NIMBYism in our cities

[Fabian]

The Civic Centre Redevelopment at Ryde is virtually going ahead ignoring the NIMBY's.

Northern District Times (26/6/2012): http://northern-district-times.where...e-card-played/

However the NIMBY's now want a referendum at the council elections this September.

[Brizer]

Source: PropertyObserver

http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/r...m_medium=email
Click on link for list of suburbs that should revert to terrace housing.

‘Militant NIMBYism’ from Mosman to Bondi ruining development of Sydney housing market: McKell Institute's 41-suburb hit list

By Larry Schlesinger
Monday, 02 July 2012

The megaphone should be taken away from “narrow-minded, self-interested individuals” who oppose the building of new homes in their Sydney suburbs, says think-tank the McKell Institute.

In a paper submitted to the NSW government, the institute supports Planning Minister Brad Hazzard’s vision of a return to terrace housing in Sydney.

The institute says there are 41 suburbs that are “ripe for a terrace revolution” and could incorporate terraces into their communities effectively.

The list of 41 suburbs includes million-dollar locations like Neutral Bay, Cremorne and Mosman on the north shore and Bondi and Bronte in the eastern suburbs.

But the not-for-profit institute warns that “vested interests” are standing in the way of much-needed new housing projects in these Sydney suburbs.

“The era of militant Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) resistance to new housing must come to an end,” write authors of the McKell submission Tim Williams, Sean Macken and Peter Bentley.

“The current planning system has placed too much emphasis on mitigating the local impacts of new housing development and less on the state and regional importance of providing homes for people,” they say.

“These vested interest groups have been given a megaphone through our planning system while the hundreds of thousands of Sydney residents struggling to enter the housing market or simply meet their rental payments are denied a voice.

“This is unacceptable.”

“Whether it is north shore residents in Ku-ring-gai opposing new housing along their railway corridor or inner-west residents in Balmain seeking to stop 300 new homes proposed on a major arterial road, the battle cry of ‘Not in My Backyard’ can be heard echoing throughout Sydney’s town halls, community centres and local cafes,” the McKell Institute goes onto say.

The institute concedes that some proposed new housing in Sydney is opposed based on “genuine environmental concerns” but says objections “often have far less to do with protecting the local environment then they do with protecting a cloistered group of residents’ property prices or views”.

“Residents’ action groups in Sydney have reached levels of previously unseen coordination and efficiency in recent years. Their ability to quickly mobilise a crowd to heckle from the gallery at a council meeting or blanket a suburb with erroneous claims of a neighbourhood’s demise if a new housing proposal goes ahead is impressive, but disastrous for sensible housing policy,” says the institute.

In its submission it claims that while greenfield developments face the challenges of building and funding new infrastructure including water, sewerage, electricity, gas, roads, transport links, community infrastructure and amenities, on top of planning and rezoning challenges, infill developments only face planning and rezoning challenges.

It also notes that there is already a move towards more terrace housing living as found in the 2011 census, with terraces and townhouses making up 12.8% of housing stock and the percentage of detached houses falling from 60.9% to 58.9% since 2006.

It claims that the “seemingly endless opposition to infill development” is one of the key drivers in Sydney failing to build the number of homes we need in existing suburbs. At a macro level this drives up the price of homes and rental costs and denies the next generation of Sydneysiders the ability to own their own home.

The report notes that areas like the inner north and Sydney City have failed to come even close to meeting their modest targets for infill development.

“This is in small part due to local councils and local residents in these regions opposing and delaying infill development,” says the McKell report.

The institute says “drastic action” must be taken to fix Sydney’s housing crisis.

“For the past three decades NSW has lacked a coherent housing policy and what policies it has had to support housing has been inconsistent and contradictory.

“Bad housing policy is bad social policy, as Sydney residents are forced to pay higher prices to either rent a home or own their own home.

“Sydney’s average house price is now $641,000 compared to Melbourne’s average price of $529,000,” says the McKell report.

The McKell Institute believes 35,000 new homes must be built each year within the Sydney region in order to meet demand – compared to the annual target of 23,000 agreed to in 2010 in the NSW government metropolitan srategy for 2036.

The NSW government discussion paper Sydney over the next 20 years forecasts that Sydney will have 1.4 million more people by 2036 and will need 570,000 more homes than are currently standing.

