Mel Yuan for Brunswick

There is no doubt that “A park close to home” represents the current term of Council’s most important and long-term policy achievement. Significant gaps were identified in the Moreland Open Space Strategy (MOSS),  developers contributed to a Fund for open space, and Council has subsequently acquired land for new parks.

However, this is necessarily a one-off model, as it has significant flaws.

The Developer Contribution Fund provided developers with a “get out of jail free” card on open space. Developers could simply trade-off provision of open space in their developments with a contribution to this fund. However, this has not stopped developers – via the residents of their developments – for putting their hand out for more Council-funded streetscape improvements adjacent to their development sites.

The cost of this “developer” contribution has been simply passed on to purchasers, pushing up the price of units. In turn, investor owners have passed this on to renters, pushing up rents. Higher property prices then lead to higher rates.

While MOSS identifies areas of low open space provision, this was done way back in 2012 and since then, the flurry of development has increased density and the pressure on open space even more. These investments are a “catch-up” on long-term underprovision of open space.

Not every parcel of land is suitable for a park. At the time of its purchase, it was widely reported that the premium paid by Moreland Council was significant. This is entirely reasonable and to be expected. However, this, in turn, pushes up surrounding property prices – due to the increased amenity of the park and the increased scarcity of land for other uses. Leading therefore to increased property prices and increased rates.

Land for a park was never going to come for free, but this approach is a highest-cost alternative and one that we will all end of footing the bill for.