The socialisation of ‘private’ property

The notion of private freehold land was once sacrosanct, in law and in public policy. But the rights of private property owners are slowly being eroded. To what extent is land private anymore, when so many government impositions can be made upon it, without recourse? This exchange below is a piece of satire, designed simply to highlight where property rights are heading. The interchange, and the characters, are entirely fictional.

THE SCENE: A landowner with a 100 hectare parcel of rural land right on the wrong side of the urban growth boundary, visits a bureaucrat to discuss his options for improving the value of his holding.

Landowner: Good morning, I’m here to discuss this letter which says I can’t divide my block up because my application’s been knocked back under this regional plan of yours.

Bureaucrat: Good morning Sir. First I should explain it’s not my regional plan, it’s a regional plan for all of us, so we can all live sustainably and plan for a better future for our wonderful region. Now the reason your application was rejected is because your land has been defined as an important piece of our rural environment and we don’t want to see that ruined by people chopping up blocks for rural residential housing.

Landowner: Who’s this “we”?

Bureucrat: The government, and the community Sir. There’s been extensive public consultation on all our planning schemes so we’re really only doing what the people want...

Landowner: Not what I want mate, and no one asked me. Look, immediately across the road, some developer’s bought my neighbour’s land which is the same size as mine and they’ll be subdividing it for a new housing estate. My neighbour’s retirement and future health care costs have all been met through that sale, but here I am right across the road, and I can’t do anything like that.

Bureaucrat: Well I am sorry Sir, but the boundary has to go somewhere, and it’s important we balance the needs of future housing with the need to preserve rural lands. Plus, the people who live on your neighbour’s block in the future will appreciate having the open space provided by your land.

Landowner: Oh terrific, so you’re using me to provide the views for the people across the road all cooped up on tiny blocks and in townhouses. If you want the views that much, why don’t you buy my land?

Bureaucrat: (laughs) The government isn’t made of money Sir.

Landowner: All right, so tell me this. My land’s only marginal as cattle country. Half of it’s covered with regrowth so to improve the land I’ll need to clear some trees and improve the pasture. I presume you don’t object to me doing that?

Bureaucrat: Sir, I’m sorry but you can’t be serious? Haven’t you heard about climate change? We can’t allow people to cut down trees willy nilly, there are very strict rules about that. We need to care for our environment, not ruin it. Plus, that land is an important koala habitat and essential to the survival of the species in this region.

Landowner: What?! You’re kidding aren’t you? No one’s ever seen a koala out here in living memory. It’s the wrong sort of country. The wrong sort of trees. What sort of bloody evidence are you on about?

Bureaucrat: Scientific evidence Sir. We’ve used the latest satellite imagery and survey maps to determine that ...

Landowner: (Interrupting): .... did anyone get out of their bloody office and actually walk around and look for themself?

Bureaucrat: Yes Sir, they did. (Impatiently) We have a report on hand from a prominent environmental group which claims to have collected koala droppings in this very area.

Landowner: (Increasingly impatient). They’ll find koalas on the bloody moon that mob if they’ve smoked enough drugs... you must know that they’re all bloody inner city hippies who wouldn’t know koala shit from cow shit.

Bureaucrat: Now Sir, calm down. They’re a very respected group - very influential in government circles.

Landowner: Only because those bloody greenies give the government their votes to keep them in power and doing what they want. (Pauses). Never mind, if I have to leave the trees, I’ll need to improve the water holding of the land. I want to dam the seasonal creek that runs through it. You don’t have a problem with that I hope?

Bureaucrat: Sir, I find your disrespect for the environment disappointing. That creek is an important riparian habitat, at the headwaters of an important waterway where lungfish fossils have been found. You can’t possibly dam the creek. In fact, we will shortly be asking landowners with creeks on their properties to instigate a riparian repair program, so that these creeks can be restored to their original pristine condition.

Landowner: (Mouth agape). WHAT?! You tell me I can’t put a dam on my creek so the cattle have some water, and not only that, I’m supposed to spend a small fortune planting weeds along the creek bank because someone downstream found a bloody fish skeleton? Have you lost you mind?

Bureaucrat: Not at all Sir, it’s good policy to ensure the protection of creeks and waterways for future generations. There are serious fines if you deliberately breach that policy you know. But rest assured, we will consult with landowners like yourself before the new riparian laws come into effect.

Landowner: What’s the bloody point if you’ve already made up your mind?! For crying out loud – I can’t divide my land which is next to useless as a rural block except that it improves someone else’s views, I can’t cut down the trees to improve the carrying capacity, I can’t dam the creek to hold water, and now you want me to spend my money planting reeds along a dry creek bank and it’ll only be dry because all the water will drain away because there’s no dam to hold it back. Tell me this, what exactly CAN I do with my land?

Bureaucrat: Anything you like Sir, it is freehold land after all and this government respects private property rights above all else.

Landowner: So I can put a house on it?

Bureaucrat: Provided you seek the appropriate planning permission, and ensure that all the referral agencies concur with where you plan to put the house. Mind you, you’ll need to ensure that the house design and colour scheme also comply with local character planning guidelines, and also that any greywater and blackwater is treated with an approved on site eco-friendly waste treatment plant. We have extensive guidelines which are available if you’d like to read them.

Landowner: But right across the road there’ll be multiple brick shit boxes on small blocks with a sewerage connection? Those waste treatment plants cost a small bloody fortune...

Bureaucrat: But what price can we put on saving the planet Sir? I don’t think you should be down heartened, it could prove a valuable asset for your property, and we’re processing the approvals much faster now. You could even have yours in under 3 years. Of course that depends on how our revised planning scheme progresses.

Landowner: What revised scheme?

Bureaucrat: As part of our commitment to creating more liveable places, we’re looking at realigning some roads and creating bikeways and public transport corridors. Now, my understanding is that the draft plan for your area could mean a busway and bike path through the middle of your block, but we won’t be able to confirm the final decision until the draft plan has been out for public consultation, feedback received and the final plan gazetted. That could be as quick as 10 years.

Landowner: (By now, on the verge of tears). You want to push a busway through my block? That’ll render it unsaleable... and you want to take 10 years to work out whether you’re going to do it or not? Listen, there’s no one bloody well there who will ever use a bus. Not now, not ever. Anyone living there will be a tradie or work locally, they’ll use their cars. That’s what they want. But if you do that, I’m stuck with complete uncertainty about whether my land is going to be affected or not, and I doubt you’re going to offer me any compensation.

Bureaucrat: There IS certainty Sir, your land is freehold, and as such, of course we will compensate you for the slice we require, if we require it, based on our official land valuation of your land as a rural holding.

Landowner: But the value you come up with will be next to nothing because I can’t subdivide it, I can’t clear the trees for the sake of some phantom koala shit, I can’t dam the creek because of some ancient fish bones, and I won’t be able to afford to build a house because of the time and uncertainty of the approvals. You’re rendering my land next to useless, you know that?

