Shortcomings in regional planning
In an article headlined ‘Aussie planning among “worst”’, the Baw Baw Citizen drew timely attention to shortcomings in regional planning.
According to RMIT professor Michael Buxton, ‘The Clyde area has some of the world’s worst development model. You will not get worse anywhere in the world than that.’
Not worse, perhaps, but not bettered in Berwick and Pakenham: ‘It’s suburban sprawl of another kind, and there’s no need for it.’
Warragul and Drouin are headed the same way. Notwithstanding recommendations that the towns should never be allowed to meet up, ‘the council and the government approved large scale urban development of the metropolitan type’.
Prof. Buxton also points out the absurdity of allowing ‘a regional centre like Warragul to expand …. while building a two-line track in the metropolitan network’.
Outside the towns, ‘it’s a matter of maintaining the rural landscapes and farming options for the future’. Recalling good regional planning in the 1970s,
Prof. Buxton comments: ‘Governments made the hard decisions and amalgamated blocks and prevented all these lots from having houses built upon them’.
By contrast, if implemented as it stands, Baw Baw Shire’s Rural Land Use Review (presently being reconsidered by councillors) would encourage alienation of small farm-zone lots for dwellings associated only with marginal agricultural uses, which are likely to revert to lifestyle use anyway.
There is a very limited amount of good agricultural land near Melbourne. Its value for food production will increase greatly with population growth and climate change.
‘The cities which squander those wonderful resources, as we are, are going to rue the day’, the professor concluded. So too will rural shires seeking short-term gain – mostly privatised – at the expense of the public interest in long-term sustainability. John Hart, Warragul marriage equality and how it is changing society, although it would make interesting reading and fill a full three pages of The Gazette
What I will do is point out that the subject of marriage equality] is a myth. Which is not surprising as the demands of marriage equality[ proponents are nearly all myth as this one is.
John Duck has blessed us with many of them A typical example is that 67 per cent support marriage equality.. The result of a survey that I received last week showed 37 per cent supported marriage equality.. Unlike John, I keep up to date and don't parrot what other people say.
The fact is they are demanding marriage inequality, so let me explain with some facts, as opposed to emotive rhetoric which is the weapon of choice for those demanding marriage equality].
Marriage equality means that everyone and anyone can marry not just two men or two women. Is this what they are demanding? A resounding no! They are demanding that homosexuals and lesbians be allowed to marry homosexuals and lesbians.
Is that equality? If you believe that you will believe anything. Marriage equality means anyone can marry anyone, not just homosexuals and lesbians.
For it to be equality, a 60 year-old. has to be allowed to marry a 14 year old. For it to be equality, a man can marry three women.. For it to be equality, a man can marry a boy. For it to be equality, I can marry my son. For it to be equality, my wife can marry my daughter. None of these scenarios are as weird as two men or two women wanting to marry.
The next time you read about or hear someone talk about marriage equality], do yourself a favour and see it for what it is. A demand for marriage inequality, especially under the rainbow banner, as they are definitely only interested in homosexuals and lesbians being allowed to marry.
If it happens, the demand for men to marry boys will eventually happen.
The demand for two homosexuals or two lesbians to marry is a myth called marriage equality so let's call it what it is...marriage inequality. After all, you can't fool all of the people all of the time as my and John's surveys show.
Roger Marks, Drouin