New policy announcement:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/affordable-food-housing.html

The Sustainability Party of Australia has a policy of making food and housing more affordable by removing some of the government restrictions that are pushing up house prices and preventing communities growing their own food.

The housing policy applies to cities with over 1 million people. At the time of writing, this includes Sydney (5.0), Melbourne (4.7), Brisbane (2.4), Perth (2.0) and Adelaide (1.3). The policy divides a city into 3 zones:

Zone 1, inner - within 3km of the CBD (add 500m for every extra million people): All 'community-based' limits to building heights shall be removed.

Zone 2, mid - within 6km of the CBD (add 500m for every extra million people): All 'community-based' limits to building heights shall be removed within 500m of any train station or bus interchange.

Zone 3, outer - beyond 6km of the CBD (add 500m for every extra million people), but within the 'commuter footprint': New housing that it not to standard on certain quality of life or running cost (ie, not safety) measures shall be permitted, provided that the house and land package is worth less than double the value of the unimproved land, and that the property is then encumbered with obligations to inform all potential tenants and buyers that it is substandard, and what the implications are. The properties may not be sold 'off-the-plan'. This policy essentially addresses the problem of uninformed consumers being taken advantage of by informed builders, by informing them rather than the government making decisions for them. The standards may include minimum block size, minimum garden area, thermal and acoustic insulation etc.

As an example, the zone boundaries for Melbourne, with a population of 4.7 million, would be within a 5km and 8km radius of the CBD.

All zones:

For a short dead end street (or the end of a longer one), a narrower than standard road is permitted and encouraged, provided that inclined guttering is installed so that residents can park partially on the footpath. Pedestrians are to be assigned right of way on such streets.

Residents are to be given greater flexibility in planting trees or gardens on the footpath strip in front of their house.

Designated park areas are to be assigned where residents or council may plant food trees. These differ from conventional 'community gardens' in that they are intended to be for trees rather than intensively managed vegetable patches, are intended to be close to people's houses so that they do not have to drive to them, and are intended to be mixed use open space, not fenced off. Council may limit the number of each species of tree, may limit the permitted species to short ones, or may trim the trees to limit height and size (to make fruit such as mangoes easier and safer to access, and to prevent dominance of one tree over a large area). The trees are to remain communal property and no limitations are to apply as to who may pick the fruit, though guidelines may be applied to the quantity taken, and the fruit may not be sold or passed on to a different household. Any expectation of personal ownership or reward for effort is to be discouraged. Use of some fruit may be restricted to immediate, onsite consumption in order to promote sharing or more popular food. However, this is not intended to prevent the picking of unripe fruit such as mangoes - this is in fact encouraged to prevent waste and pest incursions. The parks are to provide a space for the dumping of green waste to be used as mulch.

Councils are encouraged to use the parks as an opportunity to inform the public of the range of food trees that can be grown in the area and to supply seeds for planting at home (eg, with clear labeling of trees). The inclusion of species that are not well known locally or unpopular commercially due to transport and handling difficulties is particularly encouraged. A 'use it or lose it' policy may be applied, whereby trees are removed if the food is left to rot. The food parks are intended to provide an opportunity for social interaction as well as food. Authority and management responsibility may be handed over to local clubs, provided that these basic guidelines are complied with.

I see you think Sydney lacks tall buildings ?

Again I suggest you actually come to Sydney to dispel some of these myths your perpetuating.

FYI the centre of Sydney is around Homebush, 2.7 million live in Sydney's west so any policy based on CBD will be an ash tray on a motor cycle.

Did you read the post before responding?

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 10:15am:

New policy announcement: http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/affordable-food-housing.html The Sustainability Party of Australia has a policy of making food and housing more affordable by removing some of the government restrictions that are pushing up house prices and preventing communities growing their own food. The housing policy applies to cities with over 1 million people. At the time of writing, this includes Sydney (5.0), Melbourne (4.7), Brisbane (2.4), Perth (2.0) and Adelaide (1.3). The policy divides a city into 3 zones: Zone 1, inner - within 3km of the CBD (add 500m for every extra million people): All 'community-based' limits to building heights shall be removed. Zone 2, mid - within 6km of the CBD (add 500m for every extra million people): All 'community-based' limits to building heights shall be removed within 500m of any train station or bus interchange. Zone 3, outer - beyond 6km of the CBD (add 500m for every extra million people), but within the 'commuter footprint': New housing that it not to standard on certain quality of life or running cost (ie, not safety) measures shall be permitted, provided that the house and land package is worth less than double the value of the unimproved land, and that the property is then encumbered with obligations to inform all potential tenants and buyers that it is substandard, and what the implications are. The properties may not be sold 'off-the-plan'. This policy essentially addresses the problem of uninformed consumers being taken advantage of by informed builders, by informing them rather than the government making decisions for them. The standards may include minimum block size, minimum garden area, thermal and acoustic insulation etc. As an example, the zone boundaries for Melbourne, with a population of 4.7 million, would be within a 5km and 8km radius of the CBD. All zones: For a short dead end street (or the end of a longer one), a narrower than standard road is permitted and encouraged, provided that inclined guttering is installed so that residents can park partially on the footpath. Pedestrians are to be assigned right of way on such streets. Residents are to be given greater flexibility in planting trees or gardens on the footpath strip in front of their house. Designated park areas are to be assigned where residents or council may plant food trees. These differ from conventional 'community gardens' in that they are intended to be for trees rather than intensively managed vegetable patches, are intended to be close to people's houses so that they do not have to drive to them, and are intended to be mixed use open space, not fenced off. Council may limit the number of each species of tree, may limit the permitted species to short ones, or may trim the trees to limit height and size (to make fruit such as mangoes easier and safer to access, and to prevent dominance of one tree over a large area). The trees are to remain communal property and no limitations are to apply as to who may pick the fruit, though guidelines may be applied to the quantity taken, and the fruit may not be sold or passed on to a different household. Any expectation of personal ownership or reward for effort is to be discouraged. Use of some fruit may be restricted to immediate, onsite consumption in order to promote sharing or more popular food. However, this is not intended to prevent the picking of unripe fruit such as mangoes - this is in fact encouraged to prevent waste and pest incursions. The parks are to provide a space for the dumping of green waste to be used as mulch. Councils are encouraged to use the parks as an opportunity to inform the public of the range of food trees that can be grown in the area and to supply seeds for planting at home (eg, with clear labeling of trees). The inclusion of species that are not well known locally or unpopular commercially due to transport and handling difficulties is particularly encouraged. A 'use it or lose it' policy may be applied, whereby trees are removed if the food is left to rot. The food parks are intended to provide an opportunity for social interaction as well as food. Authority and management responsibility may be handed over to local clubs, provided that these basic guidelines are complied with.

For what purpose?

::)

::) ::)

I have no idea what the housing crap is about, and the food/trees thing is kumbaya stuff.

Would you like to take a guess at the purpose of the policy?

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 10:20pm:

Would you like to take a guess at the purpose of the policy?

No.  Why must I guess?  It's not mine to explain or guess at.  Is it yours, Effendi?

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 8:07pm:

Did you read the post before responding?

Yes I did and is basis is flawed go fix it and stop perpetuating myths, you might be proud of it looks like turd to me.

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 5:56am:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Did you read the post before responding? Yes I did and is basis is flawed go fix it and stop perpetuating myths, you might be proud of it looks like turd to me.

I know you are going to try and bite me for saying this Fred but could you use some punctuation so as to make it easier to read your posts? You've lead me to believe you are educated and to pass through uni these things would be required. I'm not saying this because of this one post, it's serial and hard to read.



Quote:

Yes I did and it's basis in my opinion is flawed, go fix it and stop perpetuating myths. You might be proud of it but it looks like a turd to me.

Setanta wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 8:29pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 5:56am: freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Did you read the post before responding? Yes I did and is basis is flawed go fix it and stop perpetuating myths, you might be proud of it looks like turd to me. I know you are going to try and bite me for saying this Fred but could you use some punctuation so as to make it easier to read your posts? You've lead me to believe you are educated and to pass through uni these things would be required. I'm not saying this because of this one post, it's serial and hard to read. Quote: Yes I did and it's basis in my opinion is flawed, go fix it and stop perpetuating myths. You might be proud of it but it looks like a turd to me.