[Brizer]

We Are Not Alone:

It seems the long stalled Tour Verre by Atelier Nouvel may begin construction in 2013...or 2014. The well-heeled Nimbys of New York have been having a field day with this magnificent, now somewhat truncated and much abused tower.

If my memory serves me correctly, I first discovered a pic of this tower in a magazine in a highway stopover in rural France at least 7 years ago.

[Mornnb]

Crazy but true, there are New Yorkers who hate skyscrapers and NIMBY groups who protest developments to retain the character of parts of Manhattan. Or to protect the Empire State Buildings dominance in the skyline, ie anything above 300m. Fortunately Mayor Bloomberg is very pro-development.

[NoshowwithoutPunch]

I feel like there have been quite a few tactical victories over nimbyism of late, but still losing silly ones, like shark park, homebush, all sorts of buildings being circumsized for token gratification for nimbys.

Now i'm disappointed with the nsw planning review not being picked up largely by govt, but do support the view that councillors can go to election to seek a mandate for built form, but once that built form is mandated at the election, the council staff prepare the plan for a single vote on the floor of council, then the elected officials have no further role.

Staff assess the proposals against the mandated plan, any over a certain value might get second go at expert panel, applicant can still go to land environment court or vcat or whatever if they feel the council staff determination was wrong. But no role for elections, councillors and political pressure.

[MILIUX]

We need to do some skirmishes against those NIMBYs. What's our plan?

[NoshowwithoutPunch]

Originally Posted by MILIUX

We need to do some skirmishes against those NIMBYs. What's our plan?

Rapid, overwhelming response on newspaper forums and blogs and polls.

[shabangabang]

Knee-jerk nimbys need resisting, say developers
[QUOTE]THE state government will need to overcome entrenched nimbyism in local communities if the proposed overhaul of NSW planning laws is to succeed, says the developer lobby group Urban Taskforce.
Under the new system, communities will decide in advance where and how growth will take place. Once such agreements are reached, developers will be able to get fast-tracked approval to build.
The chief executive of Urban Taskforce, Chris Johnson, welcomed the plan, designed to give more certainty about what can be built where and eliminate the battles that characterise controversial projects.
But Mr Johnson warned developments could be hampered by blanket community opposition.
Advertisement
''Most communities are fairly risk averse. They are threatened by change and would prefer not to have growth … Nimbyism is what we need to change. You need to swing it around to positive communities organising better environments,'' Mr Johnson said.
He called for more detail on how communities would be involved and said the system should educate people about the potential benefits of developments.
With new home construction rates at 50-year lows, he believes NSW's productivity has been hampered by excess involvement from community groups at all stages of the planning process.
''The proposals for community involvement upfront are excellent, but it does need to be an involvement that takes with it real accountability for development and change,'' he said.
The Minister for Planning, Brad Hazzard, has acknowledged it will be difficult to engage communities in abstract planning decisions, without particular developments to attract their attention. He said there were lessons from cities such as Vancouver, which engaged about a quarter of its citizens in a debate that led to support for a big increase in the number of high-rise apartment blocks in the city.
A law lecturer and planning expert at the University of NSW, Amelia Thorpe, pointed to a success story closer to home.
When developing a planning strategy for Perth, the West Australian government invited citizens to help make decisions about the city's future. Called Dialogue with the City, the process culminated in 2003 with a deliberative forum involving 1100 participants.
/QUOTE]
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/kneejerk-n...715-2249t.html

[Fabian]

Thank goodness that Hazzard is plotting his plan to derail NIMBY's plans to stagnate our city

[Brizer]

fin review


Change the ‘not in my backyard’ mindset


PUBLISHED: 5 hours 51 MINUTES AGO | UPDATE: 5 hours 27 MINUTES AGO

Deirdre Macken


The problem with property development is that developers have to convince a handful of people, who often know each other, that they should care about scores of people, whom they’ve never met.

It doesn’t make for a successful site meeting. When you go to a site meeting, the only people who turn up are the existing neighbours.

The scores of people who will be living in that blueprint development aren’t there yet.

It’s stating the obvious but the key constituents in urban development are not dealt a voice in the process and those who should represent them – governments and developers – don’t do a good job of it.

So urban development devolves into a debate between greedy developers and selfish residents; it’s unevenly distributed, hastily executed and, eventually, withers under nimbyism.

It’s time for new ground rules in the debate, say planning authorities in both Sydney and Melbourne.

As the Urban Taskforce chief, Chris Johnson, said yesterday: “Nimbyism is what we need to change. You need to swing it around to positive communities organising better environments.”

