These are places where the Greens have little to no presence, with either no Greens councilors or, at most, two in a council of twelve to fifteen councilors. Most of the biggest NIMBY councils were, predictably, wealthy Liberal or Liberal-style independent areas. The CIS study found that in very few of the councils dubbed the “Biggest NIMBYs,” the Greens hold a significant position of power. And, in any case, there aren’t many other metrics of “NIMBYism” at hand. But perhaps it’s instructive that despite its assumptions, a study produced by a center-right think tank goes some way toward vindicating the Greens. This paper’s methodology is built on assumptions that less orthodox economists take issue with. The study plotted this number against large gaps between the cost of construction and sale price, with the assumption that this gap arises to a significant degree from local councils limiting the supply of new housing. In March, the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) released a paper assessing which council areas in Sydney had the least new higher-density housing development. But there are data that put the “Greens are NIMBYs” rhetoric into context. Unfortunately, data on exactly how many developments Greens councilors have opposed and why are hard to find. And, seeing as most of the accusations of NIMBYism often target Greens councilors, it’s probably best to start at the local government level. To answer, it might help to turn to studies using actual data. Beyond anecdotes or the general vibe we get from social or mainstream media, the question remains: Is the “Greens political party” - as Labor communications headquarters insists on dubbing them - more opposed to high-density developments than other parties? the Rhetoricīut the point isn’t just to prove that politicians are hypocrites. She didn’t mention - or, at least, the Age didn’t quote her as saying - that Labor has the same number of councilors on that council, and those Labor councilors also opposed the proposal. With the Greens political party dominating so many of these decisions at a local level, their total hypocrisy on social housing is writ large on project after project they have obstructed. Responding to opposition from Darebin Council in Melbourne against a proposed fifteen-story apartment block, a Labor state MP claimed, Indeed, beyond garden-variety hypocrisy, sometimes Labor’s rhetoric has descended into farce. And Albanese himself has spearheaded campaigns against new developments in his electorate. In one instance, he fought against what would have been Australia’s largest social and affordable housing project. But, according to the Age, he was “one of the most aggressive NIMBY local government leaders in Sydney” when serving as a mayor. Labor MP Jerome Laxale recently called for Chandler-Mather to be dropped as Greens housing spokesperson for his housing positions. Their implicit logic seems to be: unless you support every single residential development, private or public, you aren’t serious about the housing crisis.īy this logic, the Greens are hypocrites - because there are plenty of developments they have opposed. The most vociferous attacks are naturally reserved for Chandler-Mather, and Labor has sought to maximize any political capital that can be made from his opposition to certain housing developments in his electorate. It all begs the question: Are the Greens really NIMBYs, and if so, why would they advocate for a large-scale public housing construction program in parliament at the same time as opposing redevelopment locally? The Logic of NIMBYism Accusations According to a recent article by senior News Corp journalist David Penberthy, NIMBYs are “one of the key reasons Australia is in the midst of a housing crisis,” and the Greens and their supporters “are the worst offenders when it comes to any kind of development at all.” Labor Party tragic Van Badham echoed the sentiment, calling Greens spokesperson for housing Max Chandler-Mather the “the Nimby Prince of the Greens.” Indeed, the anti-NIMBY crusade has united the right and center-left. Labor Party senator Anthony Chisholm recently told the senate that the Greens are “always finding ways to oppose new developments,” adding that “Greens councilors have been doing it in communities all across the country.” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the Greens have “never seen a medium-density development that they supported.” The term (Not In My Back Yard) has long been an insult reserved for residents who support development in theory - only not in their backyards (or neighborhoods). As debate over the Australian Labor Party’s Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) hit a fever pitch in recent months, so too did accusations that the Greens are antidevelopment NIMBYs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |