Dear editor,
I was dismayed to read here the report from Philip Bull of the public meeting of 430 people [to discuss Inner West Council’s Fairer Future plan] held at Marrickville last Sunday, organised by a hastily convened coalition of concerned individuals, not the Greens – as he could’ve found out if he bothered to ask. Or did he not notice that no Greens spoke?
The supposed analogy with California and the confused reference to the book Abundance also fell flat.
More critically, he seemed to miss the calls which were endorsed by the meeting for more affordable housing – criticising the gross inadequacy of the “affordable housing” requirement in new development of 2 per cent, rising to 5 per cent after five years. A new requirement of at least 15 per cent was overwhelmingly supported.
Moreover, the definition of “affordable” should be based on proportion of household income, not percentage of market rent and there should be increased provision of public housing in the Plan.
The meeting decisively rejected the notion that increased supply by the private market would solve the affordability problem.
Criticisms of the Plan also were endorsed, namely:
- The excessive scale and density proposed by the Plan – twice what even the state government demanded
- Conviction that the extensive demolitions necessary to make way for the massive uplift in number of dwellings, would target buildings that now provided lower rents for residential and business tenants. Fear expressed that the Plan would destroy diverse, long-established and supportive community networks, and that truly affordable accommodation such as older apartment blocks, boarding houses and shop-top flats will be on the chopping block.
- The Plan would appear to reward big (Build-to-Rent) developers with increased building heights and floor space ratios. Family-sized dwellings of three or more bedrooms represent only 20 per cent of the targeted housing mix.
A more nuanced response to the issues involved than Mr Bull would allow. If only he had removed his blinkers!
Sincerely,
Keren Lavelle
Great to see an open discussion and feedback from both parties – this is how a civilized and professional conversation can lead to better understanding and better outcomes.
Hi Keren, the Greens were all over this meeting handing out flyers etc. Apologies, I assumed they were involved. This issue gets lost in nuance and feelings. I am highly critical of the IWC approach of saving near-Metro nimbys and pushing all the density up onto Marrickville Road (where the good transport infrastructure was a hundred years ago, btw). It’s backwards planning. Too focussed on historic character, not enough on what could emerge. When the Metro opens, I challenge every critic of density to catch it from Dulwich Hill to Gadigal Station (or any new Metro station, but this is my favourite). Experience Dulwich Hill Metro Station, walk past the heritage listed demountble ticket box, admire the 19th century architecture maybe visit the on-station amenities (and pick up a trough-lolly). Then jump on the Metro, get off at Gadigal Station – compare and contrast. Our community could have had a place like that. I am not really sure what your group wants other than less density, more consultation, more car parking and this weird idea that the inner west can somehow become a fairer place if we cross our fingers, put an R2 zoning on the people we like, hope the council builds some houses on car parks and a few church sites, and continue to erect “Racism not Welcome” street signs. My housing is done. But I know too many kids in their 20s hoping to live in the inner west. They don’t belong in council housing. They need the vigour and verve of a real city – and the city need those ambitious kids. This plan is a swindle. And its delay, is a swindle on a swindle.