Letters

Counter Opinion on City Saturation.

I believe some response is necessary in respect to Michael Gormly’s opinion piece on
SCC’s Rubber Sword, as printed in City News on May 14.

Twenty years after its inception, the folly of an ‘Entertainment
Precinct’ imposed on a high density residential area is obvious for all to
see.   Kings Cross provides CBD workers with affordable housing within
walking distance of the city. A vast majority of people work in the day and
sleep at night.  That is what human biology programs us for.
Gentrification, perhaps, but all of us need assured levels of peace and
quiet.  Sydney City Council commissioned its own research into what was, and
is, an accepted principle internationally:  high levels of alcohol
availability lead to disproportionate levels of crime, violence and
anti-social behaviour.  When the local community (that is, the people who
deal with the impacts day in and day out) perceives these levels to be too
great, saturation point has been reached.   This can be objectively
validated by measures such as density of alcohol outlets, rates of crime,
related hospital admissions and the level of public funding necessary to
clean up the mess.  In the cases of Kings Cross, Darlinghurst, and city
centre, the evidence is overwhelming.  Individually and as a cluster, these
places experience the greatest number of alcohol related crime incidents in
NSW.

There is nothing novel or ground breaking about cumulative density
zones or saturation point.  In the UK, over the past six years, more than
100 cumulative impact zones have been created which presume refusal of all
new applications for liquor licenses or premises.  These are found in large
cities including London, Manchester and Newcastle, or in popular tourism
regions such as Torquay.  In New York in 2006, a moratorium was placed on
the granting of all new liquor licenses pending a tougher approach to their
approval.  Manhattan introduced a requirement that all liquor licenses be
submitted to local community boards prior to approval. In response to a
recent Victorian Government discussion paper on cumulative impact in
Victoria, the Australian Drug Foundation (ADF) and the Community Alcohol
Action Network (CAAN) welcomed the Government’s statement that “the most
significant aspect of this discussion paper is the acceptance and
acknowledgment of the connection between the numbers of licensed premises
in an area, and their operating hours, to the level of problems such as
violence.”  Whilst not ideal, guidelines are now in place in Victoria to
better manage cumulative impact.

Your reporter, Michael Gormly, is of course entitled to his opinion,
but if he wishes to critique Sydney City Council’s contracted research, he
needs to better inform himself of research findings in the areas of health
and urban development, nationally and internationally. Meanwhile, he remains
open to the criticism that he is prioritizing his own lifestyle above the
interests of the broader Kings Cross local community and the local police
force who put themselves at risk to manage the destructive cumulative
impacts of Entertainment Precincts, by what ever name.  There are many of us
who love the idea of a Kings Cross which is a little wicked.  We are
nostalgic for the days of naughty but nice – within the limits of the law
and without significant risks to our personal well being and safety.  No
city, global or provincial, vibrant or dull, would wish upon itself the
blight of Sydney’s Kings Cross.

Sue Hanley,

Darlinghurst.