|
|
No justice for the homeless Dear Sir, If you attended last week’s Ryde City Council meeting you may have been excused for thinking that justice prevailed and the democratic process worked. Ryde residents presented a strong case to Council in support of Clr Bill Pickering’s motion which council endorsed 8-4. Residents outlined reasons why the proposed social housing developments for Ryde where undemocratic, fundamentally unfair and should be stopped. The developments were said to be: inconsistent with the environment, too few car spaces, lack of genuine consultation with the community, not complying with Ccouncil’s own LGA development guidelines etc. All speakers to the motion commented that they were not against social housing, nor social housing tenants - to admit so would be a breach of discrimination laws. Citing a high percentage of RAID membership from social housing tenants and other particular links with social housing tenants is good. However, it shouldn’t surprise anyone, that given the choice between a four-bedroom home and a two-bedroom unit, most public housing tenants would opt for the house - hardly a useful argument. One councillor suggested Housing NSW sell up their properties in Ryde and develop more sites in the west - social housing tenants definitely not-in-my-backyard type of selfish thinking. At one point Clr Pickering actually dared to suggest that the proposed developments were an injustice to social housing tenants who deserved to live in four-bedroom stand alone dwellings just like the rest of us, and, only affording them a two-bedroom unit (even if it’s for a single over 55) was discriminatory. This absurd line of discussion completely misses the point.; the whole debate missed the point. No-one was prepared to look at things from the perspective of those most marginalised - the homeless. Those living on the margins, in the streets, under bridges, in refuges (or if they have the luxury - sleeping on couches in someone’s living room). It saddens me that Council has chosen to listen to the inconvenienced few rather than act on behalf of the hundreds of thousands who have nothing or nowhere to live (unit or not). We as a city needed to take the bigger picture view that our minor inconvenience could mean the difference between life and death for a homeless person waiting years for social housing - we didn’t. Clr Pickering mentioned that he grew up in social housing - what an incredible privilege. A privilege it seems he is not willing to afford those on our waiting lists. I can’t help but wonder if it were our mother, our daughter or relative in these circumstances (requiring social housing due to homelessness) whether the collective voice of our city may have been against the motion. We live in a great city. Surely we are a city of excellence. Surely we could’ve been “big enough” for those most desperate, those with out a voice, the homeless. I for one am not convinced that because a 100 plus good people of Ryde (ratepaying, law abiding citizens, happy with the status quo - which includes hundreds of thousands of homeless people), some of whom are my friends, have achieved real justice. Sadly, I don’t believe that true democracy (where those without a voice are provided for) has won through. We (Ryde) could’ve been great and we weren’t. CRAIG STEPHENS Profit from parks not development Dear Sir, Ryde MP Victor Dominello recently aired his concerns regarding development of concentrated public housing units in Sydney’s west and the capacity of streets to comfortably accommodate new tenants without disturbing the peace. I wondered what his response might be to the intended additional development proposed for the Shepherds Bay waterfront at the end of Bowden Street. Although a relatively small development, four floors, it’s planned positioning takes it all the way to the water’s edge with only a small walking/bike path for public access to one of the Parramatta River’s only views of the open waterway. With the building of so many apartments in the suburb and surrounds, which has been a great success for the area, surely the additional and growing population, many of which are young families, would benefit from as much open parkland as is possible to secure. The Meadowbank playing fields to the west and the park and newly erected play gym to the east have been a great success, but the Shepherds Bay development on which the ferry wharf plays centre stage is to be left without its crowning achievement to urban planning. Within five years the remaining Northbank industrial estate will be sold for development and there will be ample opportunity to build at a price that won’t cost the entire community of its open space, the very space the future residents of that development will need and thank us for. Ryde has a fantastic opportunity to make a decision that will benefit its community for the next 100 years. If we must think profit, then a park rather than a development will lift the profile of the bay, the property values will rise further, the bay becomes a preferred suburb of the inner west, the rates will follow and council makes there money for the long term. It’s an investment. BRIAN LONG Call for McKew to speak out Dear Sir, The stand-off that exists between Bennelong MP Maxine McKew and local community groups regarding inappropriate development is easily solved. Rather than remaining silent Ms McKew should come forward and reiterate to her constituents that she is in fact a supporter of urban consolidation. If she were to do this, the community she represents would understand why she was unable to support them in their campaign to seek appropriate development in Ryde. Community groups would cease asking Ms McKew to support their cause and would simply consider her stance on development when they next cast their votes at the ballot box. ELEANOR CHAINE |
|
Send your Letter to TWT TWT welcomes letters
from our readers. Fill in form below and send it to us. |
|
| TOP | |