No freedope is not worth the effort

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 8:50pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 8:29pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 5:56am: freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Did you read the post before responding? Yes I did and is basis is flawed go fix it and stop perpetuating myths, you might be proud of it looks like turd to me. I know you are going to try and bite me for saying this Fred but could you use some punctuation so as to make it easier to read your posts? You've lead me to believe you are educated and to pass through uni these things would be required. I'm not saying this because of this one post, it's serial and hard to read. Quote: Yes I did and it's basis in my opinion is flawed, go fix it and stop perpetuating myths. You might be proud of it but it looks like a turd to me. No freedope is not worth the effort

FD is not the only one reading it. Do it for the greater good of the membership and the English language. If even that is a bridge too far, look at it as enhancing your message.

I can understand how restrictions push up housing costs.

I dont want to have Australian cities that look like shanty towns tho.

As for growing food, not many people can grow it cheaper than  the farmers are,,, the price hike comes from the middle persons. (see what I did there, cut out the sexism)

Setanta wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 9:08pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 8:50pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 8:29pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 11th, 2018 at 5:56am: freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Did you read the post before responding? Yes I did and is basis is flawed go fix it and stop perpetuating myths, you might be proud of it looks like turd to me. I know you are going to try and bite me for saying this Fred but could you use some punctuation so as to make it easier to read your posts? You've lead me to believe you are educated and to pass through uni these things would be required. I'm not saying this because of this one post, it's serial and hard to read. Quote: Yes I did and it's basis in my opinion is flawed, go fix it and stop perpetuating myths. You might be proud of it but it looks like a turd to me. No freedope is not worth the effort FD is not the only one reading it. Do it for the greater good of the membership and the English language. If even that is a bridge too far, look at it as enhancing your message.

He would have to read the post in order to mount a coherent criticism of it. A bit like Aussie, who cannot even guess what it says. In the other thread it appears that his favoured solution is for the government to build brand new cities from scratch, like the Chinese do. He could tell that my ideas were wrong by counting cranes on the skyline.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1520244851/68#68


Quote:

As for growing food, not many people can grow it cheaper than  the farmers are

I grow it, and charge myself nothing for it. It's almost as fun as killing my own food. The proposal is for free food. All it takes is for the government to get out of the way and allow it to happen. I can tell you that it already happens to some extent, but it is always working against the government. I was once even threatened by my local councillor over this sort of thing (in the politest possible way, of course).


Quote:

I dont want to have Australian cities that look like shanty towns tho.

I don't think many Aussies want to live in a shanty town either, and unless we become destitute for some reason, it is not going to happen. But, some people genuinely struggle to afford conventional, over-regulated housing. People in the city get the same minimum wage as people in smaller communities, but they pay a lot more for rent and have to spend a lot more time and money getting to work and back. Is it really such a bad idea to give them an informed choice of lower quality housing?

Paw freediver has dived in and hit his head on a snag!!!

juliar wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 7:17am:

Paw freediver has dived in and hit his head on a snag!!!

He has a weird attitude for some one self proclaiming political credentials very preachy and consistently inaccurate ..... he should just join the greens, they are the experts at that style.

What 'myths' am I perpetuating Fred?

Don't you want to talk about it any more Fred?

Squeezing more people into the cities will not work. It causes problems with congestion as more people squeeze into the infrastructure than its design capacity. It's not just roads becoming congested. Public transport becomes overcrowded, water supply may not have enough water pressure, the sewers may not have enough capacity. Fixing the infrastructure will be extremely expensive.

The policy says nothing at all about more or less people in the cities. Though more is pretty much inevitable.

If more people live within walking distance of the office, obviously you will have less congestion than if they have to commute 20km.

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2018 at 11:22am:

The policy says nothing at all about more or less people in the cities. Though more is pretty much inevitable. If more people live within walking distance of the office, obviously you will have less congestion than if they have to commute 20km.

I think it's worthwhile to explore alternatives.

Australia is the sixth-largest country in the world. The population density is three people per square kilometre, or about 12 people per square kilometre if we ignore the desert areas. Yet we're trying to squeeze half the population into less than half of one percent of the landmass.

Some of these areas are not well designed for high-density development. You only have to go into any area where large numbers of houses on quarter-acre blocks have been demolished and replaced with units or blocks of flats. Local streets all over the country are groaning under the weight of traffic that they were not designed to handle.

Instead of imposing high-density urbanisation onto suburban areas that were not designed for high-density living, we need to look at alternatives. Regional areas should be considered. Develop regional areas and connect them to the cities with reliable high-speed rail. Encourage businesses to relocate to regional areas with relocation subsidies. That will take the pressure off housing prices in a way that high-density development cannot.

