Friday 26 February 2010

Somewhere over the northern beaches...

A northern beaches reader just emailed this snap that they captured as they drove home early yesterday evening.


hieronymus bosch said...

Ah, lovely.

It seems "not in my backyard" doesn't extend to rainbows for the northern beaches folk.

No wonder we're all itching for public housing to hurry up and finish being built!!

Sno Bono said...

I have been otherwise occupied doing other things, like jet setting and I have been unable to keep my eye on the ball, so to speak about local issues.
What this about Public Housing, have I missed something? Could someone kindly brief me on this subject?

dagwood dog said...

Don't worry Sno, blowhard Blake will fill you in, he knows everything.

Jude Johnston said...

It's not about nimbyism HB, it is more about the Govt overriding local Govt planning scheme, in this case the Cairns Plan.
The subject block in Palm Cove is zoned Tourist and Residential and if a developer wants to change it to something else then they would make an application for Material Change of Use and interested parties can make a submission.
If the Housing Commission is the owner of the land, and it has given the development rights to a developer, then one would expect that a development application would go through council to be voted on and approved and conditions set.
Secondly, the Housing Commission own criteria is not been followed, i.e Public Housing is to be
Close to services such as primary and secondary schools, shopping, public transport and medical services.
Yes there is public transport to and from Palm Cove, have you seen what it costs! This is not cheap transport.
Then there is the cost of the Units. How can the Govt justify spending what it must to build in the highest rated area in Cairns or doesn't the Govt pay rates. Surely this money could be far better spent in buying up ready built houses in areas where there are schools, shopping facilities, and doctors.

Al said...

What's that Jude? The Government overriding the Cairns Plan?
Have you read page 2 of The Weekend Post? You'll see that half our elected councillors are also seeking to override the Cairns Plan - even against the advice of the council's head planner. It's the same old 'Unity' remnants who would never allow a pesky plan to get in the way of a carving up more agriculturally zoned land in pursuit of a windfall gain for someone who has likely lobbied them. At least the Government has (in this case) some altruistic purpose.

hieronymus bosch said...

Actually it's all about nimyism. For example, the mob from Clifton Beach refused to help the mob from Kewarra Beach fight against the ridiculous 'aged home' development.

Moreover, the blather about not being near services is merely CODE and semantics for 'we don't want black fellas or dole bludgers in our suburb, after all that's why we bought here in the first place'. A turd with chocolate icing is still going to taste like shit to anyone with a reasonable IQ.

IMHO, the 'unfortunates' could learn something from the surrounding residents more so than lumping them into already 'shite' suburbs and slums. Teach them that corporate welfare is a valid form of welching but centrelink welfare really is a turn off.

As for the Cairns Plan, well, you should know better than anyone that it means nothing. Zoning means absolutely nada under a 'performance based planning scheme'. Plus the state govt can do whatever they like!

Jude Johnston said...

Yep I did read page 2 and it is the same old same old overriding the Cairns Plan.Expected from the usual quarter but again disappointed that Councillor Pyne voted with them.

It may be tilting at windmills, but unless we continue to speak out against inappropriate development then nothing will ever change.

HB, I would suggest that you do a bit more research before you make assertions that the "mob from Clifton Beach refused to help the mob from Kewarra".

This latest Public Housing stimulus package, appears to be a rushed "social experiment" rather than a well constructed plan to house disadvantaged people in suitable housing. Personally, I believe Public Housing should be in either duplex or single house, within a mixture of suburbs. A single house for a family surely has to be better than a cramped apartment. The accomodation needs to be in suburbs where their particular demographic is, so people can interact socially. Our street for example has a mixture of retirees, families, DINKS, (double income no kids, and a rental property which would be suitable for a disadvantaged family. To me building low set housing and duplexes with the stimulus money is preferable to handing it to a developer for a "social experiment". I do not have the confidence that the Govt has got it right. Just look at the insulation debacle.

Anonymous said...

Well said Hieronymus. You are spot on right.In the case of Earlville, "close to services" also means close to liquor outlets, gambling facilities and parks full of brawling drunks and petrol sniffers.How is that going to be beneficial ?
Spreading out social housing throughout the community, instead of creating ghettos, makes perfect is time that the wider community accepted some of the burden that is now being carried by a small percentage of the Cairns population.And why should occupants of Social Housing have better access to primary and secondary schools, shopping, public transport and medical services than the rest of us ?If transport to places like Palm Cove is an issue, then the Government should do something about it.

Bryan Outlaw said...