Bureaucrat: (Taking offence) That’s NOT true Sir. We regard your land as very useful, for all the reasons I’ve outlined. That’s why we’re so intent on protecting it. Plus, we’re aware of certain underground gas finds that could be of great value as royalties to the government in the future.

Landowner: Well that’s terrific, at least I might get to make a buck if some drillers arrive some day. Bring em on!

Bureaucrat: No Sir, YOU won’t get to make anything. The gas is underground, you have no ownership of the mineral rights. The miners will and the government will collect the royalties, which improves our ability to create more liveable communities for all of us. (Sarcastically) You included.

Landowner: So you mean they can come onto my land, uninvited, drill holes everywhere, knock down trees in the process, even poison what little water’s in the creek, and there’s nothing I can do about it other than stand by and watch you and them make money at my expense?

Bureaucrat: I’m sorry you feel that way Sir. But the Government has certain obligations to expand the productive capacity of the economy and the resources sector is very important in that regard.

Landowner: I don’t know why I bother, why my parents ever bothered, why don’t I just go on the dole and forget about doing anything with the land?

Bureaucrat: But it IS your land Sir, it is freehold and you own it. You’re a very lucky person, so many others would be envious of you, given how unaffordable land has become.

Landowner: I’ll bet I could change their mind in a heartbeat. Christ, I’m ruined. Have you got anything else you want to tell me?

Bureaucrat: No Sir, that’s about it I think. (Pauses) Now let me think, there was something... now what was it? (Pauses again) Oh, of course, did I mention that someone thinks they might have found a sacred site? ....

Tourism down but by no means out

As the ravages of Cyclone Yasi leave scars across the northern landscape, and as much of the rest of Queensland continues with a clean up and repair bill from successive flood inundations, recreational visitor numbers to various part of the state will inevitably tumble in the short term. Tourism’s recovery from natural disasters will occupy headlines for a time, and the industry will recover. As it does so, industry leaders could begin to focus on some of the man-made disasters which deserve equal attention in any rebuilding and growth plans.

Tourism industry representatives have so often predicted their industry’s near death that there’s a Cassandra element about it. From pilot’s strikes to the Ansett collapse, to S11, SARs, bird flu, the high Australian dollar, Cyclone Larry and now Yasi – each has prompted dire warnings of imminent demise accompanied by the request for bigger advertising budgets. You’d be forgiven for thinking the industry was one of our most vulnerable, based on the repeated prophesies of doom.

But the industry over the years has proven itself remarkably robust. International visitor numbers may not reflect long term predictions or industry ambitions, and Queensland’s share of that traffic may have slipped, but the numbers generally have held up. In fact, last year, there were 2% more international visitors to Queensland than the year before. This is a handy snapshot of international tourism trends, and it doesn’t provide evidence of past bloodbaths. The picture isn’t one of constant growth, but it is one of relative stability.

Domestic travel has fared worse, but with a strong dollar, who can blame Australians for seizing the opportunity to see the world.? That too will return to a balance once the dollar falls below current levels (which must surely happen at some stage). And business travel continues to perform strongly. The industry might itself be preoccupied by images of white beaches and bikini girls, but men in dark suits attending meetings and conferences actually generate more nights and more dollars spent. It’s why Brisbane is by far the largest tourism market in the state, surpassing the Gold Coast. Room rates for hotel rooms in Brisbane are hardly being sacrificed, and even discount room site Wotif.com suggests that $300 to $450 per night is the going rate for the Brisbane CBD. That’s not dissimilar to what you’d pay for a decent hotel room in New York City, which is hardly evidence of a bloodbath.

So the reality will be that, despite the horrors of Yasi and the floods that affected much of the state, the industry will recover. As it does though, it might be timely for industry leaders to focus on some of the man-made problems that have been wreaking damage just as effectively as natural events.

Let’s start with the ridiculous difficulty faced by tour operators or developers of new facilities, trying to create new product for the leisure or business travel market. What the industry desperately needs is a widening and dizzying array of new tourism experiences and offerings, from Cape York to Coolangatta. Each new experience creates a richer picture of the Queensland offering and it builds the incentive to travel here. It also means each new operation has its own marketing budget, which combined with others is a more effective way of luring visitors than government sponsored campaigns. (What happened to that ‘new brand’ campaign “Queensland, Where Australia Shines”. Don’t remember? The cringe factor can be found here. It’s now been replaced with ‘Queensland, ready to welcome you.’ Tourism’s elder statesman Jim Kennedy suggested in October last year that industry agencies were out of ideas and in need of a shakeup. He could well be right).

The challenges aren’t just faced by larger businesses talking major resorts - even the smallest operations seem stymied by planning and environmental regulations. For example in Cape York, traditional owners in several communities were hoping to build tourism experiences but the environmental bureaucrats combined with the politics of Green preferences meant those hopes were dashed in the form of Wild Rivers Legislation. On Fraser Island, chances of anything much happening at Orchid Beach were killed off by environmental forces claiming the area too sensitive, even to beach camping at Waddy Point. On the Gold Coast some years back, attempts to build a skyrail experience to the Springbrook Hinterland were similarly strangled in regulation and anti-anything politics. Earlier this month, developer Graeme Juniper abandoned plans for a $500 million eco resort in the Sunshine Coast hinterland, after a fruitless seven year battle with the local (and allegedly pro-tourism) council. I even know of one dairy farming family who wanted to run Dairy Farm tours in school holidays for city kids in south east Queensland, but the town planners in the local council heaped so many regulations and application fees on their idea that it too died a deliberate death by bureaucracy.

The point here is that whether it’s a micro tourism proposal or a major one, whether it involves simply accessing natural areas or building structures on private or public land, the regulatory environment is tilted heavily against the proponent. This has become a sort of Berlin Wall of regulatory opposition, too difficult for most to scale and too big to go around. Erected in the name of environmental protection or safety, these regulations have had the effect of achieving environmental paranoia and a nanny state obsession with the precautionary principle. And they are strangling the chances of new tourism products being established, which are essential to the future viability of the industry.

Without new tourism experiences or new physical assets, the Queensland tourism picture will start to fade like a postcard from Surfers Paradise in the 1960s. It possibly already is, unaided by tourism campaigns which largely turn their back on promoting business tourism in the capital city and instead trot out the same beaches, the same palm trees, and the same rainforest. For the industry, identifying this massive obstacle to the development of new and expanded tourism offerings ought to be a very high priority.

