Privatise everything, sell off the parks

BY ANDREW WOODHOUSE

I’VE just had an epiphany. The sort of lightbulb moment you get at 3am in bed or under the shower. So how’s this for a brain-wave?

Since New South Wales receives about 30-40% of its income from real estate stamp duties alone, the total revenue from the multitude of other sources is relatively scant.

At the same time, the cost of administration, public servants, education, police, the judiciary and roads and hospitals are rising exponentially with our ageing population. This could be me soon with the (dangerously high-speed) $5,000 “delux celebrity” electric mobility scooter with its “feature-rich reclining Captain’s seat”. Whoa!

We’re getting older and sicker and, frankly, more expensive to keep alive. So do we legislate for compulsory euthanasia? No. Or perhaps cut off all medical cancer research and other crippling killer diseases to keep the average population younger? No.

Well, what then? My solution and modus operandi are simple, just as modest genius often is!
Firstly, flog off anything that doesn’t make a handsome profit, such as housing commission properties in Millers Point or the heritage-worthy Sirius building in The Rocks. Sell the lot. They can live elsewhere.

Secondly, save costs. Refuse to increase staff in much-need areas such as front line police in Kings Cross or school rooms with no air-conditioning and ramp up classroom sizes as well.

Thirdly, sell current public assets which might make money such as energy infrastructure and freeways, or build new West Connex-style roads ones that are saleable. Bituminise the landscape and never mind about bulldozing parks or areas in Surry Hills or Haberfield. Demonise objectors as NIMBYs.

I’m half-expecting newspaper ads offering heritage rooms for the night in Parliament House. After all, they’re hardly there and can use Skype, email and video conferencing to name-call and can cast votes electronically.

Fourthly, dispose or lease whole government departments that do make money such as the Property Information Services Department, which guarantees land titles. And while we’re at it, let’s shrug off and get rid of another loss-making division or anything under the government’s Crowns Land Act.

Yep, let’s get rid of parks and gardens, wholesale. Management costs can be completely eliminated. There’s no financial return let alone profit in this musky, cob-webbed, billabong department.
I do jest but with this current state government, they may be reading this piece for pointers.

Or just give all responsibility for these outdoor spaces away. But to whom?
Local Councils that’s who, with a gold carrot to let them do they want with them.

Mark me as skeptical or even cynical: who really trusts council to do right by us?
Would you buy a used car from council? No.

State government propaganda on the Crown Land website touts: “All transfers of local land to local councils will be voluntary and there will be no forced transfers.”

So can this phrase magically make things better – or worse? Government claims their idea will “streamline management”. I agree. It will be streamlined into oblivion. But they say “the Minister is required to have in place a community engagement strategy that sets out community engagement procedures and standards.” Of course he will.

The standards are written by him, for him, approved by him and with him in mind but with one eye on the state’s bulging coffers.

All this is based on a false premise: a previous dodgy government review written by them, for them, with them in mind whose conclusions just happen to favour them. They trumpet: “there was some support for the local land transfer concept … not all crown lands need to be retained and managed by the State Government”.

No blade of grass is safe in Sydney. Even beaches, swimming pools, community centres and libraries on crown land are threatened.

The finer detail in the Act, section 4.6, states “The Minister may, by notice … vest specified transferable Crown land in a local council if:
(a) the land is wholly located within the local government area of the council, and
(b) the council has agreed, and …
(d) the Minister is satisfied … the land is suitable for local use.
(2) The regulations [decide] the criteria to be applied in determining whether … land is suitable for local use.”

So who decides the regulations defining “local use?” The minister, of course. So are high-rise apartments a local use? Yes, developers can say they are on local land, used by locals and benefit locals.

Councils are rubbing their grubby hands in anticipation, especially those financially struggling.
Locals are being duped. And what will state government do with this cost saving?
Build more suburb-destroying, saleable, money-making tollways?

Perhaps they’ll resume high rises and build them through former crown lands and parks, thus proving the hidden raison d’être for these changes.

Andrew Woodhouse is President, Potts Point and Kings Cross Heritage and Residents’