Camberwell Station High Rise - Here we go again !

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Camberwell Station - Community Plan vs Goverment Plan from Marvellous Melbourne on Vimeo.
Since the 1970's the Camberwell and Boroondara community has been trying to gain some democratic control over the place where they live.  Believing in peaceful democratic processes, despite so much evidence to the contrary, the community has communicated forcefully and repeatedly that it does not want the Camberwell community transformed from a leafy low density residential areas to a high density dormitory.
The government motivation for repeatedly attempting to override the community are clear:
Demonstrate that communities around the state are powerless to control their destiny and should be content to limit their decisions to selecting the colour of rubbish bins.
Enrich speculators on the proviso that they pack in more people in spots where the government has little support to lose.
Build to the skyline in communities that are affluent enough to pay for the infrastructure flow on that this population influx will cause (who do you think will be paying for the upgrade of the 100 year old sewerage system now that it has maxed out !).

Stephen Digby

Punish or protect ? Councils that "protect" trees out of existence...

The proposed control will serve the developers purpose perfectly. THEY will not be constrained as they will be merely get a paid arborists report that no council oficer would dare to negate (or spend our money repudiating). Failing this they will go to VCAT and get what they want. They will also win because the rest of the community will do the work of maintining the remaining leaves under close bureacratic supervision from an even more bloated and officious council.

The developers will also win as the community will again be lulled into a false sense of security (as we see from the letters columns and this discussion) that this regulation will actually affect the real plunderers...

This regulation is designed to make 2030 look more palatable ! There is no consideration of changing the site coverage back to reasonable percentage. There is no consideration of supporting trees with a council blanket cover for tree related damage or injury etc etc..

This proposal is the worst type of bureacracy - pointless, expensive and directed at all when the target should be the few.

Speech by Stephen Digby to Public Hearing by Camberwell Council regarding a proposed "Tree Protection" bylaw - Monday, 28 August 2006

Quick Guide on how to anger residents…..
· Step 1: draft a bylaw that appoints a council officer as arbiter of the aesthetics of our back yards while the council allows hideously inappropriate developments within and creeping out from our commercial zones. They can’t improve the taste of developers but they can supervise yours !
· Step 2: Draft a by-law that requires council officers to maintain registers; inspect pruning and lopping where they feel like it; write notices of instruction; keep records of their decisions
· hold meeting about their decisions (probably with lawyers !). All while council merrily increases our rates. “Public service” starts to stand for an empire of interference by an officious super nanny.
· Step 3: draft a by-law substantially similar to previous proposals that encountered great community opposition. Sir Humphrey Appleby certainly has remarkable patience and persistence in getting his way in the face of ignorant electors
· Step 4: draft a by-law knowing that, not only will if annoy, inconvenience and cost residents, but that it will NOT solve the real problem. Residents know that the real problem is the ability of developers to raze a home to the ground when it covers less than half the land, and profit from the 2030 law by covering the “lot” with buildings so that there is no change of a real garden with significant trees
In Summary, this law is bureaucratic in the extreme; ineffectual in that any developer will exploit its many escape clauses; anti-democratic in that Sir Humphrey proposes to propose it until we damn well give in
So what is the alternative ?
Let's accept that the council is impotent in addressing the real issues i.e. the Bracks Government taking over planning controls (like Kew, Tooronga, and soon the junction and even the Station), and the Bracks government stacking the VCAT board to make a joke of council planning decisions.
The Boroondara Action Group (BRAG) has many alternative suggestions for improving our leafy suburb. These have been collected from interested residents who take action for themselves as well as supporting us in many campaigns.
Alternatives to ineffectual bureaucracy are many - and include:
- tree protection triggered by any change in ownership or land use so that developers are targetted
If the council wants to acknowledge that trees grown by residents on private land have contributed to the community, then why not help the tree growing residents rather than penalising them:
- rate relief to reward and encourage those that maintain a significant canopy tree cover - sort of Camberwell Carbon credits !
- support for tree growers such as seedlings, tree management, tree pruning.

I recommend that you reject this costly window dressing that paints the Camberwell gardener as the culprit, and send a message to the council to get off the back of the responsible tree growing residents and do what they are paid for: Find a way to address the destruction of trees by overdevelopment all over Boroondara.

Growth addiction trumps democracy

The Beattie government of the state of Queensland in Australia wasted no time in showing its contempt for democracy after the defeat of the proposal to feed Toowoomba residents recycled sewerage water.
In response to the local community rejection, the government immediately announced that it would arange a new poll involving a larger area to overrule the community vote.

