FW: THE UBIQUITOUS RATIONALE OF GROWTHISM - [NATIONAL NEWS 8793 - 2009, 29 JUNE] - Neighbourhood That Works

Message from discussion FW: THE UBIQUITOUS RATIONALE OF GROWTHISM - [NATIONAL NEWS 8793 - 2009, 29 JUNE]
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of akme.baum...@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.198 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.198;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=l6il82CNwqAcv4TBvgmdNlsfP3RWzfM/CHubp5yv06DXuoGbnM3U7ZPWWtNSIgxH2y
         +Jy4t5a1uldtwHQx7um0lUD5psYsKeJzi56uA4GPMYizdGI2Irn4PCaUAqYivNbOeELS
         RrQUHs1/h3pVJKCTI7o8iLFy4/EPEr/f5Hsec=
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <SNT113-W2972F23A58E9E5C59BCBA9D4...@phx.gbl>
References: <041f01c9f854$1af7ab70$0201010a@tsn01> <SNT113-W2972F23A58E9E5C59BCBA9D4...@phx.gbl>
From: Alex Baumann <akme.baum...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:32:45 -0700
Message-ID: <4a6a452f0906281932y38376ce5r54bad6b8e624c...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FW: THE UBIQUITOUS RATIONALE OF GROWTHISM - [NATIONAL NEWS 8793 - 
	2009, 29 JUNE]
To: neighbourhoodthatworks@googlegroups.com

Pull up the ladder Jack - It's a worry. The population issue seems to
be where the left and right sometimes converge...in the worst possible
way. They also converge on increased minimium wage and thus footprint.

Looked at from another perspective the responsibility to set limits
can be used for a limit to growth or limit to personal footprint
(income) issue. It would seem only a short step from there to say that
the Earth must be shared. It is often said that people wont accept
lifestyle change so population control is the way to go but this can
be turned on its head  - people wont accept population control either
and what is the ethical direction? Could a sustainable lifestyle be
attractive - even better????? ...back to the land issue.

Alex

2009/6/28 Chris Baulman <chrisbaul...@hotmail.com>:
> I got this from Garry Mallard. It outlines a catch-all case=A0for populat=
ion
> control - (by restricting immigration.)
>
> From what I can see it justifies itself by saying that "existing resident=
s,
> be they of a city, or a nation, have a moral right to set limits" -
> (presumably a right you get when you colonise, and a power to enforce=A0l=
imits
> which you only gain by setting up an alliance with a=A0nuclear power) ...=
. in
> order, as the article says,=A0to maintain a certain standard of living=A0=
and
> 'liveability'.
>
> Surely=A0there is a moral argument for sharing the earth and redistributi=
ng
> its wealth through immigration/ refugees,=A0but=A0we end up with have str=
ange
> bedfellows in the property lobby.The article=A0identifies the self intere=
st of
> developers and property investors in increasing demand through immigratio=
n.
>
> Chris
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: national.n...@thenexus.org.au
> To: national.n...@thenexus.org.au
> Subject: THE UBIQUITOUS RATIONALE OF GROWTHISM - [NATIONAL NEWS 8793 - 20=
09,
> 29 JUNE]
> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:54:01 +1000
>
> TSN NATIONAL NEWS
> PLEASE NOTE: THIS EMAIL IS DELIVERED BCC TO MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS]
>
> THE UBIQUITOUS RATIONALE OF GROWTHISM
> Monday, 29 June, 2009
> By Time Murray
> Online Opinion
>
> It=92s uncanny. Two cities on two continents, but =93growthists=94 in Van=
couver
> and Melbourne seem to be reading from the same playbook.
>
> Lance Berelowitz, an urban planner who chaired Vancouver=92s planning
> commission, praised the Mayor=92s so-called =93Eco-Density=94 initiative =
as the
> answer to the city=92s ever-increasing house prices. Given that between
> 800,000 to one million new residents are expected to come to Greater
> Vancouver in the next 25 years, it can be assumed that developmental
> pressures on the city=92s limited land base will steeply drive up land co=
sts.
> It follows then, that =93housing prices in Vancouver will keep going up,
> unless we substantially increase the housing supply to match the ageing
> demand.=94
>
> For Berelowitz it is unconscionable that Vancouver, currently representin=
g
> about 27 per cent of the metro area=92s 2.2 million citizens, continues t=
o
> throw up a kind of cordon sanitaire around its perimeter and not =93shoul=
der
> its load=94 by accepting its share of growth. To do this he offers severa=
l
> European solutions to shove more innovative housing units into the area. =
But
> what is interesting about his plan is that he failed to mention Vancouver=
=92s
> housing surplus. Between 1991 and 2006 Vancouver grew by 126,000 people w=
ho
> required 15,000 new dwellings to house them. But developers built 69,000
> units. According to activist Randy Chatterton, judging from BC Hydro
> statistics, 18,000 units are unoccupied, and MLS listings are up 26 per c=
ent
> while sales are down 10 per cent. Now there are seven unoccupied apartmen=
ts
> for every homeless person in Vancouver.