And when it comes to calls for increased marketing budgets, perhaps we could start to press for campaigns which make direct connections to districts and regions. Instead of announcing some new $10 million tourism campaign designed to bring visitors back to Cairns, for example, give the money to Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin in exchange for free or heavily discounted seats. If a Sydney-Cairns return flight is worth $250, $10 million would be worth 40,000 free return seats, even more if the subsidy was one way only, or for discounts rather than free seats. Over the course of six months, an extra 40,000 visitors spending money in Cairns (or any other distressed destination) would have a direct bearing on the profits of businesses that employ people and that constitute what is called the tourism industry. Initiatives which go direct to stimulating visitor traffic have to be superior to cliché ridden advertising campaigns.

Finally, it would be good to start undoing the assumption that our environment is too fragile and far too sensitive to allow any more intrusions by people. Operators and visitors may have impacts, and these are manageable. You can’t have industry, jobs or create taxes to pay for social services by locking up vast areas with ‘DO NOT ENTER’ signs.

The obsessions with ‘damage’ caused by walking or 4WD tracks in wilderness areas, with water quality because of people’s sunscreen, or the outright alarm at the prospect of clearing a few trees to make way for a structure of some sort, must surely look a bit ridiculous now.

Have another look at the images of vast devastation caused by Yasi, or of the floods of 2011. Thousands of hectares of trees and forest damaged, rivers and creeks unrecognisable. Yet we’re precious about the relatively minor impacts of man and in the process are choking off an industry’s future prospects to develop new product.

Housing bubble? No but, yeah but …

Talk of a housing bubble and an imminent collapse of Australia house prices gathered steam recently with reports of a senior Treasury official sounding the alarm on house prices as ‘the elephant in the room.’ (Read the story here). So is there a bubble, and if there is, will it burst or slowly leak? And what’s likely to happen next year?

Our media tend to focus on extremes – so balanced reports of what’s happening in the housing market are hard to find. Better to give exposure to doomsayers like Steven Keen (the Professor who predicted a 40% fall in prices, remember him?), or boosters like the many real estate agents or investment advisors, trying to pry money from your hands. A Treasury official may sound like an impartial judge of economic events but don’t worry too much about what one official may have to say – they’re notoriously inefficient in predicting economic outcomes. When’s the last time you heard of a government getting its budget forecasts even close to right?

That said, there are widening views about house prices in Australia and the banking system’s high dependence on a stable housing market makes this a deadly serious subject. The question of a ‘bubble’ presumes a risk of imminent collapse, which would mean economic calamity for many recent buyers without the equity buffer to ride it out, along with much of the economy.

So are prices too high, and if they are, do we risk a rapid fall? Yes, and no – in that order (and in my opinion).

The question of house prices hinges on people’s capacity to pay. Even with latest data showing the average wage has reached $65,000 per annum, median prices around $450,000 are still high – being around seven times average incomes. New entrants to the market find it especially hard, given their incomes are typically lower than average. Two income families are now the norm out of necessity, but even then, the combined household income is under pressure to fund a home at the lower end of the market (say high $300s). New product isn’t generally available for much under $400k – so gone are the days of moving out to the urban fringe to buy cheap.

Pressure on peoples’ capacity to pay is also being exerted via other means – rising utility charges (especially electricity, and now water), motor vehicle registrations, day care costs (a reality for the two income family) and so on. That’s why small movements in interest rates, adding $50 a month to mortgages, are hurting many. With all that in mind, it’s hard to see how prices can rise any further without substantial wages growth, and if that happened, the RBA would cool the growth by raising rates further, cancelling out the increased capacity to pay. Turn it whichever way you like, further rises in prices in the next several years are hard to foresee.

A further point on the RBA is their concern that rising prices, in the absence of new supply, would be a worrying trend. And that’s exactly what happened in the past couple of years – prices rose, and new house starts fell. Glenn Stevens, Chief of the Reserve Bank, warned of this over a year ago:

“A very real challenge in the near term is the following: how to ensure that the ready availability and low cost of housing finance is translated into more dwellings, not just higher prices. Given the circumstances – the economy moving to a position of less than full employment, with labour shortages lessening and reduced pressure on prices for raw material inputs – this ought to be the time when we can add to the dwelling stock without a major run‑up in prices. If we fail to do that – if all we end up with is higher prices and not many more dwellings – then it will be very disappointing, indeed quite disturbing. Not only would it confirm that there are serious supply-side impediments to producing one of the things that previous generations of Australians have taken for granted, namely affordable shelter, it would also pose elevated risks of problems of over‑leverage and asset price deflation down the track.”

(You can read my article last year dealing with why Glenn Stevens was right to be worried about the housing market by clicking here).

So if we assume prices are now at a peak, what’s the risk of a rapid fall? Still pretty minimal I suspect, for a number of reasons.

The cost of new supply is one factor supporting a floor in prices. Developers would be releasing more stock to the market now if they thought the market was there. But the prices needed for new stock are determined by a range of underlying inputs – the high cost of raw land approved for development; the time cost of development assessment; the cost of taxes levies and charges; and the actual build cost the structure. This means the cost of new supply can’t fall (unless developers start selling at a loss). That new supply is around the mid to high $300s for apartments in Brisbane, and probably closer to $400k for a house/land package in a new estate. (Victoria’s new housing market is noticeably cheaper and their politicians are debating moves to make it even more so through cuts to stamp duty. A shame we don’t see that in Queensland).

New supply is also slowing, so there isn’t a big surplus of new stock floating around. Developers won’t sell for a loss and buyers can’t afford (or don’t want to) pay the necessary price for new product, so it isn’t being created. Plus, population growth – once an engine room of growth for the Queensland economy – is slowing, fast. Net interstate migration is falling fast, so we’ve become reliant on breeders and overseas migration for our growth numbers. That’s growth with a different demand profile to what we’ve been used to. So the demand isn’t there as it used to be, and neither is the supply.

Investors have reportedly been keeping the market alive but they will realise that the concept of negative gearing relies on capital growth for the sums to stack up. If prices are at or near their peak, it could be a long wait for capital growth to compensate for the yield losses on mortgaged rental stock. But unless investors are quickly forced to sell, there’s little likelihood of a flood of investment stock hitting the market.

Slower sales rates are already making themselves felt however, and vendor expectations are confronting buyer sentiment, which means prices are being dropped to meet the market. This will have to show up in median price data soon enough, but the percentages won’t be the calamity predicted by bubble theorists because as soon as reported median prices fall, bargain hunters will create a new floor of support. There are always plenty of punters who can’t say no to a perceived bargain.

Further to that, employment promises to remain strong. I remember the media laughing at claims (not so long ago) that unemployment would fall to 5%. Well, in the midst of the GFC, it’s barely moved from there. Provided people have incomes, and provided the cost of living doesn’t get further out of control, and provided interest rates don’t hit double digits, there won’t be that many people in a ‘forced to sell’ situation which would create the imbalance of supply and demand needed for a ‘bubble’ to burst.

