'Divorced from Parliament House': push for Canberra to become a National Park City

Have thought of just occasionally, that perhaps the happiest way would be is to leave the triangle in Fed hands, and the rest be a part of NSW.
Of course the small problem here is that NSW would never take on such a large lot of dysfunctional peoples ( Dear reader, not you of course .. I mean the others ).

Dr Paterson’s time and energy should be directed to issues of relevance to her constituents – such as traffic congestion in the Molonglo Valley and Weston Creek; lack of facilities in the Molonglo Valley (no shops and limited sporting facilities); poor planning and rapacious developers; poor public transport and increasing crime rates (particularly hooning). The National Park City project smacks of a make-work exercise developed by a Labor staffer in order to keep a backbencher occupied.

Funny how London is branded a “national park city” despite being one of the most polluted and grimy cities in the western world

Presumably, becoming a National Park City and therefore a forward-looking one would involve forward looking ideas. One would assume such ideas wouldn’t include driving ordinary people out of this city because it’s so expensive to live here. It may also involve not making the populace pay for expensive, yet out-of-date public transport options such as a fixed- line tram. You know the idea, ride the tram to somewhere then work for hours to get to where you’re really going. And almost certainly, I wouldn’t imagine a National Park City being founded on countless green-space destroying apartment developments; or a city with a crumbling hospital network as the centrepiece of our health system. How about a city with inadequate services resulting in a crumbling urban infrastructure for Canberra residents? Are these the sorts of concepts you see underpinning your National Park City Dr Paterson?