Now that might sound like asking capitalists to behave unselfishly or bloggers to complain politely, but it can be done, with a little management and mediation.

Most people in the development community will admit that existing residents have too much say when it comes to changing their environment. There are stories of neighbours objecting to views lost from their garages; of residents demanding to choose the paint colours for a picket fence or wanting a say in the pruning of a tree in a backyard two streets away.

And who should be surprised. The rules of public debate say if you ask for feedback, the first people to hit the keyboard will be those who feel most entitled or aggrieved, or those with too much time in their day.

But what’s been missing in the debate is mediation. In between the greedy developers and the selfish residents, there should be an authority that can craft an outcome that suits, not just the people at the site meeting but those who deserve to be heard – future residents.

Obviously that’s a role for authorities. But councils feel obliged to take the side of their existing ratepayers, state governments haven’t had the courage to take it on, and courts are constrained by the laws that are presented to them.

Yet state governments are starting to engage with the process– if only because developers have been on strike for the past decade. They are more willing to make the argument that the city doesn’t belong to those already there; it also belongs to those who will come. And they are more willing to act as institutions that don’t just represent the interests of the present but also of the future.

Developers, too, need to sell the bigger story of their buildings. Some big developers do this well when they are undertaking mega projects, but most suburban developers don’t do it well or don’t care enough to do it at all. The key to any discussion about development is recognising what’s being lost, but also imagining what will be added to the neighbourhood.

It’s about balancing what is there with what is to come.

Most existing residents see only the hassle of building processes, the extra congestion on the road, the change to their horizon and the exploitation of their area by those with short-term gains in mind.

These residents need to be sold on what will happen to their area once development is completed. And there are positive messages.

Greater density, for instance, brings more services. It can result in extra public transport, more cafes, a few more restaurants, a nearby supermarket and, dare we say, a buzz in the neighbourhood.

Density can also be sold on self-interest. Residents of leafy suburbs may be exactly the same people who want to downsize into a new apartment in their neighbourhood.

And did we mention the effect that development has on land prices in suburbs? But it takes information and imagination to understand that change results in obvious losses and less tangible gains.

There is a challenge when we try to sell something that isn’t there. This is especially difficult when the change comes with dust, trucks, noise and busted pavements. But it is possible.

The change that’s happening around the corner might seem scary, but it could be the making of your area. Oh, did we say “your area”? Let’s call it our area.

dmacken@afr.com.au

[Fabian]

Sutherland Shire residents have lost their battle against two major multitower developments at Cronulla and Kirrawee. Both were approved by the Planning and Assessment Commission yesterday.

Apparently I've also received false propaganda in my mailbox for council elections in the same area regarding a "mega mall" expansion of the shopping centre at Kareela.

There are only 20 shops covering approximately 13 000 sq/m and they only want to add another 3000 sq/m of space plus a four level carpark. Apparently this is "overdevelopment".

[acc521]

Woohoo!

[Fabian]

And a bit of reading on the party that objects to any development in the Sutherland Shire - Shire Watch

The St George & Sutherland Shire Leader (18/7/2012): http://www.theleader.com.au/news/loc...s/2625611.aspx

I'm in a bit of a ranting mood tonight.

[Brizer]

No, you are simply & justly outraged by the deceitful, lying b_ggers.

[Fabian]

Of course I am and the lies and exaggeration that they do as they seek the votes of the masses.

Pictures of the Kareela "mega mall".

[S.Zampatti]

Originally Posted by Fabian

Of course I am and the lies and exaggeration that they do as they seek the votes of the masses.

Pictures of the Kareela "mega mall".

Yes. I can see just how massive this mall is. The boys at Westfield must be shaking in their boots now that they realise how insignificant they are.

If there was a prize for NIMBY exageration this one would be a contender.

[Fabian]

This one truely is. This shopping centre is not a tenth of the size of the bigger malls.

[Fabian]

Anti-NIMBY's take to Sydney streets yesterday (40 of them). They are demanding the removal of Pro NIMBY Clover Moore as Lord Mayor of Sydney.



Source: The Daily Telegraph

Sadly Clover's army sabotaged the rally.

[Brizer]

Getting rid of Moore won't do it as, as I've pointed out already, the other contenders are even more anti-development and/or complete idiots.

[Mornnb]

That leaves us with one alternative, start our own party. Who wants to be leader?