The weekend before last, I doorknocked Lindfield residents in the Transport Oriented Development sites. No question that TOD is a problem bigger than the cost-of-living for people in these neighbourhoods.
One resident told me "I've had to sell up; I've had no choice. My neighbours on either side are doing it and I don't want to be left here between two six-storey blocks, so I've swallowed hard and four of us [adjacent neighbours] will be selling up our properties together.”
Another said "I completely understand that we need higher densities around existing infrastructure such as train stations, but I want my kids to be able to live nearby and do you reckon they are going to be able to afford a three-bedroom apartment for over $2m? Guess who's profiting from this government initiative? It's not the next generation."
Lindfield alone is slated to absorb nearly 6,000 new homes in the next 5 years. Gordon and Killara are expected to fit in over 5,000 homes each, while nearby Roseville will have to squeeze in over 6,000 new homes.
I want to get on the record, that most people I speak to know we need more homes, and more affordable homes, in our suburbs. They also understand that these homes have to be built around existing infrastructure.
We know we are incredibly lucky to live in Sydney's green heart, with its leafy suburbs, access to national parks, heritage streetscapes and small shopping villages. And we insist that decision makers value that, by making sure new developments are well built, and add to, rather than detract from, our local environment.
What's really on the nose is the uncertainty of what happens now – who is making decisions, how and when. Across all three levels of government, there has been a failure to inform, engage and bring people along.
And what’s even more frustrating is that there has been no discussion about the services that are needed for all these new homes. Nothing about traffic planning or public transport, schools, affordable housing, even how waste will be handled. Nothing. The government seems to just want property developers to sort all that out.
How do they think that’s going to end?
I’ve heard about situations where neighbour is pitted against neighbour. And where vulnerable elderly citizens have been told the government will forcibly acquire their homes.
On Wednesday evening I sat in on a forum in Gordon Library hosted by The Better Cities Initiative and the New Democracy Foundation. Over 100 people gathered to hear community advocates discuss ways that Ku-ring-gai residents could be part of delivering better planning and housing outcomes that work for all.
By the end of the end of the night - the message was clear... most people know higher density is inevitable and are ready to carry their fair share.
But they want to make informed decisions about what’s most important and what they hold dear about living on the north shore.
Future plans need to take into account affordability and business needs, but also inter-generational housing, biodiversity, climate change, accommodation for people fleeing violence, and making sure people with disabilities can live and thrive in the community. What's most important is that all three levels of government commit to work together for the people and not against them.
These are difficult problems, and there’s no simple answer that will satisfy everyone, but we expect our elected leaders will listen to what our community really wants.
Bradfield deserves better.
In today’s Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Koziol reported on recent information about the maximum quotas that Sydney’s TOD impacted suburbs are intended to accommodate.