This is hilarious.
-
This is hilarious. All these people saying yes we want more housing. And signing a YIMBY pledge. But then saying well no not in my local area obviously
-
Bob Carr (piss be upon him) made the point twenty years ago that you couldn’t just not build housing, the children who’ll live in them are already born. Well now the kids are old enough to want housing and the housing didn’t get built
-
@liamvhogan its pretty funny* how little courage any govt at any level has had for something so obvious that a tiny minority campaigned against.
-
*and* the bitter irony is that the NSW government’s Housing and TOD SEPP, which is actually one of the best bits of urban policy of my adult lifetime, is going to be the object of campaigns from both the right and left, and they’ll never attempt anything so bold ever again
-
@liamvhogan better things aren't possible!
-
@liamvhogan love the assumption that the Libs are pro-development, I'd be interested to know who's behind all the anti-Minns pro-"heritage" ads in the bus shelters on the Pacific Highway then
-
@Kels_316 I don’t know that that’s right, the fact is that excluding young people from cities is a broadly vote winning proposition
-
Nearly Normal Normreplied to Liam :fnord: last edited by
Well he proved his assertions didn't he?
Added very creatively to the list of things he just didn't do.
This included not being a very good Premier but managing to be a very, very bad Foreign Minister.
-
@liamvhogan there is no property owner in this country that would not sell their property to a developer to be knocked down for higher density redevelopment.
-
WRT to heritage vs. housing there was a fight in Marrickville a couple of years ago that I think revealed the fracture isn’t reflected in any of our Parties but is an old vs. young question
https://orangejuiceandryvita.com/159/church
‘The Councillors seem to have split beyond lines of Party, with a ‘socialist’ Green, the Labor mayor, and a right-wing Liberal on the pro side, and other Labor and Green councillors on the anti…’
-
@liamvhogan Our heritage protection laws are modeled on Europe, where the heritage that's being protected is often thousands of years old.
We've shoe-horned that into a place that has 60,000 year old heritage but uses the law to protect 70 year old blocks of flats for "heritage value" in urban settings that aren't old enough to have any heritage in the first place.
Whenever I see someone use "heritage" as a reason to block something new, my first impulse is to demolish it just to spite them. We shouldn't have heritage protection laws here unless and until we're old enough and civilized enough to deserve them.
-
@NewtonMark @liamvhogan This isn't wrong, but as someone who lives in a ~64 yo heritage listed apartment block (which I like and thing deserves protection) I feel like there might be a middle ground.
-
@simon @NewtonMark so it’s in fact the other way around: Australian heritage systems are some of the most complex and well developed in the world. The European tradition is for built heritage to be protected under ‘patrimony’ and like concepts and get lumped in with Culture. In the UK the well known Class I and Class II categories were spotted right away as ways to declassify non-heritage for redevelopment. America has a huge common law about it but not what you’d call a system
-
@liamvhogan YIYBY more accurate but just doesn't have the same ring to it.