The Mr Fluffy saga is at a critical crossroad that presents a unique opportunity for creative and sensitively developed housing alternatives in Canberra's established suburbs.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
However, with the current business-as-usual approach of the draft planning proposals (DV343), this is very likely to be a missed opportunity.
The ACT government, having taken firm and decisive control of the buyback and eradication phases of the process, should not now outsource its responsibility for the redevelopment of these blocks. The current proposal to release the remediated sites to the market for dual-occupancy development leaves established single-dwelling neighbours feeling naturally anxious.
The planners' response is a watered-down set of policies that limits development to small, single-storey micro homes ("Micro homes for Fluffy blocks", June 26, p1), which are unlikely to address the need for alterative dwelling types in our established suburbs, particularly for the growing number of Baby Boomer downsizers who do not want to live in apartments and would like to remain in their community.
I propose that the ACT government develop these blocks in consultation with neighbours, particularly those Mr Fluffy residents who want to rebuild on their blocks. In doing so, the government could make use of the many talented architects who have shown their capacity to design sensitive and creative homes without the restrictive guidelines such as those being proposed: homes that could be a win-win for the owners and neighbours, create more work for the building industry, and that, when sold, would yield a much greater return to government coffers.
In addition, the flow-on effect of successful redevelopment could be a much-needed catalyst for a broader and more equitable extension of such policies to the rest of residential Canberra, so that we can all enjoy the prospect of remaining longer in our established neighbourhoods.
Allan Spira, architect, Lyneham
ACT scheme unjust
In Canberra, a Labor government effectively penalises Mr Fluffy home owners with a draconian, compulsory and inflexible scheme, where the government holds the whip hand and takes profits. Over the border in NSW, a Liberal government comes up with a flexible solution, where the home owner drives the agenda.
Every bone in my body screams at the injustice being perpetrated in Canberra.
Chief Minister Andrew Barr responds with a weak argument about scale, but the NSW liability is still open-ended.
One suspects two factors caused his lack of generosity: abetter, more costly, deal would have un-funded the tramway fiasco, and the ACT real estate industry (and government stamp duty) needed a boost.
I think I hear people waiting in rocking chairs on their front porches, baseball bats ready.
W.A. Brown, Holt
Who'll need the tram?
Uber public policy director Brad Kitschke is undoubtedly at pains to please the ACT government ("Uber sees link role in ACT light rail plan", July 2, p1), so much so that he has seemingly been influenced into making a wild statement in support of the light rail project.
Mr Kitschke says: "Uber can be an effective last mile for public transport." In other words, an Uber driver will come to the tram terminus in Civic at morning peak hour, on his way to Barton, ANU or Russell, to pick up some poor soul among 200 passengers who have just got off a tram.
The pair will then travel a kilometre or so ("the last mile") for a $5 fare. Worse still, on the way home, our friendly Uber driver is expected to drive into the centre of Civic to drop off this poor soul at the terminus. Maybe the Uber driver could be convinced to take this detour for a $10 fare. However, the Uber fare-paying passenger will then think, "I'll become an Uber driver". The result will be that there will be many Uber drivers offering to pick up passengers in Gungahlin suburbs, bypassing both the Gungahlin town centre and Civic, and there will be no one on the tram. Maybe Mr Kitschke is not so silly after all.
A. Smith, Farrer
Uber is quoted as seeing itself as "an effective last mile" for a light rail service ("Uber sees link role in ACT light rail plan", July 2, p1). However, it could equally well supplement a bus service. In a city like Canberra, the way to provide a public transport route that is quick, frequent enough for people not to have to worry about timetables, and does not require changing buses or trams on the way, is to have park-and-ride services from large car parks in the suburbs.
Uber, as well as standard taxis, could make such services considerably more effective, while self-driving cars are developed.
James Graham, Hughes
Light rail zeal silly
No doubt Ian Warden thinks he's being both amusing and incisive when he equates ardour to Canberra's proposed light rail to nimbyism. I can recall him being both amusing and incisive. I think it was in the 1980s.
How he can run this silly line in the face of incisive analysis by his erstwhile colleague, Graham Downie, is beyond me.
If Ian really feels compelled to believe in something as a matter of faith, could he please choose a harmless object of devotion?
R.F. Shogren, Barton
Liberals, get ready
John Furman (Letters, July 3) wonders about the lack of outrage against the unfair ACT budget.
I am quietly waiting for the next election. I hope that we will see a credible opposition that is ready and eager to take office with strong policies and a plan.
