23 March 2011

More hypothecated revenue for the bush capital?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
9

The ABC has the worrying news that the normally sensible ACT Environment Commissioner Maxine Cooper is planning to propose a special “environmental levy” in her upcoming Canberra Nature Park report.

Apparently we have 800 square metres of bushland per person compared to Brisbane with 130 square metres and Melbourne with 61

Personally I’d quite like to be cut down to 200, some apartments built on the other 600 square metres, and no levy if it’s all the same to you Maxine.

Join the conversation

9
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Think about it Maxine, at 200m per person there will be less lawn mowing, weed and pest control needed. Higher density also means more viable public transport options and revenue from rates from the same area. It isn’t all doom and gloom.

with the added benefit of the next generation (and the current one) having the chance of owning a house.

…how about we let Stanhope pay for his own arboretum and use the money saved to maintain the Parks, Gardens and Street trees we already have ?

If Maxine Cooper had any sense of history, she would know that the Stanhope government has already rejected proposals by her office of hypothecated revenue on the basis that governments don’t do that.

Do we can aspire to sit level with other Australian capitals in terms of recreational and inspirational environmental surrounds? I doubt it, its what sets Canberra apart in a good way. If the levy is reasonable and means better management and care of the Canberra Nature Parks estate, I’d support it.

What is the justification for Canberran’s paying for vacant bushland in the nation’s capital particularly where the ACT Government has no control over that land (eg in NCA jurisdiction)? Hasn’t this bushland been preserved for the benefit of the nation?

I know it’s a bit of a long bow (and probably outside the intended domain of RIOTACT) but I already resent the proposed Federal levy for Qld flood victims when the Federal Government generally has no control over planning, development and construction in the States. I think I read somewhere today that the Qld Gov’t is planning on releasing land for development in more flood prone areas.

Does that include the huge part of the ACT allocated as National Park that us nasty humans are discouraged from entering?

Joe Canberran said :

Lower house prices, land tax, rental costs, etc and I’ll happily pay a levy. I like the amount of bush we have here. If I wanted to live in a metropolis I would have moved to one.

The ACT could safely reduce the size of some appropriate areas of nature parks or open space, still have plenty of bushland and not resemble a metropolis. A slightly more condensed Canberra would reduce urban sprawl, provide housing for people closer to where they work and could encourage more on to public transport as it wouldn’t take an hour on a bus to get anywhere. Would it really be that much of a loss to lose, for example, a small section of Bruce Ridge Nature Reserve near the Ginnindera Drive end or some open space on the southern end of Bindubi Street for a resonable housing development? There would still be plenty of bushland around Aranda and Black Mountain or futher out Namadgi way for people to enjoy.

georgesgenitals1:09 pm 23 Mar 11

I guess it depends on how the levy would be collected, and how much it would be. Will it be added to rates? If so, just another upward pressure on rents…

Joe Canberran12:51 pm 23 Mar 11

Lower house prices, land tax, rental costs, etc and I’ll happily pay a levy. I like the amount of bush we have here. If I wanted to live in a metropolis I would have moved to one.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.