Month: February 2024

Today I visited Woolloomooloo which in the 70’s was at the heart of major union confrontations seeking to protect their homes against inappropriate development.

Through the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) and the Green Bans movement, strikes were organised against developers who were seeking to build skyscrapers at Woolloomooloo, The Rocks, Leichhardt, Hunters Hill, the Botanical Gardens and other parklands which were considered trash in the past but are now treasured for their heritage values today (and major tourist hotspots).

Some places like Woolloomooloo did not entirely escape development. There were politicians, developers, police, thugs, media all working together against the workers who squatted and refused to leave their homes. A much loved newspaper owner Juanita Nelson was murdered. And eventually the $$$ won out.

The mural behind me depicts local workers and resident action groups protesting to “Support BLF Green Bans” and “Demand Homes for Public Need, Stop Highrise for Private Greed”.

The Liberals eventually lost office and the new Labor Government introduced the Heritage Act 1977 as well as the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These laws introduced heritage conservation, community consultation, development controls, and a planning assessment process where environmental considerations were given weight.

Ironically, these principles are ones that appear to be going out the window fifty years on under a different Labor government.

This week I wrote a letter to the Premier in response to his invitation to councils, and I hope to hear from him soon.

In the letter I outline why Ku-ring-gai is particularly impacted by the housing changes proposed. Key themes are:

1️⃣ The loss of enabling infrastructure and homes due to a recent state government decision.

2️⃣ The timing of the April Transport Oriented Policy, which is sudden, without public consultation, and secretive.

3️⃣ The uncertainty regarding heritage.

Click through to read more about it.

Good morning everyone. At last night’s council meeting, council voted to:

🏙️Support the council’s submission on the state housing proposals. While council recognises the need to provide more housing, each council must have the opportunity to say where the housing goes and back it with appropriate planning and infrastructure.

🎭Investigate the cost of reviving the Marian Street Theatre with minimal works.

🙋Support the introduction of the Welcome Here project in Ku-ring-gai, which aims to promote community awareness and safety for the LGBTIQ community.

🏐Commence a public exhibition to explore more flexibility with age restrictions at the Canoon Road netball facilities.

😓Implement a once off grant program to support residents undergoing financial hardship.

📊Begin the recruitment process for the General Manager.

Last night council voted unanimously to take action against the State Government’s housing policies. It was an unusual experience because as councillors we almost never agree on something this big!

In short, the view was that housing uplift needed to be accompanied with appropriate urban planning – however the state approach bypasses both community consultation and planning and would therefore deliver suboptimal outcomes.

My own speech from last night is provided below.

—

𝙎𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙨 𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙨 𝙉𝙄𝙈𝘽𝙔 𝙫𝙨 𝙔𝙄𝙈𝘽𝙔 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙉𝙄𝙈𝘽𝙔’𝙞𝙨𝙢, 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜.

𝘈𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘚𝘞, 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴, 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘴, 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘴, 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘵, 𝘣𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵, 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦, 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳.

𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦’𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘕𝘚𝘞 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴… 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘕𝘚𝘞 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘚𝘞 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵.

𝘚𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘰 𝘒𝘶-𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘨𝘢𝘪, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘴.

𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴.

𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴. 𝘐𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘉𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺, 𝘈𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘗𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘎𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘴𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵 20 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘷𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘥 2 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘹. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦.

𝘖𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘒𝘶-𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘨𝘢𝘪’𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘱𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦-𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺.

𝘖𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥. 𝘋𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦-𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴, 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘖𝘝𝘐𝘋, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘯 12𝘵𝘩 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 – 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 – 𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 $9.8𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘴. 𝘊𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘵𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘩𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦.

𝘉𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳. 𝘐𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳, 𝘙𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘒𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴𝘸𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘱.

𝘗𝘭𝘶𝘴 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘖𝘋 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 10 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘭, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.

𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘧 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚, 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘧 40% 𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘺 𝘣𝘺 2036. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 7% 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘰𝘪𝘭 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 15-20% 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴’ 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬.

𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘧 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙧, 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭.

𝙆𝙪-𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜-𝙜𝙖𝙞, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙡𝙨, 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮 𝙖 𝙧𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙡𝙚𝙩’𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙙𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙚. 𝙒𝙚 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙐𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙂𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙨. 𝙄 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜.

As a politician from the North Shore, I received a generous invitation from our State Treasurer Daniel Mookhey MLC today to visit Meadowbank and “tell them what’s wrong with it”.

What did I find? Well I found that the residents at Meadowbank are incredibly blessed with multiple forms of public transport (ferry, train, buses) all within a few hundred metres of their home. They also had close proximity to multiple parks, open spaces, sports facilities, a shopping village, a foreshore walk and a pleasant sea breeze.

It’s a sensible place to put housing density and I am actually quite jealous of the residents who live here.

But the only reason why it is the way it is is because there has been deliberate planning in the establishment of the suburb, with the benefit of repurposing large former industrial lots and certain natural advantages that come with the geographic area.

Suburbs like Roseville and Killara, by contrast, do not have any of these advantages and it is difficult for developers to do anything meaningful without the almost impossible task of purchasing entire street blocks. And so when it comes to planning for future growth (which I am open to), it is important to consider how to deliver appropriate infrastructure and provide for the quality of life amenities that the residents of Meadowbank have.

But that is not what the residents of Roseville and Killara are getting in April. They will have housing policies imposed on them without any consultation, and without the natural infrastructure benefits that Meadowbank has.

If the state government was generous enough to support our infrastructure and amenities then sure, that would be a different conversation, but in the current form the housing proposals are not tenable.

I will share more about the flaws in the current proposal in my next post.

Today I visited Summer Hill, a suburb which in many ways reminds me of Roseville as it has its fair share of heritage conservation areas. The houses here are beautiful and reflect the character and early development of Sydney.

There is however one thing that distinguishes Summer Hill from Roseville and that is the wider range of infrastructure and transport options available to it. Like Roseville there is a railway station but this one is closer to the city (16 mins vs 23 mins). But Summer Hill also has a light rail station; it is incredibly well connected. Summer Hill also has a supermarket!

Given its distinct advantages over Roseville it does surprise me that Summer Hill has not been flagged for April’s non-consultative TOD housing program.

Two weeks ago at a briefing with the Department of Planning we asked them for the rationale of selecting Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon as part of the plan. And do you know what they said? They told us that modelling had been done but that it was “cabinet in confidence” so they can’t tell us.

I think what they meant to say was that since Summer Hill is in the heart of Transport Minister Jo Haylen ‘s electorate, it could not be touched regardless of its proximity to the city.

All in all, quite disappointing really and in tonight’s motion Councillor Martin Smith and Councillor Kim Wheatley will seek to acquire these documents through the GIPA (similar to freedom of information) process.

To rub insult into injury, Minister Haylen was also the one who effectively killed off the Lindfield Village Hub in December when, just one day before council was to sign a contract with the developer, illegally withdrew state government funding without consultation and thew the project in disarray. Gone is the opportunity to deliver a few hundred homes for residents this decade. Gone is the opportunity to provide a library, open space, park, and community facilities for the residents of tomorrow.

I am disappointed by this value destructive behaviour. Bringing the population of Chatswood into each of our four stations, without providing the necessary infrastructure or urban planning for each centre to thrive will ultimately lead to poorer outcomes than if the state government were to work together with us on these matters.

Encouraged to see so many register to attend Wednesday’s public information session on the State Government’s housing proposals.

800 had registered to attend but with a capacity of 150, Zoom was offered as a spillover. The slides plus video of the event are available here. krg.nsw.gov.au/housinginfosession

Ku-ring-gai’s diverse group of residents often disagree on big issues, but it is amazing how the State Government’s lack of public consultation, secrecy, and overzealous approach has brought those who usually disagree onto the same page.

Looking at the broader picture, I understand that some people in NSW see this as pure NIMBYism but from my perspective that is a gross oversimplification that does not truly account for what is happening on the ground. There are many residents who believe that more can be done to support housing diversity however the State Government’s approach does not achieve this in a realistic or appropriate manner.

Key concerns shared include the inadequacy of funding and support for existing and future infrastructure (existing traffic bottlenecks, future congestion, stormwater limitations, access to open space, etc.), the impact on tree canopy, biodiversity and climate resilience, and the loss of local heritage and character.

In the minority, there has also been the occasional YIMBY in Ku-ring-gai but my message to them is that while I understand the sentiments, it does not mean careful planning, modelling, procedure, consultation, and budgeting needs to be thrown out the window in an attempt to obtain a theoretical but unworkable outcome. To date there have been some pretty dismissive responses such as “developer contributions will fund everything” but if you look at the details and do the numbers, it’s clear that it will not be adequate given the LGA’s physical constraints and existing funding models.

All Ku-ring-gai residents are encouraged to read about the housing changes, let us know their thoughts via the survey, and make a submission to the State Government. For more information refer to krg.nsw.gov.au/housingchanges

p.s. I was late to the meeting, ironically due to traffic congestion from Roseville to Gordon.