>
> =93Accepting our share of growth=94 is a standard line of urban planners =
and
> politicians. What they never reveal is their role in not only accommodati=
ng
> growth but promoting it. Developers build houses on spec. They are built =
on
> the expectation that compliant governments will continue to provide
> international clientele (migrants) and the monetary and tax policy necess=
ary
> to lubricate investment in real estate. It is a case study of Say=92s Law=
 -
> supply creates its own demand. Berelowitz never once thought to question =
the
> necessity for Vancouver to grow by 45 per cent in the next quarter centur=
y.
> He never thought to consult Dr Michael Healey=92s landmark 1997 study of =
the
> Fraser Basin ecosystem that recommended a halt to immigration and a
> Population Plan to defend the region and others like it from runaway
> population growth. That=92s because the ideology of urban planning is not
> growth-control but =93growth management=94.
>
> Former real estate developer and media mouthpiece Bob Ransford recently
> =93despaired=94 of those in Vancouver with, are you ready for this old ch=
estnut,
> a =93drawbridge mentality=94, that is, =93who think we can resist the glo=
bal flow
> of population and somehow sustain our lifestyle=94. One wonders what kind=
 of
> lifestyle Ransford imagines for the Vancouverites forced to live like
> sardines in a sardine can just so more migrants can move in and buy the
> bachelor suite closets that his developer friends would obligingly sell
> them. It seems logical that the law of physics would place a limit on the
> process of densification that Berelowitz, Ransford and the Mayor would se=
t
> in motion, but so far they have shown no apprehension of it. And the law =
of
> =93livability=94 would surely fall well short of that physical limit.
>
> One wonders how Ransford would behave if he were the last of ten passenge=
rs
> on an elevator that safety regulations set at ten. Would he hold open the
> door for more people in the lobby who wanted in because he feared being
> accused of =93Nimbyism=94 or having a =93drawbridge mentality=94? Would h=
e suffer an
> urban planner who insisted that the elevator could hold 12 or 15 people, =
or
> a real estate developer who sold tickets to more people than could safely
> ride on the contraption? Would he listen to a human rights advocate who s=
aid
> that every person of colour from another country had a right to jam on bo=
ard
> regardless of the elevator=92s carrying capacity because it was a matter =
of
> social justice? If it was a matter of profit, one suspects he would.
> Growthists can=92t grasp the concept that existing passengers, existing
> residents, be they of a city, or a nation, have a moral right to set limi=
ts.
>
> Ransford ices his argument with more tired clich=E9s. Clich=E9 number one=
: =93Our
> kids will not be able to afford to live in a city where no new housing is
> built.=94 Trouble is =93our kids=94 aren=92t buying that new housing. In =
Greater
> Vancouver 85 per cent of new housing is occupied by immigrants, while 70 =
per
> cent of new housing in other Canadian urban centres is occupied by =93new=
=94
> Canadians.
>
> Clich=E9 number two: =93If we halted growth we will have a real labour sh=
ortage
> with our rapidly ageing population.=94 Fact: the C.D. Howe Institute
> demonstrated that it would take an unsustainable immigration rate 28 time=
s
> higher than its present rate for the next 50 years for Canada to maintain
> its present age structure. Postponed retirements and higher productivity
> will greatly lessen the impact of this over-hyped bogeyman.
>
> Lastly, Ransford recruited the words of retired planner Peter Oberlander =
who
> said that compact settlement patterns were an inevitable feature of urban
> growth especially where we were committed to preserving agricultural land=
.
> =93The city is humanity=92s supreme achievement=94, he maintained, in dis=
missing
> fears about continued growth. Apparently Oberlander never heard of the
> failure of =93smart growth=94 in America or the compromise of British gre=
enbelts
> by developers or he might be less confident in his =93compact settlement
> patterns.=94 And when it is recalled that a Greek polis was ideally imagi=
ned
> to consist of 5,000 citizens, one shudders to think that today a city of
> five million is considered a =93supreme achievement=94.