The more likely scenario is not a burst but a slow leak. If next year we start to see median prices falling, the media will latch onto that and headlines will scream ‘collapse’ but in reality, a fall of even 10% will only being prices back to their 2008/2009 levels. Not good news if you’ve recently lashed out on a big mortgage and bought the most expensive house you could possibly afford, but those people are a minority in the market. (Media reports will of course focus exclusively on that minority).

Confidence will not be high if the media turns gloomy on all things housing, but perhaps it’s the breather the market needs? We can’t really sustain further increases in prices unless we are willing to consign an entire generation to non home ownership. Higher income households will unlikely be affected, and investors who bought more than three or four years ago will still find the increased rental incomes over that period sufficient reason to hold. There’ll no doubt be some movement in the median price figures, but it’s also quite probable those figures will be based on much smaller volumes of activity.

None of which is especially exciting for 2011, and possibly also 2012. Maybe real estate will for a time stop being the BBQ stopper it’s become, and we’ll see fewer shows on TV about how to make fast money on housing, and fewer spruikers occupying column centres in the press, talking up the future prospects of housing as a ‘make money’ proposition, as opposed to being somewhere to live.

Market stability doesn’t generate headlines, and once you stop reading daily or weekly reports about the housing market, or when TV shows like ‘The Block’ have faded into a memory, it could then be the time to dive back in. But that time may be a while away yet.

UNLOVED AND UNWANTED

At a time when construction starts are falling across the spectrum from commercial to retail, industrial and housing, and construction industry jobs are going with them, you’d think the very people holding a key to a resurrection of fortunes might be lauded. But no, developers continue to suffer a poor public image. Why, and can it ever be improved?

The Reserve Bank’s recent move to increase interest rates was not well received by the development and construction industry. Housing and non-residential approvals are in a general slide and when the industry represents such a cornerstone of the economy, this might logically be a time when policy levers are applied to turning around the problem. A widely reported lack of new supply in housing is compounded by private sector commercial development at a virtual standstill, development finance the most widely cited culprit. According to the UDIA, construction industry jobs are down by around 25,000 in Queensland. That’s a lot of incomes not being spent in the economy.

Developers as a group though aren’t exactly being courted by policy makers or regulators, looking for a way out of the problem. Quite the opposite – politicians still regularly throw the mud at the very industry which holds a key to improving housing supply and construction industry jobs. “I won’t stand by and let greedy developers get away with … blah blah blah.” You’ve all heard it before. Denial, pass the buck and shoot the messenger continue to be preferred defensive tactics of politicians responding to industry complaints of excessive regulation. Labeling all developers “greedy developers” has about as much validity as suggesting all politicians are corrupt simply because a handful break the law, but the latter (politicians) continue to target the former (developers) - and get away with it.

It’s not just the politicians of course. Many regulators and planners, if you believe the horror stories, have taken an adversarial stance to development assessment whereby the applicant (the developer) is regarded with suspicion from the outset. The regulators don’t see themselves as facilitators of new activity but as ‘growth managers’ exercising every precautionary principle known in a bid to slow, curtail, check and re-check the consequences (real or imagined) of a proposal.

Then there’s community opinion, which puts developers and real estate agents and used car dealers into the same category. Development proposals that align with local or state planning schemes, and which may have already jumped through several hoops before a public airing, are often widely rejected via the pages of the local press. This isn’t just NIMBYism, because the target of hostile public complaint isn’t the planning scheme or the local or state politician who endorsed it, but the developer applicant who is simply complying with the scheme’s intent. Irrespective of how green, how sustainable, how rational or how much needed the proposal may be in community or economic terms, it’s the developer who gets the bad press.

Why is it that developers just can’t win?

I’ll venture a theory that many readers of this won’t like. Developers are too meek, too obsequious, too prepared to be thrashed with a wet lettuce and succumb. With rare exceptions (Stockland’s Matthew Quinn is one) developers rarely comment publicly about the problems imposed on the industry by excessive and growing regulatory burdens. The allegations of land banking, of profiteering, greed, opportunism, social irresponsibility and environmental vandalism are, it seems to me, infrequently challenged in the public domain.

Some of the reason for that no doubt lies in the politicisation of development assessment: development is no longer an exercise in market and land economics, but a political game. Political intervention in planning schemes and the ability to kybosh proposals means that developers need to be acutely sensitive to their position. Throwing back the facts and arguing the case publicly may not win political friends, and developers certainly don’t need any more political enemies. But what that means is that as more mud is thrown, more mud sticks.

It’s true that industry groups have their role to play in advocating development industry positions and promoting the benefits the industry brings, and by and large do a good job with the resources available. But is it also true that developers themselves tend to hide behind their industry groups in a sort of ‘good guy, bad guy’ act where industry group executives are left to do the sledging while developers do the schmoozing?

I recall a meeting with a Government Minister some years ago, dealing with a mounting problem in the Minister’s Department which threatened to cost the industry dearly. The meeting was civil but the issues weren’t danced around – “a full and frank discussion” might be its best description. The Minister was getting the message, loud and clear. But then, at the close of the meeting, the developer representative left the Minister with the comment that “Minister, thanks for your time and we want you to know you’re doing a great job.” Bang, pop – the pressure was instantly deflated. That Minister no doubt reported to their colleagues that the industry was pretty put off but didn’t present a political problem.

So if asking individual developers to publicly challenge the mud being thrown at them and defend themselves more aggressively is akin to asking them to paint a target on their forehead saying ‘shoot me’, is any sort of group industry response to a poor public reputation possible?

A clue might lie with the farmers. Faced with a problem where farmers (thanks to aggressive environmental politics) were copping all the bad press for tree clearing and land erosion to fertiliser and herbicide runoff, while the community somehow was allowed to forget that without farmers we don’t eat, they responded. The ‘Every Family Needs a Farmer’ campaign was a defensive community education campaign, designed to build more empathy amongst urban consumers of the issues faced by farming communities. The campaign has run through several incarnations over several years, and was no knee-jerk, one-off exercise.

Now if Dick Smith can fund a TV documentary and anti-growth campaign single handed, you’d think the entire development industry could manage something in its own interests? Especially when those interests are closely aligned to the interests of the community. I don’t see this as a hard sell, but it is a story that needs selling. You wouldn’t call it ‘Every Family Needs a Developer’ but you could start with a few things that the community as a whole seems to have forgotten:

Almost every street and the houses in it, in every neighborhood, is the result of a developer at some stage taking a risk.

Every shop in every high street, and every shopping mall your family visits, is the result of some developer at some stage, taking a risk.

Almost every workplace, whether it’s a medical centre, a factory, or an office building, is the result at some stage of a developer taking a risk.

Increasingly, many of the schools, roads and community facilities that we enjoy are funded through the activity of developers.

The homes we will need so that people aren’t sleeping on the streets won’t be provided by governments, or politicians, but by developers. The economy that we need to feed our families and support our aged and infirm, relies heavily on developers and the construction jobs that flow from them.

