"Yes Minister" live

On 12 September 2006 I attended a research seminar at the Sydney University Institute of Transport and Logistic Studies. The well-attended seminar featured one of the directors of NSW Department of Planning. The presentation provided a sobering real life example of the the BBC TV comedy series "Yes, Minister".

The speaker told us about the plans, strategies, committees, subcommittees, objectives, targets, performance indicators etc etc of the strategic planning section of the department but not one word about what the results of all this are likely to be in practice. During questions my upraised hand was ignored for 25 minutes but eventually had to be recognised when there were no others raised. I asked what realistic benefits can the public expect from the deparment's strategies, bearing in mind that after 15 years of urban consolidation we have suffered horrific high-density impositions, slower and less frequent trains, increased traffic congestion, higher housing costs and an economy going backwards. With regard to a centres policy, I referred to the seminal Stockholm failure of the 1950s and asked whether the department can point to a successful example anywhere in the world. Without a blink the question was non-answered by saying that the public have an opportunity to input their opinions at public briefing sessions. The implication is they have no idea and do not care what the results will be. I might add that I had been prevented from attending any of the briefing sessions referred to.

Thus was I reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby, the senior bureaucrat in the "Yes Minister" series. To him and like-minded bureaucrats the results of government policies are completely irrelevant. It is the bureaucratic creations themselves that are important. In one "Yes Minister" episode Sir Humphrey enthusiastically described his department's magnificent achievement of a new hospital with all its staff and up-to-date equipment. It was pointed out to Sir Humphrey that the hospital still had no patients. He was most pained at this observation - whether the hospital had patients was completely unimportant.

So it is with the NSW Department of Planning. Staff are running around creating a bureaucratic edifice, buttressed by an opaque wall of spin. They can provide no example of a successful result of their policies. They can provide no shred of evidence to show that traffic will improve or the environment will be better. In fact all the evidence I have come across points to the contrary. But to these bureaucrats the outcome for the public is completely and utterly irrelevant. All that matters is the process.


Tony Recsei

Letters printed - September

Daily Telegraph 14 September 2006

Clean air sacrificed in the crush

Your article on smog is a withering indictment of the Government’s urban densification policies ("City smog kills 1400," The Daily Telegraph, September 12).

Concentrating more people in a given area means more cars in that area and more congestion. This will cause more air pollution than would be the case with low density.

The smaller area available for dilution and dispersion will overwhelm any increase in public transport usage. High density is not good for our health.

Tony Recsei, Warrawee

Letters printed - September

Daily Telegraph 14 September 2006

Clean air sacrificed in the crush

Your article on smog is a withering indictment of the Government’s urban densification policies ("City smog kills 1400," The Daily Telegraph, September 12).

Concentrating more people in a given area means more cars in that area and more congestion. This will cause more air pollution than would be the case with low density.

The smaller area available for dilution and dispersion will overwhelm any increase in public transport usage. High density is not good for our health.

Tony Recsei, Warrawee

===================================================================

St George and Sutherland Shire Leader 19 September 2006

Density dispute

V Giammarco asserts that lots of neighbours in higher urban densities automatically produce more shops near stations, more frequent train services, more housing choice and so on (Your Say, September 5). Clearly this isn’t so. If it were, Calcutta would be a great place to live.

In the forty three years that I’ve lived in the Shire, there has been considerable population growth. But during that time, Jannali has lost all of its four butcher shops and only one bank remains where there were five. And the train services are slower, unreliable and overcrowded during peak hours.

V Giammarco’s theory is a dud.

Gordon Hocking, Oyster Bay

V. Glammarco imagines the delights of a high-density city. The only problem is – where in the world, outside of Cloud-cuckoo-land, can one find a high-density city that does not exhibit the exact opposite of these dreams? The facts are that real-world high-density cities suffer overloaded infrastructure resulting in higher council charges, acute traffic congestion and longer average journeys to work. In spite of more than a decade of urban densification in Sydney, public transport percentage share is significantly down. The number of services is decreasing and the trains are slower than they were in the 1940s.

High-density cities have overcrowded facilities, more pollution, less housing choice, higher housing cost, exacerbated mental illness, wholesale destruction of green open space and no gardens for children to play in.

What is more, the effect of high-density on the area of Sydney’s urban footprint would be negligible. Don't believe the spin doctors: get the facts at www.sos.org.au.

Tony Recsei, Warrawee

Letters to the press not printed

Sent to Sydney Morning Herald 14 August 2006

Professor Capon implies that increasing residential density will alleviate the epidemics of obesity, depression and asthma (Finding a cure for our sick cities, August 14).
Our suburbs have been with us for 60 years, yet obesity is a new phenomenon. Also, in Sweden it has been shown that the rates for psychosis and depression are greater in denser areas. The Australian Unity Well-being Index reports that the happiest electorates tend to have lower population densities.
Achieving a healthier environment needs to be based on something more substantial than unproven aspirations.
Tony Recsei
Warrawee
NOT PUBLISHED


Sent to Sydney Morning Herald 4 September 2006

In his advocacy for high-density living (letters September 4) it is Douglas MacKenzie who is stuck in the past. He advocates that children be brought up in units and play in parks instead of being able to play in a backyard with their friends. In highly populated dense areas it is now just too risky to allow these children go to a park unsupervised or to join gangs that roam inhospitable streets.
What is more, backyards are multipurpose. We grow fruit and vegetables. This provides us with fresh produce, educates our children about sustainability and saves the large amount of fuel that otherwise would be required for its cultivation and transport.
Tony Recsei
Warrawee
NOT PUBLISHED