Close to liquor, gambling, their friends, and other n'eer do wells is what these people want. That's THEIR community. Those of us in the beaches have a right to keep our areas free of this kind of human detritus. The fact that most, but not all of them are "blackfellas" as you've pointed out is irrelevant race bating. Those of us that are productive members of society are the ones paying for this "social" (aka layabout) housing. We at least deserve to be allowed to put it where we think it will do the most good. For them and us.

AliG said...

Of course people have a right to complain about this sort of development. We paid premium prices for our properties and now they face devaluation due to inappropriate development. Of course not everyone in public housing fits the typical stereotype, but many do and that is why the stereotype exists.
The proposed site in Palm Cove is not suitable for those with a disability as there are not adequate foot paths. It is not suitable for families as it not close to schools. However it is only 100 metres away from a tavern with a bottle shop, gaming room and TAB. Hardly ideal.
Palm Cove is a luxury tourist & wedding destination and not the place for public housing.

Anonymous said...

I never mentioned any "blackfellas" and your 'us and them “mentality sums you up nicely. Earlville is also full of productive members of society and we should have a say in how much social housing is built in our midst, especially since we already have considerable issues with housing estates in neighbouring suburbs. Unlike the privileged people of the Northern Beaches, most people here accept some form of social housing. We just do not believe it should be concentrated in one area, but rather be spread out throughout the community. That way the disadvantaged and the unemployed could benefit by living so close to sophisticated, hard working role models like yourself. As for your beaches paradise; it is inhibited by plenty of white trash and many of them live in ordinary housing, but maybe you have not noticed from your ivory tower.
just because you got ripped off when you bought your up-market house, doesn't mean you should be able to control who lives in your street."The proposed site in Palm Cove is not suitable for people with a disability because there are no footpaths". Well, wouldn't it be a more constructive solution to build footpaths, rather than banning disabled people? Or do they devalue your neighbourhood? Who else do you want to exclude apart from the elderly, the disabled, the disadvantaged, the unemployed and families!

AliG said...

There is a great misconception that the people who live in Palm Cove and the northern beaches are privileged or elitist snobs. Many of us made sacrifices to buy in a more beautiful tourist area close to beaches. I could only afford a small unit here but I preferred that than being in an area further from the beach.
In response to the grateful mac, footpaths have been discussed many times but that would more than likely incur a large hike in rates which are already very high in Palm Cove. This suburb has many elderly residents and it would benefit everyone but we can only afford so much.
I currently have several friends who live locally and are unemployed. I understand the predicament of people in that situation. I have been unemployed myself. We are not against any group of people but we are against any sort of development which is not appropriate for a low level, luxury tourist destination.

Nikkiwi said...

As an Occasional Visitor to Cairns and the northern beaches let me just make a few points:

1) In its current incarnation, Palm Cove really has one main raison d'etre - to attract in affluent tourists and fleece them of as much money as possible. To that end, PC has lots of expensive resort hotels, expensive dining venues and expensive boutique shops selling luxury goods (as opposed to everyday essentials). It does not have the sort of facilities required for convenient everyday family living

2) Regardless of the snobbishness of not of the residents of PC, many of the kind of affluent tourists PC is seeking to fleece, WILL be snobs and WILL NOT want to have a "council estate" in their expensive playground. And unlike the residents of PC, they can and will take their tourist dollars elsewhere - to Port Douglas, to Surfers, to Club Med Noumea, or Tahiti, or on a cruise.

With the above in mind, surely putting a "council estate" type unit block in PC is sort of like taking the goose that lays golden eggs and serving it up as a Sunday roast....

I am sure there are many other affluent areas of Cairns and surrounds that are are better suited in terms of access to amenities than PC. I suspect that the decision to place these units in PC was made by some bureaucrat in Brisbane who just looked at a page of census information and has never been to or seen PC themselves. One wonders how many "council estate" type units are going up in Surfers....

Anonymous said...

According to a letter I just received from the Minister for Community Housing, there will be 10 one bedroom apartments built in O'Hara St. Earlville under the nation Building and Jobs plan.

Construction will commence in April without any consultation and building plans are not available for anybody to see.

From another source I have learnt that the apartment will serve as a half-way house for people recently released from jail.It is right next to a park where alcoholics,wife-beaters and petrol-sniffers roam freely and it within walking distance to a major liquor outlet and gambling facilities.

The member for Cairns knows nothing and tells us nothing.

i think the people in Palm Cove should stop whinging as their Social Housing is apparently intended fro low income hospitality workers. You got nothing to worry about. Having affordable housing in a tourist precinct makes great sense. The lack of affordable housing in places like Port Douglas and Palm Cove is one of the reasons why it is so hard to get staff to work in the 4 and 5 star resorts.