresponsible for any government to open up new land for development without securing the revenue to pay for new schools, roads, community facilities and services, public transport. This is my lesson from Airport West and one that drives our approach to growing suburbs
( ... )
Use "carrot and stick" tax etc incentives to build 3-4 story courtyarded apartments starting from the inner suburbs and moving out. With appropriate design (eg roof water to be collected and used) substantial reductions in water and other resources use per person could be achieved.
Madden's idea seems to be that "It was alright when I was a kid 45 odd years ago so it's what we should be doing now" and "The eastern suburbs have been built out so we should build out the west too".
To pay for the infrastructure they are increasing rates to what they'd be if it was subdivided and imposing a $95k per hectare tax on the land to be developed when it is sold. The result is the people who own the land now can't pay the rates and can't sell the land as no-one wants to be stuck with it until a developed is ready to build on it.
Higher density housing is an appropriate response, where facilities are up to scratch. Eg: recent planning changes have encouraged the growth of multistory/highrise apartment blocks near railway stations and tram lines. I think what Trayce is alluding to is the lack of infrastructure out in the sticks-soon-to-be-suburbs. For too long, the simple approach has been to ignore the problem for a few years (eg: Narewarren still has single-lane rural-quality roads carrying the load of a housing estate), then drop-in an upgraded road, then nothing in the way of light-rail or train for years, if ever.
I'm not saying: "Go away, we're full", but I think we need to halt the urban sprawl and preserve the green wedges / native parkland. I think upgrades for regional cities like Geelong and Ballarat are the way to go...and less emphasis on everyone commuting into the middle of Melbourne by car.
There was a strong advertising campaign trying to get people to spread out a bit more a few years ago - you know "Come to Shepparton, it hardly suck any more at all"... no, wait, it was better than that :)
I just wasn't getting a "duh, we make more suburbs and eat poop" vibe off the article. It was more a "we make more suburbs in addition to the high density stuff, and we know we have to make infrastructure to make them work"
I have a lot of problems with the way the current government works, but the article seemed to addressing specific complaints about the city getting bigger. It didn't seem that bad.
Reply
Reply
Madden's idea seems to be that "It was alright when I was a kid 45 odd years ago so it's what we should be doing now" and "The eastern suburbs have been built out so we should build out the west too".
To pay for the infrastructure they are increasing rates to what they'd be if it was subdivided and imposing a $95k per hectare tax on the land to be developed when it is sold. The result is the people who own the land now can't pay the rates and can't sell the land as no-one wants to be stuck with it until a developed is ready to build on it.
Reply
re: tax. God, ok, that's insane.
Reply
I think what Trayce is alluding to is the lack of infrastructure out in the sticks-soon-to-be-suburbs. For too long, the simple approach has been to ignore the problem for a few years (eg: Narewarren still has single-lane rural-quality roads carrying the load of a housing estate), then drop-in an upgraded road, then nothing in the way of light-rail or train for years, if ever.
I'm not saying: "Go away, we're full", but I think we need to halt the urban sprawl and preserve the green wedges / native parkland.
I think upgrades for regional cities like Geelong and Ballarat are the way to go...and less emphasis on everyone commuting into the middle of Melbourne by car.
Reply
I just wasn't getting a "duh, we make more suburbs and eat poop" vibe off the article. It was more a "we make more suburbs in addition to the high density stuff, and we know we have to make infrastructure to make them work"
I have a lot of problems with the way the current government works, but the article seemed to addressing specific complaints about the city getting bigger. It didn't seem that bad.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment