Sue Brooks June 19th, 2009
I received this comment during the week and felt it worthy of a wider airing. I look forward to more debate about population ‘growth’. I think this issue is the critical issue that this region in particular, has to debate.
INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS/DEVELOPMENT CHARGES I was sorry I missed the deadline for public submissions because I have strong views on this subject. Do I think these should be increased to reflect the actual cost to the community of the increase in population brought about by that additional population? YES!
Those charges should take into account the whole true cost of new, as well as the upgrading of existing, infrastructure. Two items in the items listed in your extract from the planning scheme are missed because they are paid by taxpayers through State and Federal taxes rather than by ratepayers: hospitals and schools. Both of these are expensive items and which have to be expanded or newly built to accommodate immigrants. Large city hospitals cost nearly twice as much per bed as more modest sized district hospitals.
Yes, the immigrants pay rates and taxes too but existing taxpayers and ratepayers end up having to pay the resultant increases brought about by their augmentation. That is why, when population increases occur (such as in Brisbane and Hervey Bay), rates rises are ALWAYS more than the COL index – in Hervey Bay recently, TWICE as much!
I lived in Jindalee for 30 or so years. The development of Jindalee could not have taken place without a new bridge built across the Brisbane river and, quite rightly, the cost of that bridge was spread across the cost of the developed residential and commercial blocks in Jindalee. However, when adjacent suburbs were developed (including an expanding Ipswich and then the new Springfield) the two-lane bridge had to be doubled to 4 lanes due to the increased traffic. Even with that doubling , at rush hours it is now jammed solid with traffic moving at snails pace. Who paid for the new 2-lane bridge? The purchasers of the land developed after Jindalee? NO! We ALL had to pay for that additional bridge through our Brisbane City rates and State taxes! Completely unjust – in my opinion.
Who paid for the new traffic lights at the Maryborough Road – Eli Waters intersection? I do not know and perhaps the entire capital cost was covered by development charges levied on the Eli Waters developer. But what that developer does not pay for but for which existing ratepayers or State taxpayers have to pay is their ongoing upkeep – totally unfair because existing residents managed perfectly well without those traffic lights for years. They could have also done without the additional aerial pollution arising from traffic stopped at red – cars running idle always emit more pollutants than when moving. Then just watch the black smoke from truck exhausts when they start up again at green; diesel exhaust is one of the most virulent of carcinogenic agents known.
What about pleas from the construction industry – a large employer? It wants to survive so that Queensland can continue hosting immigrants from Melbourne and Sydney who sell their houses for $750G to buy and buy here for $450G to enable them to buy expensive imported cars and go on long overseas trips with the balance! Is that really good for the Australian economy?
Is it good that Queensland ends up with yet more black-top roads, concrete drives and roofing acting as heat sinks and thus giving rise to reports of Global Warming. Yes – every additional square metre of hard surface laid over what was previously grass or bush creates a heat sink. Believe me – just try it with bare feet on a summer’s day!
Then there is a water problem. Then crime rates start to creep up whenever the population increases – much more than pro-rata to the population increase. Oh yes, add prisons, police stations and court houses to schools and hospitals. It always amuses me when I hear complaints about lack of adequate police response when shops and other businesses are broken into. It is very often the very business owners who support increased population.
Fears about acidification of the ocean and loss of the Barrier Reef all stem from increasing population. Cure it by farmers all relinquishing their chemical pesticides and going organic? Then how much loss of production would there be? Production levels would certainly not be enough to feed our current population, let alone an ever increasing one.
More population equals more pollution – air and water. If increased development charges lead to more expensive houses, so be it. That will serve to limit population growth here and enable us to start addressing all of those concomitant problems of global warming, acidification, air and water pollution, crime and water supply – instead of exacerbating them. When you vote for yet another development remember that you are voting for an increase in all of those problems – including, arguably, cancer (see diesel exhaust above).
Shortage of housing in Hervey Bay? Not from the crowded windows of the Estate Agents I see. Here in Burrum Heads there have been blocks sitting empty for decades. In one estate which was completed in 2005, 80 per cent of the blocks remain vacant. Existing houses for sale are numerous and many remain unsold for well over a year. Just one problem arising from empty blocks is unkempt footpath verges with sand overflowing into and blocking drains. (Photos submitted to HBCC years ago)
Building houses in Australia for each other for ever – moreover in the coastal fringe – a good policy? This, logically, has to stop sometime, why not now? Possibly some day China will be exporting flat pack self-erect houses as well as furniture like mine and then will the HIA’s plea for employment be? Gone overseas like numerous other industries. Already door hardware, plumbing, electrical and light fittings are sourced overseas as well as most tiles and glass – all of which were once predominantly made here in Australia. Soon, with an ETS in place, aluminium smelting (window frames) will be sourced overseas. As for the construction industry – it could be kept busy improving roads – the killer highway for one aka Bruce.
Then, we are told, there are rising sea levels. Even without rising sea levels nearly all of Hervey Bay is at risk from a tidal surge of 5 or 6 metres – very probable – according to global warmists. Approving any development within that forecast surge rise could be regarded as a prescription for death! Cyclone Hamish and population evacuation westward by buses – what a narrow escape! And what a nasty joke – imagine the chaos, especially with a breakdown or two. How many busloads and how many buses and bus drivers were available at short notice? Yes, the buses would have been on many return trips to collect more loads. Building another Hervey Bay some distance inland could keep the construction industry busy for decades. The Council hasn’t even planned for relocating existing sewage treatment works or the numerous pumping stations below tidal surge level, let alone bought land for their relocation. Unemployment in the construction industry is never going to be a problem. – only the money to pay for it. Yes money is a big problem but expecting that rates and taxes from new migrants will solve it is to believe that a dog chasing its own tail is achieving something!
Remember existing ratepayers and existing State taxpayers; they are your chief constituents and their interests should be paramount. Please don’t act from misplaced sympathy for the construction industry; it could have much work ahead – always assuming the polluting industries of steel, cement, brick, pipe and bitumen manufacturing are not taxed out of existence with an ETS.
On July 11, 2009 Cr Sue Brooks Said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.So am I correct in understanding that by ‘holding back development’ you are only referring to multi unit development along the Esplanade or subdivisions near to the coast line? I am in favour of all sorts of development especially non construction based development as I believe we need to diversify, but many, many people tell me that they don’t want the Fraser Coast coastline filled up with concrete towers. They also want to protect public access to the beach and protect our natural beautiful environment.