This approach is symptomatic of the widespread trend to consider that the people are merely cyphers for the plans of their elected leaders. If the community rejects one of our propsals, we will use their money and resources to bring it up again and again until the opposition is exhausted.

Usually there is a decent interval to give the appearance that the proposal need to be revisited due to changed circumstances since the last vote. In this case, there is no such pretence. There is perceptible anger that the people dared to reject the well thought out plans for their future made by their betters.
This behaviour is repeated countless times in countless countries, states and municipalities around the world. As democracy is considered to be a poor guide to the solution of complex problems, managerialism becomes paramount. Managers will do anything to keep the business on course for growth. Democratic leaders would consider that their role is to give power to the voice of the people - not thwart it.
In your local area - in your state - in our country, are you governemed by "elected representatives" with your interests at heart or "managers" who decide what is best for you ?

Over Development Risks Tree Loss

Recycled Sewerage to drink - growth demands a different solution !

The heroin addict is so desperate to get a fix that responsible or even rational behaviour is forgotten. Only the presence of the drug can restore their sense of normality.

The growth addicts are the same. The trouble is that they are so numerous - possibly a majority of Australians. "Without continued growth, the world will fall apart !" "Growth = development = progress = ?"
The toxic effects of growth addiction take many forms. In Toowoomba, it is the desperate proposal to use recycled sewerage for drinking water. In Canberra, another desperate proposal is being developed to feed insatiable growth with irresponsible development of nuclear energy. In most local communities, there are a myriad of smaller issues where we are being given the same message - "There is no other way !" "Future development requires our sacrifice now !"
Ask yourself, why is it that so many modern "developments" are reluctantly accepted in "this day and age" rather than welcomed and celebrated. The reason is that most "development" is not progress at all. It is the addict's reluctant stooping - giving up that last assett to "feed the habit".
Toowoomba may accept the need to drink their own refined sewerage. We all should ask ourselves - what's the next sacrifice to the growth addiction

Gridlock: new push on city car tax

Let's pay millions of public tax dollars on some consultants and then more on some probably foreign sourced technology to scan every car and bill every city visitor so that the preferred visitors to the city are not encumbered by cars driven by the common people ! Anyone who matters, will have either an absolute exemption (government workers of all shades of course !) or tax exemption (legitimate business cost - for the family car as well, of course !). Much simpler to limit the capacity of roads leading to the city ? What a backward thought ! We don't really want fewer, we just want better visitors - those who can pay (or have someone to pay for them !) Anyway, we want more of "them" to use the private mass transport systems that they are already paying for ! Don' t they get it ! Limos in the city ! Losers on the trains & trams !

Tree Protection Laws - An exemplary case of good intentions making bad policy...

In response to Boroondara Council proposals to control pruning and removal of trees.

A Leafy Middle Class Suburb in Melbourne Australia is following the international trend of punishing the innocent because of their own inability to control the guilty....

The Law sets out to protect the "Leafy Suburb" of Camberwell by bringing the management of all trees of certain size or character under the protective control of the council. Great Idea ? A superficial and simplistic reading would say "yes". I would say a resounding "NO !" for a range of reasons...

Council bureaucracy is already vastly overdeveloped and costing residents more and more for "non core" business - everything from international trips for the CEO to encouragement of cultural diversity. Who the hell do they think they are ? The UN ?
One strategy to ensure the bureaucracy grows (and thus broaden and raise the career possibilities for officers) is to create more and more regulations that require information collection, issuing of permits, site inspections, conflict resolution, fee collection, etc etc.
Tree registers and procedures are a glaring example of this type of self-serving over governance.
But what about the trees ? Tree loss is a real issue needing council action. But where are the trees being lost ? The overwhelming losses occur due to the council's inability to do its core job of preventing overdevelopment of house blocks. I f maximum site coverage was nearer 50% as it used to be, there would be plenty of room for trees !!! Now that council is allowing subdivision to cover around 80% of land, there is no room for large trees without compromising safety or building structures.
The most prevalent modern strategy for attacking community problems is to make everyone pay for the irresponsibility of the few. Think about graffiti, crime, family breakdown. Responses don't focus on correcting the deviant group, they focus on making everyone pay or change behaviour to cope in "this day and age". Tree laws are just the council's way of making everyone pay for the irresponsibility of a very few developers.
The tree laws are another example of council treating its residents like slow learners. This initiative was defeated last year through widespread community opposition. The career bureaucrat just bides his time. The proposal is reintroduced again and again. Eventually, opposing voices are literally exhausted by a process that only career bureaucrats have the time to sustain. Democracy dies. Managerialism rules.
Once again, we hope the exhausted citizen has the energy to rises from the armchair to prevent "public servants" from extending their self-serving empire.