Planning reform will rout NIMBYs

Greg Barns says the state’s new planning laws fix the balance between the rights of landowners and those against development

THERE has been bipartisan political support in Tasmania for more than a decade for a statewide land use regulatory regime.

The Hodgman Government is right to pursue it and one hopes that its political opponents would not stand in the way.

Furthermore the Hodgman Government was right to refuse to buckle to the pressure from the precious citizens of wealthy Battery Point who are uncomfortable with the idea of the marvellously innovative Airbnb having a foothold among them.

Once you give in to one group of well-heeled and incessant lobbyists then the reform that is the statewide planning scheme will collapse.

Tasmania’s land-use regulatory regime has been a honey pot for lawyers, planners, lobbyists and Not In My Back Yard types for a number of years.

That is what happens when you allow every local government to have its own set of rules about land use.

The cost is borne not just by developers but by the community as a whole because interest groups can distort outcomes by pressuring local government representatives.

When the ALP was in government it began the process of moving to a statewide scheme so as to reduce this mess, and the Liberal Party has completed the work.

The idea of a statewide planning scheme is that there is greater certainty for all who use land. It is about equity. This is why resisting the “gated community” of Battery Point and its ridiculous complaints about Airbnb is important.

Roger Douglas, the man who saved New Zealand from economic oblivion in the 1980s, made the point that when you embark on a reform, avoiding caving in to special interests is critical.

After all, if Battery Point can get a special deal, why not Burnie or Strahan? How is it fair to reward the rich and influential?

If we want a society where we encourage innovation, economic growth and diverse neighbourhoods then any planning scheme has to be limited in reach and impact.

Whether the statewide planning scheme achieves this aim is a separate issue.

It is heavy-handed planning schemes that allow individuals and community groups to object to lowincome housing in neighbourhoods, small businesses or to higherdensity living developments, which of course curtail urban sprawl.

The statewide planning scheme is better than the existing model, but it still provides the state with too much power over land use. Take, for example, the rules concerning the construction or development of visitor accommodation.

The scheme says that such accommodation “must not cause an unreasonable loss of privacy to adjoining properties; be of a scale that respects the character and use of the area; not adversely impact the safety and efficiency of the local road network; and not unreasonably disadvantage owners and users of rights of way”.

Such vague notions are an invitation for NIMBYs to stop development and to prevent residents operating Airbnb from their home.

Planning schemes and land use regulations are a curse in Tasmania and throughout most of the western world.

As Professor Edward Glaeser from Harvard University has noted recently: “Reforming local land use controls is one of those rare areas in which the libertarian and the progressive agree.

“The current system restricts the freedom of the property owner, and also makes life harder for poorer Americans. The politics of zoning reform may be hard, but our land use regulations are badly in need of rethinking.”

Substitute Tasmania and Australia for America and his statement rings true.

Therefore one should be very wary about articulate entertainers and activists opposing even modest efforts like that of the Tasmanian Parliament, to reduce land use regulation.

Those who attended last week’s launch of an alliance to oppose the statewide scheme do not appear to have considered the social and economic imperative of allowing multi-density living in inner urban areas so that homeless persons and those stuck on dreary and blighted housing estates in the suburbs can have a choice about where they live.

This new alliance is simply an example of the bourgeoisie selfishly opposing any perceived threat to their property values and their Garden of Eden fantasies.

Tasmania needs to allow landowners more say in how they use the plot they own.

The statewide planning scheme is a start in that direction, but we should aim for a day when the planning rules are now more than a few pages and where we truly allow for the chaotic and energetic jumble of diverse neighbourhoods.

Remember this: Despite the claims of its proponents, government regulation generally helps those who use it to create barriers to entry. In the area of planning this is particularly so, because it is the moneyed and politically savvy types who protect their patch. Greg Barns is an Australian barrister, author, political commentator prison reform advocate and former political candidate based in Hobart.