Many developers go broke trying, and in doing so, they lose their own money, not public money. It’s a high risk venture where certainty is essential. It’s not an industry where the public sector has ever shown much of a track record – witness the billions squandered on public housing programs which produce very few roofs.

Developers have legitimate concerns about the cost of doing business. It means their costs to the consumer – in the form of houses young people can’t afford, or rents that businesses struggle to pay, are higher than they need to be. It’s not developers making this happen – it’s regulation.

At the end of the day, developers can sit back and wait for more mud to be thrown, or begin to defend their reputation, and to defend the need for growth.

Is there anything to be lost by trying?

Top gear it ain’t.

The decision by the Queensland Government to take planning control of Stockland’s massive Caloundra South development away from the Sunshine Coast Council, prompted a predictable retort from the Local Council. In the process, it brings into perspective the competing tensions between various planning authorities and regulators. Those tensions are getting worse, and none of it is doing anything to reduce red tape, improve decision making, speed up supply and reduce housing costs.

The decision on Caloundra South was controversial not so much because it was called in by the State Government, but because it was handed over to the Urban Land Development Authority, a group labeled by Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman as “unelected, unaccountable and busily pushing the planning policies of unelected state government bureaucrats on local communities.” (Read the story here). That’s pretty much spot on, though he could have added some equally derisive comments about the ballooning budget of the ULDA and its staff, and questioned why we need a State Planning Department at all, if it is considered so inept at getting anything done that its role is being increasingly usurped by the ULDA.

In fact, why bother with Local Government Planning roles at all, if the ULDA or the State think themselves the only ones competent to assess significant development applications or consider substantial issues of local and regional planning? No doubt that’s the view of the Council of Mayors in South East Queensland, who have loudly objected to the decision on Caloundra South and the increasingly significant role being taken by the ULDA.

The State Government counters by arguing that projects like Caloundra South have been in the planning ‘in tray’ of local government for far too long. A slowing supply of developable land and escalating infrastructure costs are problems laid directly at the door of local government by the state. Caloundra South has been subject to planning assessment and debate within Sunshine Coast Council for around 5 years already, with not a single roof yet to show for it.

The Federal Government buys into the fray by arguing that both State Governments and Local Governments must act on reducing red tape to accelerate the supply of land, but the Feds seem content to play the role of commentator, rather than enforcer.

The Reserve Bank buys into the debate by frequently noting its concerns that artificially restrained land supply and excessive development fees seem to be increasing the cost of a reduced supply of land, in the face of constant demand. Hence, they regard this policy inertia as placing in effect inflationary pressures on housing prices.

So the jurisdictional squabbles worsen and the criticisms mount with no clear end in sight. If you’re in any way a fan of motorsport, a simple analogy might explain the frustrations that housing providers are facing.

Neutral. The engine’s revving and you’re chewing through petrol but you’re not going anywhere. You’ve got an application in with your local authority, and a multitude of various referral agencies. Each begins a long process of assessment, questioning, suggesting, and quite possibly public debate. Be prepared for some overheating as you won’t have any airflow for quite some time.

First gear. You’re off the grid and underway. The engine’s revving its head off, chewing through even more juice, but you’re not going anywhere fast. Your application by now is quite possibly considerably altered from when you first submitted it. While you thought you were submitting a proposal in compliance with the planning regulations, you didn’t factor in the flexibility of those regulations. But at least you’ve now got something you hope will tick the various boxes and will hopefully get approved by the relevant authority.

Second gear. After a few laps in first, you find your project identified by the State Government as something they may ‘call in’ because it is potentially state significant. In the case of one recent residential tower, this could simply mean 300 units in a single apartment complex are deemed ‘state significant’. You’re hopeful though – anything is better than doing laps in first gear, your motor will burn out if you keep that up.

Third gear. Your project doesn’t get called in by the state, it gets flicked to the ULDA as an approval agency. This promises the potential of faster speeds, but you’ll have to return to the grid for a bit, stick it in neutral for a spell as an entirely new agency assesses the proposal and makes a series of fresh recommendations. But you’re told to be prepared to run through the gears again quickly once the flag drops.

Fourth and fifth – the top gears. These gears are available but you’re not allowed to use them. Rumours of the ‘old days’ abound though, when development approvals could be obtained from a single agency inside a month, and headworks charges were reasonable and directly related to the project in question. Entire suburban communities were created this way, housing was affordable relative to incomes, and you knew who was in charge. You reminisce with senior industry players, listening with envy to their stories of completing multiple projects in a single year. You’re struggling to complete one project in several years.

Reverse. The Planning and Environment Court can slam you into reverse faster than you thought possible. This might simply be because a competing project identifies some regulatory idiosyncrasy that allows them to appeal your approval. Advocates of a free market in planning terms quickly turn into protectionists when faced with competition from another project. Or, you could find yourself at the mercy of the EPA who find evidence of koala droppings on your site. Your pleas that they’re in fact feral rabbit droppings don’t get you anywhere, because by now the local paper is giving massive airtime to an environmental lobby who are calling you a greedy developer and an environmental vandal.

Meanwhile, construction starts continue to fall, further choking supply. If we keep this up, we’ll soon be a mirror image of NSW where housing starts are at a 50 year low and problems of affordability chronic and widespread. The other mounting problem is that what’s being widely called a two or three speed planning approvals process now seems officially endorsed: local councils are frequently at odds with the state planning department and then off to the side sits the ULDA working to another set of rules altogether. The word ‘integrated’ has it seems been banished from planning altogether. And ‘consistency’ as a principle went with it - as one eminent planner raised with me, “if the ULDA approves Caloundra South with reduced infrastructure charges, what happens to all those other poor developers on the Sunshine Coast left at the mercy of the Council and their higher charging regime? What about a level playing field on charges? What will happen to fair competition under those circumstances?”

They might be stuck in first gear, while someone else running the same race is lapping them in third, while another got slammed into reverse. Fair it isn’t, and top gear it ain’t.

Is Queensland’s tourism brand banal?

Queensland tourism has a ‘new branding strategy’. But is there anything ‘new’ about it? Or is it a collection of the same banal clichés which we’ve been serving up for decades?

This week, the Premier released what was billed as ‘a new branding strategy’ for tourism in Queensland. You can find one report here, and the Youtube video of the latest tourism TV ad for the state is here.

According to the Premier, the new strategy has been worked on for a year by the brains trust of Tourism Queensland. It will be backed by an initial $4million social media campaign. Gone is the ‘Where Else But Queensland’ campaign line, to be replaced by ‘Queensland, Where Australia Shines.’

Hmmm. At a time when tourism operators and destinations are reporting diminished interest from domestic travelers (many lured overseas by the strong dollar, or simply looking for different experiences to the same old same old) and international tourist arrivals have slowed, you might have thought a ‘new brand strategy’ would be something quite different. But this isn’t.