>
> In a speech that could have been ghost-written by any of the aforemention=
ed
> Canadian growth-a-holics, Premier John Brumby of Victoria spoke of his
> government=92s plan to =93manage growth=94, because you see, growth is in=
evitable,
> and growth projections must be treated as, if anything, =93pessimistic=94=
, i.e.
> conservative. Thus Melbourne is going to grow at least 44 per cent by 203=
0,
> with 6.2 million people by 2020. =93Demographer Bernard Salt has projecte=
d we
> will regain our title (sic) as Australia=92s largest city within 20 years=
.=94
> Note that the Premier treats a population growth plateau like a sports
> trophy to be raised aloft in triumph. Melbourne will regain its =93title=
=94 like
> Mohammed Ali regained his title against George Foreman. Similarly when
> Victoria was =93losing=94 people in the 1990s, presumably the state of Vi=
ctoria
> was a =93loser=94. But now =93the exodus has been turned around and peopl=
e are now
> voting with their feet in favour of Victoria=94. It is as if Premier Brum=
by is
> fighting an election campaign and people moving to Victoria are casting a
> vote for him. A commonplace illusion among Premiers, Governors and Prime
> Ministers
>
> But he does acknowledge the strain that in-migration places on
> infrastructure and states that a million extra residents will require
> 380,000 new houses or apartments. Given Melbourne=92s growth rate, he pro=
jects
> only a 17-year supply of land, and housing affordability, planning and
> supply issues demand full attention. He confesses that =93the faster we g=
row
> the greater the demand on land supply=94. Yet the one option that Brumby =
will
> not consider of course is to lobby the federal government for a severe
> cutback on immigration. Out comes a variant of Canadian Clich=E9 number t=
wo:
> =93we are facing a skills gap of 123,000 jobs over the next decade, which
> could curb our ability to benefit from the climate change economy.=94 Vic=
toria
> attracts 27 per cent of Australia=92s skilled migrants, and Melbourne 25 =
per
> cent of migrants of all categories. It is curious that the Premier would
> think that the importation of workers would be key to fighting climate
> change, when research clearly indicates that the best climate change
> fighting strategy is reducing population growth.
>
> Certainly the Vancouver experience leads one to question the party line o=
f
> housing lobby groups that releasing more land is requisite to housing
> affordability. Australian Property Monitors operations director Michael
> McNamara argues that =93demand for housing is extremely flat and develope=
rs
> haven=92t been able to sell the projects that they=92ve got, let alone la=
unch
> new projects - so we totally dismiss the argument that releasing more lan=
d
> on our cities=92 outskirts is going to affect affordability=94. ANZ Bank =
senior
> economist Paul Braddick says =93there is no strong evidence to suggest th=
at a
> lack of land supply has been driving up prices. The proof of that is hous=
e
> prices have gone up across the board - indicating it is not just land
> availability that is the culprit here.=94 Macquarie Bank analyst Rory
> Robertson attributes the fact that city house prices have grown 75 per ce=
nt
> faster than wages in the past 20 years to a halving of interest rates, th=
e
> halving of capital gains taxes in 1999 and massive immigration which chos=
e
> to settle in the eight capital cities.
>
> Of relevance here is a study done by Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy of Mona=
sh
> University in 2003 entitled Migration and the Housing Affordability Crisi=
s.
> While the authors acknowledge that Melbourne=92s housing price spiral =93=
cannot
> be attributed to recent migration levels,=94 they qualify their statement=
 with
> significant findings. =93The impact of migration varies sharply by metrop=
olis.
> For Sydney the share of household growth attributable to net migration in
> 2001-2002 is 47.8 per cent Migration makes the next biggest impact in Per=
th
> where it is projected to contribute 33.5 per cent of household growth, th=
en
> Melbourne where it constitutes 28.6 per cent of growth in 2001-2002.=94 B=
y
> 2021, however, migration will account for 63 per cent of Melbourne=92s
> household growth.
>
> =93Developers and builders are already heavily dependent on immigration t=
o
> sustain their activities in Sydney. Within a decade those operating in
> Melbourne and Perth will be dependant on immigration for nearly half the
> underlying household growth. This will apply to Australia as a whole by 2=
021
> when 48.4 per cent of household growth will derive from overseas migratio=
n.=94
> It is in this context that the idea advanced by population sociologist
> Sheila Newman that property developers are key lobbyists for the country=
=92s
> ecologically suicidal policy of high immigration becomes very plausible. =
As
> Birrell and Healy state, =93It is no wonder that the housing and property
> industries in Australia are so keen for high migration=94.
