@jonobri There are still dozens of them - a different living environment to mega towers. Prosecuting the sins of the past doesn’t create affordable, mixed livable suburbs. The data is stacking up, there will be nothing under $3m for 80sq apartments & even with 20% affordability discount
‘The platitudes of the National Urban Policy, promising sustainable, inclusive growth, affordability and environmental protection, are a poor placeholder for what is needed now…’
💯 @JulianneSchultz
Make it real, Albo.
https://t.co/ozq7R3NJwC
@jonobri That’s my point. They are not all rich. The legacy of the 3-storey-walk up apartments is that ordinary folk also live in Woollahra. They will be forced out. It’s already happened…$1 m apartments are bulldozed, owners forced out by the 75% mandatory acquisition. New places $3m.
@jonobri Rich people only.
Nothing under $3m for 2 brms. Meanwhile the old & not rich are forced out and building sites proliferate. The detail is important.
@MarkDando4@fbongiornoanu Changing the zoning rules is the first step.
The plan is serious. But probably won’t happen for a lot of commercial & political reasons.
But the underlying problem of insufficient & unaffordable housing will remain.
@MarkDando4@fbongiornoanu They are saying no compulsory acquisition (or infrastructure except rail station). Govt will rezone to allow the heights & FSR.
It’s up to developers to do the sums & make an offer. When 75% in a building agree they can compulsorily acquire the rest. Then argue for more floors.
The deal was a masterstroke: it cost nothing and required no regulatory oversight, and it gave the Murdochs more political power than they have had in decades. In recent months, according to staffers, it has also directly fuelled the rise of One Nation... https://t.co/rqC9qWMagK
@RizviAbul@cheryl_kernot@PaulineHansonOz It’s cruel. Makes those students feel even more that they are “just cash cows”. And then you wonder why they “don’t fit in”. Is that we want to be just a place of money transactions?
@robertaloug@ICBubbleGum@c_s_wallace@AlboMP But if it is flawed it needs to be adjusted, not wait for the full catastrophe. This is not whingeing but design failings. We’ve seen it before.
@AdingtonP@c_s_wallace Which is why the removal of human oversight of the aged care assessment algorithm is such an outrage. And there is no legal comeback - only appeal to other regulatory bodies, that are notoriously slow & cumbersome.
Older Australians are the current canaries in the mine of govt AI decision making. The Aged Care Act embraces human rights, but doesn’t make them legally binding. It will get worse without proper laws. https://t.co/LsoaNL0DfK
The law falls short of the robodebt royal commission recommendations. It does not require companies & departments to reveal how the process works, the business rules & algorithms, or provide a right to human review of automated decisions.
@JulianneSchultz
https://t.co/cQffHIm0oe
Dear followers,
I’m delighted to share this New York Times article which builds on and expands the arguments of my new book.
Thank you.
Democrats Need to Stop Seeking Oppressors — Real or Imaginary https://t.co/75GkE2ai67 via @NYTOpinion
@sandylanceley@c_s_wallace Combination of public money to community and for-profit agencies & users. The community sector - apart from CHSP - has virtually disappeared.