Have a close look at the launch TVC commercial mentioned above. It’s a cascading series of beautiful images but they’re typically all featuring the same thing: beaches, ocean, water and sunshine. Have a close look. There’s a rainforest scene, and Brisbane gets a look in with a scene of people paddling up the Brisbane river in kayaks (as they do, all day. In fact, so popular is this pastime that it’s becoming a menace to navigation. Not!).

So what’s wrong with this? Tourism’s all about buckets and spades, isn’t it? The truth can be something different. Here’s a few things to mull over.

Shopping and dining, along with cultural experiences, usually rate very highly on the recreational travelers list of ‘must dos.’ They also account for much of the actual expenditure by tourists visiting a region for leisure or business (the whole point of calling it an industry, after all. Playing on the beach is free). Shopping, dining or cultural experience don’t feature in the initial ‘Queensland, Where Australia Shines’ campaign, though they may come later. You would hope so, or it could make the mistake that allegedly happened with the famous ‘You’ll Never Never Know’ campaign for the Northern Territory. Evidently, while the ad was very appealing, the fact that the campaign almost exclusively featured remote outback locations turned off a number of potential travelers, because they thought the NT was devoid of decent hotels, shops, or restaurants. So that audience never never knew because they never never went.

The other weakness of this obsession with white sandy beaches and blue waters, tropical skies and bright young things frolicking in the water, is that you can find the same experiences all over the world. For the same money, would you have a family holiday in Fiji, or the Whitsundays? Many domestic tourists have already worked that equation out for themselves. Plus, the new Queensland campaign seems preoccupied with youth. Maybe not a bad thing, but higher end mature or family travelers with solid holiday budgets to spend probably don’t plan on the sorts of ‘young, active and single’ activities profiled in the campaign.

In fact, it doesn’t look like there’s a single person in the campaign that’s aged over 30, which makes it look like an effort to turn the entire State of Queensland into a giant Club Meb or Contiki Tour destination.

While I’m on a roll, I just don’t understand why tourism promoters in Queensland insist on reinforcing rusted on images of the state. Since the 1960s, the state has been synonymous with sunshine and beach holidays. Ask anyone elsewhere in Australia the first place that comes to mind when you mention ‘Queensland’ and the answer will be ‘Gold Coast.’ I think they’ve got the message. It’s warmer, there are lots of beaches, palm trees, rainforest and reef. Because these are so synomous with Queensland, surely you don’t even need to advertise them? Mainstream media and culture does that for us - they’ve become a cultural fixation. Talk about stating the bleeding obvious.

The shame here is that the broader recreational offer of Queensland always struggles for a look in. It’s taken some time, but Queensland’s restaurants are now among the best in the country. Our fresh produce is hard to beat, offering regional delicacies which could lure high spending foodies, if only they knew there was more to the place than cold prawns in the hot sun, by the beach. Cultural and non-beach recreational experiences are improving all the time. Think about it this way – plenty of Australians holiday in Victoria. They’re not going there for the weather. But in Queensland, our tourism promoters continue to project a strong statement that Queensland is all about the weather, beaches and little else.

It might surprise many that, last time I checked at least, Brisbane has more visitors and more visitor nights than even the Gold Coast. The capital city is the biggest tourism market in the state, bar none. The reasons are common sense enough – people visiting their friends and relatives, and a very high number of business and convention travelers, along with people who actually want to experience an urban environment. The tragedy for markets like Brisbane is that, when they do feature in promotions of Queensland, they tend to mimic the beach experience, with visions of people frolicking in the artificial lagoon of South Bank, or (as they do in this case) paddling kayaks up the river.

Is this distorted image of Queensland doing harm to the potential of tourism markets which don’t fit the clichéd image of sun, surf and sand? And what about the State’s business reputation – is a one dimensional tourism message about sun surf and sand so powerful and overwhelming that being taken seriously as a place for suits to make money is a battle to overcome prejudices? Instead of swimming with a tide of opportunity, does the tropical image mean that anything not associated with those clichés means swimming against a tide?

Apparently the latest campaign is the result of a great deal of research. But looking at the first campaign offering, all the research may have asked is in essence “what do you think of when we say ‘Queensland’” and responded by feeding existing perceptions. Is there anything so wrong with telling people something they don’t know about Queensland?

Fortress Australia: ground hog day

Roughly ten years ago I penned a series of articles lamenting the sudden lurch to all things rural and the demonisation of urban interests. Pauline Hanson was in full flight and politicians the country over were happy to promise anything to disaffected (largely rural) voters to regain their trust. City slickers were persona non grata. I thought we’d made some gains since then, but the results of the recent federal election are shaping up as ground hog day for urban and regional policy. Only this time, it could be worse.

Two things are shaping in the aftermath of the 2010 Federal Election as portents of things to come for our economy and the future of our urban and regional centres. They are the combination of what seems now to be an orthodox view that Australia is close to reaching its maximum sustainable population, combined with the political tilt to the Bob Katterisms of rural politics. Together, this could mean we are about to usher in an era of low growth, high protection policies. Fortress Australia could easily become a reality no matter which side ultimately claims the keys to The Lodge.

This is in part because prior to the last Federal Election, both sides of politics became suddenly shy of the long term growth patterns of population in Australia. In September 2009, Wayne Swan released some early findings of the Intergenerational Report, which predicted Australia could reach 35 million by 2050. Although this rate of growth was pretty much the same as the preceding 40 years, the figure was greeted with alarm by media, the community, and much of the political herd. ‘Australia Explodes’ went the headlines and the lemmings followed. (See this blog post from a year ago).

A month later, then PM Rudd was proclaiming that he believed in ‘a big Australia’ but by mid 2010 his later nemesis Julia Gillard was proclaiming she ‘did not believe in a big Australia’ and as Prime Minister declared we shouldn’t ‘hurtle’ toward 36 million but instead plan for a ‘sustainable’ population, renaming the Population Minister the Sustainable Population Minister in the process. The word ‘sustainable’ in this context stands for ‘slow down or stop.’

Then came the election campaign with Abbot promising to ‘slash’ the ‘unsustainable’ immigration numbers (that his mentor John Howard had been responsible for) and to ‘turn back the boats.’ Population growth was to be cut to 1.4% (a long term trend) and migrants potentially forced to settle in rural areas (some dodgy form of postcode migration policy).

However you look at it, the message from both Gillard and Abbot was clear: support for a ‘big Australia’ (that being 35 million by 2050 or the same rate of growth we’d seen in the last 40 years) was gone.

Add to that the quixotic entrepreneur Dick Smith and his population documentary ‘The Population Puzzle’ where he alleged Australia was at risk of running out of food, out of space and out of control, comparing us (oddly) with places like Bangladesh. Smith might be mad but you can’t discount the impact he has on Australian popular opinion. People believe him, and plenty more people would be thinking we’re about to be overpopulated as a result of his documentary than before, politicians included.