>
> That immigration has a crucial impact on housing affordability is not
> immediately apprehended in any correlation of housing price increases in =
six
> major Australian cities with a given volume of migrant settlers. From 198=
9
> to 2002 Sydney increased 30.7 per cent, Melbourne 20.5 per cent, Brisbane
> 45.8 per cent, Perth 23.5 per cent Adelaide 28.1 per cent and Canberra 34=
.8
> per cent. What must be understood, however, is while certainly investors =
and
> speculators played a major role in the housing price spiral, immigration
> boosted their confidence, and without that the spiral would never have ta=
ken
> off. That is why, Birrell and Healy explain, Sydney=92s housing bubble
> remained the strongest, for even if immigrants demanded mainly rental
> accommodations, =93this is still vital to investors if they are to fill t=
heir
> properties with tenants=94.
>
> =93In the case of Sydney, the intuition of residents and some politicians=
 that
> immigration is a factor in the housing affordability crisis, is correct. =
The
> absence of the immigration component of household growth in Sydney would
> significantly reduce the underlying gap between demand and supply. There =
is
> little doubt that a reduction in the national immigration intake would
> improve affordability in Sydney.=94
>
> The authors conclude by saying that =93Immigration is an important underl=
ying
> factor shaping growth in demand for housing prices because of its role in
> household formation =85 By 2021, according to our projections, the migrat=
ion
> component of household formation in Sydney will be around 75 per cent, in
> Melbourne and Adelaide 60 per cent and in Perth 54 per cent=94.
>
> As a rule of thumb, according to Albert Saiz of the University of
> Pennsylvania, =93an immigrant inflow of 1 per cent of a city=92s populati=
on is
> associated with increases in average rent and housing prices of about 1 p=
er
> cent .=94 (Journal of Economics, Volume 6, Issue 2)
>
> By that token then, immigration has added 18 per cent to the price of
> Vancouver real estate, or to put it another way, it has reduced the suppl=
y
> of housing stock available to resident buyers and the price mechanism has
> adjusted accordingly.
>
> The logic of growthism calls for an increase in supply, for more housing
> units through more density and/or the release or development of more land=
.
> The logic of common sense, however, calls for a decrease in demand, that =
is,
> a decrease in tax incentives for real estate investors and speculators an=
d a
> reduction in migrants.
>
> Whether it be Vancouver or Melbourne, throughout the Anglophone world, th=
e
> issues are the same, cloaked in the same euphemistic code language of
> growthism. The choices are ours to make.
>
> About the Author
> Tim Murray blogs at (We) Can Do Better. He is Director of Immigration Wat=
ch
> Canada, and Vice President Biodiversity Canada which he co-founded. Tim i=
s a
> member of Sustainable Population Australia, the Population Institute of
> Canada and Optimum Population Trust UK. His personal blog is at
> sinkinglifeboat.blogspot.com.
>
> http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3D9020
>
>
> ________________________________
> Fired-up about something you've read?=A0 Remember, now you can share your
> views, robustly and anonymously, with an audience of your colleagues and
> peers via the National TSN's new weekly opinion bulletin, THE RIMFIRE
> REVIEW.=A0=A0 For more information, contact the coordinator (contact info
> below).
>
> ________________________________
>
> The National Tenant Support Network (National TSN) is an independent,
> unincorporated not-for-profit initiative delivering a range of services t=
o
> social and affordable rental housing stakeholders throughout Australia an=
d
> New Zealand. These services have been delivered consistently and without
> charge since 1988.=A0 The National TSN gratefully accepts donations (larg=
e &
> small) and in-kind support.=A0 If you would like to make a contribution y=
ou
> can do so, anonymously if you wish, through any St George Bank: ACCOUNT
> NAME:=A0 National Tenant Support Network - BSB 112879 (Bega) -=A0 ACCOUNT=
 NO:
> 003215120, or by mail: PO Box 517 Bega NSW Australia 2550.=A0 For further
> information contact the Coordinator, Garry Mallard, on (02) 6492 0355, Mo=
b:
> 0412 249 218, email: gmall...@thenexus.org.au
>
> Your feedback is valuable!=A0 Contact the national Tenant Support Network=
:
> T...@thenexus.org.au Coordinator: Garry Mallard
>
> UNSUBSCRIBING: If you wish to unsubscribe to the list/s send and email
> including the word 'unsubscribe' in the subject field to t...@thenexus.org=
.au
> from the address you are subscribed under. Please be certain to stipulate
> which lists you are cancelling your subscription to.
>
> NATIONAL TSN BULLETINS COPYRIGHT=A9G.MALLARD
>
> ________________________________
> Make ninemsn your homepage! Get the latest news, goss and sport
> >
>