There's no reason why we can't pursue both approaches.

No-one is forcing these people to live in cities. They choose to. And they could do it a lot easier if the government stopped interfering with their choices. I am not proposing the government go from banning high rises 5km from the CBD to forcing developers to only build high rises. They should be able to build whatever they think people want to live in.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 10:15am:

Designated park areas are to be assigned where residents or council may plant food trees. These differ from conventional 'community gardens' in that they are intended to be for trees rather than intensively managed vegetable patches, are intended to be close to people's houses so that they do not have to drive to them, and are intended to be mixed use open space, not fenced off. Council may limit the number of each species of tree, may limit the permitted species to short ones, or may trim the trees to limit height and size (to make fruit such as mangoes easier and safer to access, and to prevent dominance of one tree over a large area). The trees are to remain communal property and no limitations are to apply as to who may pick the fruit, though guidelines may be applied to the quantity taken, and the fruit may not be sold or passed on to a different household. Any expectation of personal ownership or reward for effort is to be discouraged. Use of some fruit may be restricted to immediate, onsite consumption in order to promote sharing or more popular food. However, this is not intended to prevent the picking of unripe fruit such as mangoes - this is in fact encouraged to prevent waste and pest incursions. The parks are to provide a space for the dumping of green waste to be used as mulch. Councils are encouraged to use the parks as an opportunity to inform the public of the range of food trees that can be grown in the area and to supply seeds for planting at home (eg, with clear labeling of trees). The inclusion of species that are not well known locally or unpopular commercially due to transport and handling difficulties is particularly encouraged. A 'use it or lose it' policy may be applied, whereby trees are removed if the food is left to rot. The food parks are intended to provide an opportunity for social interaction as well as food. Authority and management responsibility may be handed over to local clubs, provided that these basic guidelines are complied with.

This is an interesting idea, but it may be infeasible in many urban areas due to contamination of the soil. Lead is a particular problem. The past use of leaded petrol has spread lead contamination all around our urban areas and this has contaminated the soil. Food grown in urban areas may have lead levels that are too high for safe consumption. Other contaminants may also be present.

Any urban area that is to be used for food production must have the soil tested for the presence of these kinds of contaminants.

I think lead only contaminates food via dust getting onto fruit. It does not get soaked up by the plant internally.

Is FD running , what's your IR policy ?

We are still a long way from running a candidate. No IR policy at the moment.

Embrace the poor man's libtard , be the poor man's libtard , those crustaceans are lucky to have a job , trickle down for life

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2018 at 8:19pm:

I think lead only contaminates food via dust getting onto fruit. It does not get soaked up by the plant internally.

It depends on the compound. Most lead (II) salts are insoluble in water but lead (II) nitrate is an important exception.

I've had a look around and lead in suburban food does not appear to be a significant problem.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2018 at 11:10pm:

I've had a look around and lead in suburban food does not appear to be a significant problem.

It's significant enough that soil testing should be considered. Most urban areas do not have unsafe levels of lead and other heavy metals in the soil, but a few do. Areas most likely to be problematic are those near major roads, where lead paint has been used or that have been previously zoned as industrial.

Can you give some examples of this lead making it's way into food?

I know places like Mt Isa have major problems. The people who live there are told not to do any gardening at all I think. But it is the dust that is the problem.

Here is an interesting article on the topic. No mention of lead in fruit grown in urban areas.

https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/octobernovember-2009/reducing-lead-exposure-from-food/

I just want to be clear here. I am not in principle opposed to the idea of planting fruit trees in public parks.

I'm just pointing out that it is a good idea to be cautious. Lead contamination does exist in urban areas, as do other toxic contaminants. It would be prudent to test the soil and the environment for these contaminants before planting fruit trees or community vegetable gardens. Such testing would be far cheaper than the cost of dealing with the future problem of the health effects of eating contaminated food.

Even if lead doesn't get in the food, lead dust could be found on the food.

Some information here:
Safe Soil - Costa revisits the Gordon family with an expert on testing soil safety (Gardening Australia)

Lead Safe Community Gardening (lead.org.au)

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

Here is an interesting article on the topic. No mention of lead in fruit grown in urban areas. https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/octobernovember-2009/reducing-lead-exposure-from-food/

There may be limited information on contamination of urban fruit. There is more information on urban vegetable gardens which are more common.

Thanks for the links.