To speak out is a waste of time. The Labor-Greens alliance has not heard the voice of Mr Fluffy victims, nor the voice of light rail opponents. Those families who don't qualify for reduced rates are slugged several times over – more so if you live close to town centres and work.
Parking-fee increases are particularly difficult to absorb if you can't afford to live close to work and/or work long hours and/or have to do the daycare or after-school-care shuffle.
Car registration increases are making it harder for families to afford the two cars so necessary to balance work and family activities.
In the context of federal government fiscal tightening, it is hard to regard the local government with anything but contempt.
There is an election coming. Is the Liberal opposition ready?
Annette Shaw, Kambah
ABC show honours excellent biography
Congratulations to the ABC for its remarkable television presentation of Arthur Phillip: Governor, Sailor, Spy, based on Michael Pembroke's biography.
The program gave brilliant cover of Australia's founding father, who in 1788 managed to steer the First Fleet across the world in a pioneering journey of enormous span and risk and successfully establish a major colony of the British Empire at a remote outpost of the world.
A contemporary correlation, Pembroke said, would be to send a large company of unwilling individuals to settle on the moon.
His biography, Arthur Phillip: Sailor, Mercenary, Governor, Spy, was shortlisted for the Prime Minister's Australian History Prize in 2014, but unfortunately, my preference as a member of the judging panel to have this outstanding book share the History Prize with Joan Beaumont's Broken Nation: Australians in the Great War was overridden in favour of Hal G.P. Colebatch's Australia's Secret War. We are fortunate to have the ABC.
Ann Moyal, Bruce
No ballot fiddle
Tim Fischer should get his facts right about national service ("Playing god with nasho ballot", July 2, p6). Nobody in Canberra "played god [with people's lives]". The head office of the Department of Labour and National Service, where the ballots were conducted, was in Melbourne in the 1960s.
A family friend who worked there told me on the day of the ballot that my birth date had been drawn, leaving little time for geographic balances, rounding of the numbers or any other god-like fiddle.
I think Mr Fischer confuses the politically pliant and accommodating public service of today with the strongly independent public service of those very different days.
Frank Cassidy, Kambah
Marriage more about money and wealth than caring for children
Regardless of one's position, I do not think Senator Eric Abetz's arguments for preserving and protecting the institution of marriage ("Fight for marriage equality in Australia far from over", Times2, July 2, p5) was very convincing. He says the "institution of marriage has stood the test of time". I'm not sure how far back he is going, but originally (about AD1100 to AD1200), marriage became significant because it began to be the true vehicle whereby a man could legally own a woman who bore his children, so that his wealth would be controlled as he wanted it to be.
Despite what Senator Abetz says, polygamy was widely practised by wealthy men, and there were huge arguments at the time as to whether a man could legally marry more than one woman, so that he was still able to ensure that his wealth went where he wanted it. It was nothing to with love. It was about money and wealth. As we know, because the churches came into into the argument, monogamy became the law.
Senator Abetz also says "study after study [although he doesn't quote any], time and time again show that children benefit from having a father and mother".
No one can argue with this, but l find it strange that at present the divorce rate is soaring. If the government is so concerned about children, why dies it lock them up in detention centres?
Marriage was never about the children. Marriage was about money.
Geoff Barker, Flynn
What a strange article by Senator Abetz. He criticises the United States Supreme Court's decision supporting a constitutional right to gay marriage on the basis that "social policy should be determined by the people, not by dubious interpretation by an activist judiciary". But the majority of people in the US do support a right to gay marriage, so I am left unclear about why he thinks the court's decision is wrong, given that the result would be the same under his preferred model.
I am also unclear why he thinks the US constitution should be interpreted, not by the court the constitution itself appoints for that task, but by the people in accordance with their current whim. Is the US now to be a nation of polls rather than laws?
Greg Pinder, Charnwood
ABC criticism tedious
John Warhurst's comments ("Seeking an elusive balance", Times2, July 2, p1) are refreshing to those like me who find the constant sniping and occasional barrages of criticism of the ABC tedious in the extreme.
Attempts by conservative politicians, commercial media organisations and right-wing commentators to polarise opinion on topics such as the ABC, national security and refugees by labelling those who disagree with them lefties or unpatriotic is more of a commentary on the critics than those they criticise.
Too often, critics of the ABC arrogate to themselves some form of moral high ground, when they are straitjacketed by their own ideological narrow-mindedness.
Like Professor Warhurst, I am not a great fan of Q&A and rarely watch it, largely because it is boring. The panellists are mostly politicians trotting out their well-worn political cliches and party lines or those with axes to grind. The studio audiences come over as hand-picked cheer squads for one or other panellist or cause.
