So, you're the sustainability party. Are you into sustainable food? Sustainable energy (using *real* technology) ? Sustainable internet?

I assume the answers to the above are yes. But, what about land use? That presents quite a quandry, doesn't it? Should we keep allowing our cities to sprawl, or try and condense them? After all, allowing more land to be developed relieves pressure on the inner city - which can't be sub-divided forever. But, it also puts pressure on farmland etc.

So, what's the party line on this?

Quote:

which can't be sub-divided forever

I disagree with this. I see no limit on how dense city populations can be. If there is, we are nowhere near it.

Also, farming makes up 99% of our land use problems. Urban sprawl is a problem for the quality of life of people who live in those cities. The farmland thing is a non-issue. Water use is the far bigger issue in Australia, and cities will always win that battle, because they place a far higher value on water.

I think we should remove restrictions on the density of inner city development. There is a fairly organised group in each major city that opposes dense developments in suburbs within a few km of the CBD. This leads to situations where you get multi story accommodation buildings further from the CBD than dilapidated old Queenslanders. I am not suggesting we force these people to sell their homes to developers - merely that we do not allow them to use council regulations to prevent their neighbours from doing so.

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

So, you're the sustainability party. Are you into sustainable food? Sustainable energy (using *real* technology) ? Sustainable internet? I assume the answers to the above are yes. But, what about land use? That presents quite a quandry, doesn't it? Should we keep allowing our cities to sprawl, or try and condense them? After all, allowing more land to be developed relieves pressure on the inner city - which can't be sub-divided forever. But, it also puts pressure on farmland etc. So, what's the party line on this?

Developer ay!

fascinating

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 8:42am:

Quote: which can't be sub-divided forever I see no limit on how dense city populations can be. .

couldn't agree with u more  :D

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 2^nd, 2018 at 7:29am:

freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 8:42am: Quote: which can't be sub-divided forever I see no limit on how dense city populations can be. . couldn't agree with u more  :D

Not even the person you half-quoted agrees with you... that's why you only half-quoted him!

The US is the world’s biggest food exporter.

Find out which country is the second biggest. You will be astounded!

Value of Food Exports (US Dollars)


1 United States $149,122,000,000.00
2 Netherlands $92,845,387,781.00
3 Germany $86,826,895,514.00
4 Brazil $78,819,969,000.00
5 France $74,287,121,198.00
6 China $63,490,864,000.00
7 Spain $50,960,954,460.00
8 Canada $49,490,302,612.00
9 Belgium $43,904,482,740.00
10 Italy $43,756,176,567.00
11 Argentina $37,171,872,677.00
12 India $36,730,472,555.00
13 Indonesia $35,388,703,128.00
14 United Kingdom $32,254,855,325.00
15 Australia $31,983,827,777.00
16 Thailand $30,847,701,710.00
17 Poland $27,695,284,096.00
18 Malaysia $26,007,912,734.00
19 Mexico $25,096,945,000.00
20 New Zealand $24,349,794,600.00
21 Viet Nam $21,735,449,502.00
22 Denmark $21,257,823,712.00
23 Russian Federation $19,774,507,828.00
24 Turkey $17,758,630,434.00
25 Chile $16,969,836,538.00





source: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-american-food-giant-the-largest-exporter-of-food-in-the-world.html

Sustainability Party is my new party of choice

The reason I'll be giving it my vote is it's emphasis on halting or severely curtailing immigration

Aussies can't afford families because they can't afford housing.  And trade agreements have stuffed employment

The recent big jump in population, according to the media, is due to immigrants

Big cities crammed with cramped shoe-boxes which  take a lifetime to pay off are far from the housing of choice for most - although Lucy Turnbull tells us we have to, just because

We used to be largely self sufficient in this country.  We produced what we needed and sold the surplus.  People had backyards and room to breathe.  They were employed

International forum had a massive thread about reduction in quality of life in the US the other night and Americans were saying what Aussies are saying.  Someone posted stats going back to the 1950s when unemployment applied to those who could not or did not want to work.  One man's wage paid the mortgage, the car payment, the bills, kids education.  And some left for holidays and savings

All blamed the same ills: free trade agreements and immigrants

So I'll be voting for the Sustainability Party along with Dick Smith and millions of Aussies who previously gave their votes to PHON

Would you like to run as a candidate?

Governments are fixated on making everybody pay more for everything. The only thing they are interested in the sustainability of is their cash flow.

House owners should pay more than apartment owners because they require more infrastructure and services.

I ask the questee-on:
Is Sustainability a cop-out on Profitability?

More importantly though.
In regards to 'city-sprawls' - well, having been part of the Sydney Construction scene. It's nothing to do with 'need for housing' - its just a get rich quick scheme to build as much as possible, regardless if people live in them or not (demand).

The Govt is about to introduce, or it has already - anyone wishing to immigrate to Australia (via perm Visa) must NOT live in the capital cities. They must move directly to Regional centres to alleviate the already FULL (No Vacancy) cities.

Quote:

In regards to 'city-sprawls' - well, having been part of the Sydney Construction scene. It's nothing to do with 'need for housing' - its just a get rich quick scheme to build as much as possible, regardless if people live in them or not (demand).

Someone ends up losing a lot of money if no-one lives in them.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

Quote: In regards to 'city-sprawls' - well, having been part of the Sydney Construction scene. It's nothing to do with 'need for housing' - its just a get rich quick scheme to build as much as possible, regardless if people live in them or not (demand). Someone ends up losing a lot of money if no-one lives in them.

Only if the boats are stopped.

It's obvious by recent events that Australia's Economy was NOT SUSTAINABLE in the event of a CRISES.

https://i.imgur.com/tGLcjHu.jpg