Could it get any worse for the prospects of maintaining even modest levels of population growth? The last election outcome means the answer is yes. We now have the balance of power in the Senate controlled by The Greens, and in the lower house by a handful of notionally old school National Party independents. The Greens’ view is clear on population growth – they don’t support it (unless you’ve arrived illegally, by boat). "This population boom is not economic wisdom, it is a recipe for planetary exhaustion and great human tragedy” said Bob Brown when the Intergenerational Report was released.

The independents’ views on population are harder to work out, but it would be a fair guess to suggest they would lean toward the Abbot view: turn back the boats, and slow the overall rate of growth. They are quite likely to also push for a redistribution of economic riches to a range of projects for rural and regional areas, which could be fine provided these projects were subject to a rigorous business case (unlike the mooted National Broadband Network and its $40+ billion plan for faster porn, unsupported by any sort of economic analysis). The irony that the election result hinged on big swings in urban seats but that a handful of rural independents are now trying to call the shots shouldn’t be lost on anyone.

Not to be left out, the Local Government Association of Queensland’s annual conference this year will focus on population growth, leaning toward limits on growth unless bountiful riches are showered on local governments to cope with ‘unsustainable’ rates of growth. Association President Paul Bell says “councils cannot let population growth exceed infrastructure needs.”

"Where we find water supplies no longer match the size of the community, where we find roads are congested, where we're seeing other infrastructure whether it be health or education are falling behind," he said, population growth was by implication to blame.

The bottom line? Population growth is now a dirty word and for any business which relies on growth for its prosperity, this is not good news. Everything from airports to property to construction to farming to retailers, manufacturers and tourism will be affected by slowing growth. For Queensland, which no longer relies on interstate migration for its growth, it could be worse: any slowdown in international migration will hit state growth quickly and dramatically. (See here for why).

Even social services could suffer if growth is deliberately slowed by this cabal of anti-growth movements. Why? Because in 50 years time, without migration or natural growth, there may only be two working adults for every five retired. You wouldn’t want to be one of those two and paying their tax bill in 50 years’ time.

How has this come about? The answer is pretty simple: growth itself has never been the problem. Note to Paul Bell and others – it’s been a notoriously inefficient planning approach which has misdirected precious infrastructure spending, which has pushed up housing prices, which has caused frustrations at rising congestion, which has seen hospital wait lists grow and which has been the root cause of much of the community angst about the symptoms of growth where policy not only can’t keep up, but tries to slow everything down. In the last decade, can anyone honestly claim that our planning schemes are now more efficient and quicker, or more easily understood, or better targeted, than a decade ago? I doubt it.

Would it be too much to ask for a sensible, evidence-based approach that ties population growth to urban and regional strategies, which emphasises economic progress while maintaining lifestyle and environmental standards? How about some decent plans to link regional urban centres to major cities, based not on pork barrels to influential independents but based only on the business case and community mutual benefit? Or how about putting the ‘growth’ back into smart growth, with some policies that allow our urban areas to expand in line with demand matched to infrastructure spending, rather than policy dogma?

Those same questions were being asked a decade ago. Welcome to ground hog day.

If you’re interested, here’s a couple of yarns from 10 years ago.

Slicker Cities for City Slickers. October 1999.

Nation Building and a National Urban Strategy. May 2001.

Office market glasses at least half full?

The recent release of the Property Council’s Australian Office Market report was greeted by several media outlets as an opportunity to focus on ‘soaring’ vacancy rates. But what if, for a moment, we focussed instead on the occupancies, not the vacancies? Would that tell a different story?

The office vacancy rate statistic is a pretty straightforward measure of the gap between supply and demand. The Property Council, and most market commentators, have traditionally focussed on the vacancy rate as a barometer of market health. But the vacancy rate can fall in a shrinking market if older, redundant stock is removed from the stock survey for a variety of logical reasons. Equally, the vacancy rate can rise in a healthy market, if additions to supply exceed total new demand.

Another way to look at the health of the office market is to disregard the total vacant space (both direct and sublease) and simply focus on what’s left. That is, what’s really happening to overall demand – the space that’s actually occupied? After all, an excess of new supply can simply reflect bad timing or an over exuberant development market – it doesn’t necessarily mean that demand has weakened dramatically.

An analysis of the Property Council figures on this basis produces a different picture to that painted by the media headlines. What it shows is that total occupied space – or if you like, total demand – has done little more than plateau since it’s peak in January last year. There has been a minor fall in overall demand, of just 150,000 square metres of space, but that’s across the entire country and all the various submarkets covered by the Property Council Survey.

What is just as obvious is that office markets around the country have remained remarkably resilient to the effects of the global financial downtown. If you had believed the Nostradamus-like warnings of impending doom, or followed the share price of any number of listed A-REITS heavy in the office market, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s been something of a calamity at play. Not so.

If demand had dramatically softened, as some have suggested, you would expect to see a significant fall in total occupied space. A plateau is not a significant fall (unlike global share indices may be used to).

Of course if you’re in the business of leasing new office space in a market which isn’t expanding, that’s another story. But traditionally, vacant space has migrated itself from lower standard buildings to higher standard (ie new) ones. And an interesting thing also then happens (or at least, it has in the past).

As new buildings are added to the stocks of office space, they have rarely over the past 20 years opened fully let. But as they lease up, they do so at new levels of benchmark rents. It stands to reason – new buildings cost more to develop than older ones did, and usually feature higher standards of technological features or sustainability virtues. ‘New’ always comes at a premium to ‘old’ so waves of new building construction have tended to correspond (albeit with a lag) with cyclical spikes in market rentals. And the cost of new construction is not about to fall.

The new buildings command more rent, and those rents are then used as benchmarks for the Grade of building below that, and through the market the ripple flows.

So when new buildings arrive on the market, they obviously add to supply which can tend to bump up vacancies (especially given the ‘lumpy’ nature of new supply in large commercial buildings). But they can also tend to lead rental growth. It is a mistake, or can be, to interpret rising vacancies and stable or falling rents as a sign of weak demand – these things can reflect temporary surplus of supply.

So the short version of all this is that maybe the glass is more than just half full? Total demand for office space hasn’t collapsed or even significantly shrunk, despite the tsunami of economic events endured by global and domestic markets in recent years. Plus, the new additions to supply now coming on stream may just portend the next wave of rental growth in office markets generally, as the economy inevitably improves?

You can read what you like in the daily papers. But believing them is another thing altogether. It’s worth contacting the PCA and buying their Office Market Report, and doing the same analysis yourself for whatever local market interests you. You might just be surprised.

A good decision - but where to from here?

The decision by Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman to compulsorily (if necessary) acquire a major inner city development site so that it can be used for public open space might have plenty of people in the planning and development industry shaking their heads in disapproval. I won’t be one of them.

