Policy justified with nonsense

When asked to justify the 25 acre minimum lot size in the outer northwest, politicians and bureaucrats have a range of responses in their armoury. All have one thing in common: they're nonsense.

Here's some examples. Remember, these have all been provided by council or state government politicians and bureaucrats as reasons for maintaining the minimum lot size at 25 acres, and denying owners the right to subdivide their properties to 5 acre allotments.

"Your land needs to be preserved for agricultural use."

Ignores the facts

• This is an example of land in the area. It's obvious to anyone that it is unsuited to farming. It cannot be used for any agricultural purpose, and never has been.
• No-one in their right mind would consider paying $100,000–$200,000 per acre for this type of land to use for agriculture, when real farmland is available not far away from the city for 1/100th the price.

Inconsistent

• Studies show that just 5% of the entire area is suited to agricultural activities. Most of that 5% is either already covered in medium density housing, or earmarked for future urban development.

"A variety of other rural uses may be viable."

Ignores the facts

• Landowners in the area have spent the last 150 years trying every imaginable rural activity.

• The only use that has succeeded, and the best use for the land, is lifestyle residential living, which does not require a 25 acre minimum lot size.

Irrelevant

• This point is so general it could be applied to any land anywhere.

"The strategy does not support further subdivision."

Circular argument

• "The strategy does not support further subdivision because the strategy does not support further subdivision".

Merely restating what the strategy is, over and over again, does not amount to a reason.

"The strategy seeks to balance the communities wishes with the requirements of state government and conservation of biodiversity."

False

• The strategy almost completely ignores the wishes of the community, but fully complies with the requirements of the state government and conservation of biodiversity.

"Water tanks are not considered appropriate as the sole source of permanent water."

Ignores reality

• Many people in the area and all over Australia rely on tank water. Some prefer it. It works just fine.

Irrelevant

• Parts of the area already have a town water supply.
• Large lot lifestyle residential developments have gone ahead in at least 4 other city fringe areas without reticulated water within the last 10 years. Residents in those areas have been happy to accept this.

"Demand for rural residential lots is created by supply. If we cut off the supply, there will be no demand."

Illogical

• It is supply which is created by demand, not the other way around.
• While no doubt authorities believe they can control demand by regulating supply, the laws of the market are stronger. Demand is a reflection of consumer preferences. Shutting down supply simply raises prices. It does not reduce the demand.

"Subdivision will place more strain on the infrastructure, and create more congestion"

Illogical

• Congestion is caused by decisions about where public money is spent, not subdivision itself.
• Development and greater population makes large amounts of funds available for improving infrastructure. It is only if these additional funds are not spent within the area they are generated, that there will be more strain on the infrastructure, and more congestion.
• It could just as easily be argued that congestion is caused by lack of subdivision, because there are too few in the area to fund the required infrastructure.

Inconsistent

• Why isn't this same argument applied against the policy of urban consolidation that has been imposed upon Sydney for the last 50 years?

Irrelevant

• Congestion and strain on the infrastructure does not occur in areas that are subdivided to 5 acre lots. It occurs in areas where housing densities are at least 20 times higher.
• The maximum number of additional lots that could be created in the area that the community wants subdivided to 5 acres is only a few hundred.

"There will be a loss of amenity for rural dwellers if we allow subdivision to 5 acre lots."

False

• There will be a gain of amenity for those living in the study area if subdivision is permitted. That is the primary reason residents want the ban lifted.

"Rapidly expanding urban areas will have dire environmental, social, and financial consequences. Containing expansion is more sustainable and coincides with people’s needs for a greater variety of housing..."

Emotive dogma

• If this were true, then no-one would live in large cities. The reality is that urban areas expand because that is what people prefer, rather than living on top of each other in high density developments.
• It is just as easy to argue that the ideology of "containing expansion" has just as many dire environmental, social, and economic consequences. One only needs to visit some of the more densely populated areas of Sydney to find evidence.

False

• Containing expansion provides less variety of housing, and does not coincide with what people want.

"There would be high capital costs to the council and government agencies to service the initial development.

False

• Those currently building in the area must pay for all major capital costs themselves, including the costs of providing reports, electricity, sewage disposal system, and water supply. There are currently no significant capital costs borne by any council or government agency.
• Other statements in studies of the area state that all costs of development must be borne by those subdividing, including levies for any additional infrastructure improvements.

Inconsistent

• The local council has stated on other occasions that all costs of development must be borne by those subdividing, including levies for any additional infrastructure improvements.