Mel Yuan for Brunswick

This is my presentation to the Brunswick Residents Network candidates forum of 2016. While the purchase of 2 new parks for Brunswick is transformational, the open space “system” is still broken.

~~~~~~~

Time is short, so I will try and use it wisely.

Today I want to make the case against developing Council car parks for housing.

State statutory authorities like VicTrack and Melbourne Water are disposing of “surplus” or “under-utilised” land.

This means that land we have taken for granted as public open space is being sold on the open market for development or back to us, ratepayers.

We are having to pay to retain existing open space but the overall area of public land is decreasing. The cost for this is being borne by ratepayers.

An example of this is Melbourne Water’s sale of land in Hopetoun Avenue Brunswick West with council paying $1million to retain a small portion of the reserve and developers paying $6million for the rest.

With increasing housing density there is consensus about the need to create NEW open space.

Developers pay their Open Space Contribution to make this a reality.

In effect, these costs pass from Council to Developer to Owner to Renter.

People who live in new developments have already paid, in advance, for new open space.

Now, there is something like $25million available for strategic purchases of new open space.  This allows council to buy new strategic reserves of land, but what land? and for how much?

Car parks are located in strategically important sites, being land purchased or set aside in close proximity to shopping and services.

On a site-by-site basis, arguments can be made for their relative utilisation.

However, these sites follow the Brunswick and Coburg Activity Centres up Sydney Road and so are exactly located in the heart of the planned and actual increase in housing density.

A casual glance at the urban heat island effect map will also show that this same corridor is the “hot backbone” of Moreland.

These car park sites are our future, new open space.

If we allow council land to be developed at non-commercial rates they cannot be realised for financial gain nor can they be fully developed for the common good.

Ratepayers, who bear the cost of these decisions have a triple whammy:

• pay to retain existing but reduced open space
• paying in advance for Open Space not yet purchased but in all likelihood bought for commercial rates, plus
• potentially forgoing commercial rates for the sale for development of car parks – if long-term leasing arrangements are entered into at favourable rates
• but the most significant cost is the opportunity cost of losing our future open space