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman’s bold move to purchase the disused Milton Tennis Centre site in inner city Brisbane for public parkland has been welcomed by a host of so called NIMBY groups in the area, who opposed high density development. The 3.5 hectare site had been acquired by a prominent developer and had existing planning approval for a range of development to around seven storeys in height. The developer was in the process of seeking planning approval to increase the development density to closer to 20 storeys in height, for the tallest towers. That proposal was generally consistent with the stated intentions of the State Government’s infill strategy under their regional plan, which sought to deliver much greater density throughout the Brisbane area, especially for sites close to transit infrastructure (as is the Milton site).

But the scale of development proposed did not sit well with local residents. Community opposition in the area was widespread – it was the talk of the supermarket aisles on the weekends and school pickup zones during the week. An active NIMBY group campaigned aggressively against more high density development in the area and they’ll be congratulating themselves on a win right about now.

But the decision goes deeper than simple local community opposition, however vociferous. It highlights some of the inevitable conflicts of a State imposed regional plan which mandates higher density, and a community which hasn’t bought the talk. The decision, I think, was a good one for this local area, given the scale of development which will take place in and around the Milton area in years to come. It signaled that the Mayor is acutely aware that higher densities will mean more pressure on open space. And it also signaled that there is still a place for democracy in public policy, as opposed to the imposition by elites of mandated policy dogma.

On the flip side, it reinforces the legitimacy of political intervention in planning matters. In this instance, a Mayor made a good decision, in the community interest. But other politicians have notably made some very poor interventionist decisions, and not always in the community’s best interest.

The decision also exposes the failures of the density advocates to win public support for their case. This is ultimately the highest test for public policy in a democratic system. The alternative is a Soviet style system where elites dictate direction without reference to the will of the people (or without reference to basic fundamentals of economics, or of market demand).

But perhaps most of all, the decision throws into question a range of issues which have yet to resolved, except for the ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ rhetoric of the protagonists. Clarity, and community agreement are, it seems, a long way off. Consider the following:

· The Milton Tennis site is only 500 metres away from ‘The Milton’ high rise residential tower, by another developer. This tower has been approved for 30 storeys, after being ‘called in’ by the State Government Planning Minister as a ‘matter of state significance.’ Ironically, the existing town plan for the area permits less than 20 storeys, but a draft neighborhood plan by the Council would have allowed 20 storeys. It’s now approved for 30, because the proponent succeeded in convincing the State Government that this was something of great importance to the state. Will other high density proposals required to meet the density targets of a regional plan be equally important, and receive the same treatment?

· Part of that argument no doubt rested on the need for at least some ‘Transit Oriented Developments’ to see the light of day. A decade of discussion has achieved precious little, which would be an embarrassment to the succession of plans and planning reviews which have hailed TODs as the urban planning equivalent of a second coming. Having faith is one thing, but there’s a desperate need for TOD advocates to attend at least one ribbon cutting ceremony, at some stage, to vindicate themselves. ‘The Milton’ looks like it will be ‘the chosen One.’

· Anyone who thought that actual planning permission for a particular site could be found in a local town planning document would be mightily confused. The 30 storey Milton tower gets an OK despite community objection and a planning scheme which provides much reduced height restriction, while 500 metres away a site with existing approval for around 7 storeys gets the opposite treatment – it’s to be resumed and turned into parkland.

· Proponents of high density living have cited many promised virtues as outcomes. These have included less traffic congestion, a cleaner environment, a more environmentally sustainable approach to urban growth, and the list goes on. But the limited evidence offered in support and the affront to common sense suggested by some of these arguments run counter to community wisdom. Even schoolchildren were smart enough to realise that more people per square kilometre will mean more congestion, more crowding in shopping centre carparks, more crowded buses, and more people wanting to walk dogs or play cricket in parks. So while the planning elites maintained their mantra, the community saw through it and called ‘bull.’ Here is where the density advocates have failed. Until they can support their arguments with hard evidence, and until they can mount convincing arguments that win community support, what they are proposing is in effect anti-democratic.

· The realities of higher density housing will inevitably mean more people, more cars and more congestion, and more demands on open space for inner city and middle ring neighborhoods – not just in Brisbane but everywhere that the density mantra has taken root (which is most Australian capitals). To what extent should community opposition be written off as ‘NIMBYism’ or, alternatively, treated as their democratic right to influence public policy? This alienation of local community opinion from the preferred patterns of urban expansion (or ‘in-spansion’) outlined in most of our urban planning schemes is a real problem. Planning elites cannot expect political leaders to fight a tide of community opposition, unless they have in mind a more determinist political system.

· This problem will only get worse, as more pressure is placed on our urban areas to grow within confined, existing boundaries. As it gets worse, the primacy of planning schemes will be further eroded. Unless some fundamental changes are made to planning schemes, more and more politicians will seek to intervene, case by case and site by site, in planning matters because of community confusion and neighborhood opposition. Given the average standard of an Australian politician, this won’t be a good outcome for the developers, for planners, or for the community at large.

So where’s the resolution to this? Solutions aren’t so hard to identify. Here are a couple of suggestions:

· The backyard may or may not be a ‘right’ but it is considered to be one by a majority of the community. Backyards of detached houses, as a place for children, for pets, for BBQs or family gatherings are important to a wide cross section of people. Density advocates may need to give some serious thought to how high density living will ultimately affect family living, and give serious and open thought to the consequences of their preferred policy approach. The same serious consideration to the management of increased demand for road space and open space would go a long way to answering legitimate community concerns. Just dismissing the concerns or ignoring their legitimacy won’t solve the problem.

· Planning schemes based on a democratic and transparent agreement of future development have a stronger chance of meaning something to all parties. The Brisbane City Council recently announced a ‘virtual’ 3D model of the CBD and inner city, which will ultimately be used as a tool for assessing future proposals. There’s no valid reason and no technological obstacle to such a tool becoming the planning scheme itself. A visual realisation of future planning intent has a better chance of clearly communicating with the community at large. Widely accessible and readily understood equals transparency, not just for the community but also for the industry. The archaic regulatory and legislative nature of current planning instruments, with their convoluted terminology, only serve to confuse and alienate, which leads to distrust.

· Finally, elitism in planning whereby policy decisions are made by a collective of highly placed officials or industry professionals, with only limited reference to evidence of market preferences, to broad community opinion or even to accepted ways of life, can only fail. Democracy has its place in planning. That place should be in first determining an agreed overall strategy, right down to the local implications. Communicate that via a transparent and ‘virtual’ model widely accessible to all, and then leave the plan to do its job.

None of this is new but if we’re to avoid a future of even greater confusion in planning policy, it’s now time the spin of planning reform was replaced with substance.

[Disclaimer: Yes, I’m a resident of the area affected by the Milton plans. No, I didn’t take part in any of the protest activities].