Horse 3358 - NIMBYism And Red Tape Both Fall Into The Hole

Tell me what you see here.

Do you see eight Federation-era houses built between 1904 and 1910? Do you see a little brick alcove accented by brick columns with doric tops? Do you see a house with a neat little archway covered in vines? 

No. Of course you don't see any of those things because they no longer exist. What you actually see is a great big hole in the ground which will likely become underground car parking for seven condominiums. I do not want to say words like 'flats' or 'apartments' because this is Mosman and you do not use common words like that, for fear of accidentally standing in a poverty. 

This hole, this glorious hole, very much represents the Sydney property market and the debate about housing in Sydney. There is a popular argument on the right which says that there is too much red tape which stands in the way of housing development and an equally popular argument on the left which says that NIMBYism is the cause of housing woes. Both sets of arguments fall headlong into this hole, this glorious hole; which eats both of them.

The argument that there is there is too much red tape which stands in the way of housing development, fell into this hole. Red tape did not stand in the way of demolishing these eight houses; red tape fell in the hole. Heritage orders which might have prevented the houses from being demolished, or preserved their facades, did not stand in the way of demolishing these eight houses; heritage orders fell in the hole. Objections from nearby residents who longly and loudly complained that this would ruin the character of the area, with their Not In My BackYard spirit did not stand in the way of demolishing these eight houses; NIMBYism fell in the hole.

What the right refuses to admit and which the left can't wrap its head around, is that any and all arguments will fall in the hole as soon as enough money is waved at the issue. Mosman Municipal Council which is famous for being glacial in its decision making process, can and will roll over at the thought that someone with enough money wants to do a thing; and as this case in Myahgah Road proves, will instantly do so at the first available opportunity when enough money is waved at the issue.

NIMBYism, if it in fact exists as a barrier to development at all, while it might be thrown up as a temporary objection by a few residents, will ultimately fall into the hole as soon as someone with enough money shows up and wants to do a thing. The unspoken truth is that local councils, while they may appear to acquiesce to NIMBYs, don't actually care an iota about them. NIMBYs, as indeed all ratepayers, exist to pay council rates and once every four years wield the power of the ballot box. For unelected people on local councils, the power of the ballot box is irrelevant, as indeed are NIMBYs.

The thing that is unspoken here about any argument to do with NIMBYism, is that it comes from the same suite of attitudes as those which motivate local councils. Except in cases of obvious environmental concerns, or perhaps where there are genuinely buildings of actual heritage importance, NIMBYism is not primarily concerned about the built environment at all. NIMBYism and its close relative BANANAism (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything), are little more than weaponised selfishness; sometimes not even masquerading as concerned about the character and quality of the local area. NIMBYism when reduced to brass tacks can be headlined by the banner slogan "Cuss You, I've Got My Own."

NIMBYism is purely about landed power maintaining that landed power; which very easily explains why when enough money is waved at the issue, it collapses like a flan in a cupboard. NIMBYism correctly recognises that money itself, is the means to more power, which NIMBYism secretly admires.

This is what the left finds so difficult to understand. Generally speaking, the economic left wants to wield the power of government to achieve larger projects. When faced with NIMBYism, the economic left flagellates itself and blunders about from side to side like brainless sheep because that's what the left always does when faced with power that it does not want to understand. Have you noticed that when it comes to government wielding the power of government to achieve larger projects, that those larger projects always seem to be achieved? Yet again, when NIMBYism tries to as a barrier to development, when faced with the power of government it must invariably fall into the hole because someone with easily enough money to do a thing has shown up and wants to do a thing. This is why very big projects like motorways, railways, and airports, always eventually go ahead, even when governments are glacial in their decision making process.

So when I hear comments that red tape prevents government from building housing for people of lesser economic means, or comments that NIMBYism prevents government from building housing for people of lesser economic means, I think and I know that it is complete and utter poppycock. One only needs to take a train through Sydney and see either story apartment blocks to realise that the statements are rubbish. Very clearly someone with enough money or power was able to build these apartment blocks as evidenced by the fact that these apartment blocks exist. To that end, I say to the people on the economic left who face NIMBYs, the fight needs to be had because NIMBYs can and will be beaten; if not by government projects, then by private projects with enough money.

When I hear comments from NIMBYs that development is going to kill the character of an area, I wonder to what exactly they are objecting to. The reason why they live on quiet streets is because there are no kids on the streets and nobody in the parks. The reason why their local corner shops no longer exist is because there is nobody walking about to buy things. A fun thing to do when you read about a group of NIMBYs in the newspaper, is to go on Uncle Google's Maps' Street View and go on a virtual tour of the area in question. What you very often find is that the character of an area which NIMBYs want to preserve has actually already been and gone and what is left, is a mausoleum to a fantasy which existed 50 years ago. Generally speaking development doesn't kill the character of an area, as much as the vicissitudes of fate and time do. The actual character of an area, is what exists now; not some imagined fantasy of the past which might not have ever existed.

As Mosman Municipal Council which is a council full of very old money proves, both pretend objections about red tape and objections about NIMBYs both fall in the hole when enough money is waved about.