Nevertheless, the ABC is a media outlet, which we as a nation should value, playing as it does a key role in Australia's media landscape.
It is sad that the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and many of his colleagues and campaigning media outlets of like mind have resorted to such intemperate language to criticise the ABC. It is they, not the ABC, who are no longer connecting with what Professor Warhurst terms "middle-of-the-road" Australians.
Jonathan Hayes, Hughes
I seldom defend News Corp or its writers, but Ian McFarlane (Letters, July 3) is off course in criticising Paul Kelly over his comments on Q&A. He is right to raise the virulent anti-ABC stance of the Murdoch press, but Kelly is also right when he claims the Zaky Mallah episode was a "gotcha" moment.
As a former ABC current affairs producer, I am increasingly disturbed at the trend towards such moments on Q&A and 7.30. One of the problems is they seldom work.
Unfortunately, in a quest for larger audiences (not really the ABC's prime function), such stunts also dumb down the ABC through a degrading of its own journalistic standards and ethics. Worse, they give free kicks to ABC haters.
Yes, the ABC is being wedged into trying to gain higher ratings to help justify its existence, but it would do better to ensure that it strives even harder to maintain the highest standards in all its programs, especially its flagship current affairs. That way it will be much harder to criticise.
Eric Hunter, Cook
Attack fuelled furore
How sensible that Ray Martin is going to head an inquiry into Q&A ("Martin to audit Q&A after terrorism furore", July 2, p3). I am sure he will find out how a perfectly appropriate and respectful question from Zaky Mallah resulted in Senator Steven Ciobo saying he would like to throw him and others like him out of the country. The question was legitimate and had Senator Ciobo engaged in the ideas behind the question instead of making a personal incendiary attack, it would not have led to Mallah's observation that it was that attitude which could lead others to wanting to fight in Syria.
Judy Aulich, Giralang
They might warm to it
Hugh Tyndale-Biscoe's suggestion (Letters, July 2) to replace the comfortable term global warming with the more appropriate title lethal heating was excellent.
He suggests that one reason the government has been unwilling to take preventive measures might be the costs of addressing the issue, which would be political suicide. This might be underestimating the Australian public. If Australia began to play its proper part in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gases, following the lead of the US and China, this might suit the public mood better than he thinks.
Harry Davis, Campbell
TO THE POINT
SPENDING SPREE
Before the election, the Liberals were having a typical debt and deficit hissy fit about the cost of an office chair. Now, in power, they allow $8.8 million to be spent on the Prime Minister's official residence ("Lodge costs blow out to $8.8m", June 30, p1) and millions of dollars on politician's offices. The age of entitlement has only just begun for some.
C. Lathbury, Fadden
AMBIGUITY IRKS
Shame that Bible, er, aficionado Paul Christie's letter (July 2) was pretty much the definition of ambiguity. We were left wondering whether Christie meant that our estimable citizen Peter Moran is as thick as a brick or whether he meant to attach that epithet to the Pope. Not to worry, most readers would quickly have decided who fitted the bill.
Clive Banson, O'Connor
Paul Christie (Letters, July 2) seems to accuse me of being anti-Catholic, bigoted and a pseudo-intellectual, that I hate Tony Abbott and George Pell, and that I'm not a thinking person. Phew! I've never met Mr Christie, but I readily confess to oneof these.
Peter Moran, Watson
MONEY COMES FIRST
I do hope that Adrian Gibbs or The Canberra Times do not receive an invoice for $200,000 regarding Adrian's pertinent (or impertinent) letter (July 1) for defaming (or displacing) the Treasurer's first priority of pursuing the cult of money in our ultra-capitalist society.
Bryan Furnass, Hughes
NAZI PARALLELS
How fitting that border security should choose black uniforms that so closely resemble those worn by the Gestapo and SS who persecuted unwanted people and ran the Nazi concentration camps. Am I the only Australian who sees the parallels?
Mark Hartmann, Hawker
FOREST OF FLAGS
Has Peta Credlin been replaced by breeding pairs of the national flag? Clusters of these patriotic symbols stand to attention behind "the one who pretends to be king", and they don't even nod in sync with his words. Are we now competing with the United States' forest of the same?
V. Lauf, Bungendore, NSW
SMUGGLER EULOGISED
Gee, the government is going to be pretty ticked off with The Canberra Times when it notices that half a page was devoted to eulogising a self-confessed people smuggler ("Children's rescue kept secret for years", July 3, p9). Whose side are you on?
Laurene Edsor, Bungendore, NSW
Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.
Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).