What moral right does CHIA, a large, well-auspiced professional organisation, have in fueling animosity against local government candidates who defend their communities' planning powers and their right to veto subdivisions - key pillars of self-determination? The Community Housing Industry Association (CHIA) Victoria, part of Australia’s trillion-dollar property development industry, is trying to get Victorians to target local election candidates who oppose massive high-density developments and the state government take-over of local planning rights. This is a response to CHIA's recent press release, titled, "Victorians urged to vote for council candidates committed to affordable housing."
In a Goliath vs David situation, this very wealthy industry, wearing a ‘C’ in front of the more familiar “Housing Industry Association,” is stigmatising as ‘a vocal minority’ those who stand up against its push for massive concrete towers and densification.
“We need our local government candidates to be affordable housing champions - that includes being advocates who won’t buckle under the pressure of the often vocal minority who oppose new social and affordable housing developments.
It is using emotional pleas and specious claims to ‘affordable housing,‘ to justify a corporate strategy of splitting local communities against their own interests in order to increase industry profits.
“It’s so disheartening to see new social and affordable housing developments - the key to solving our housing crisis - blocked when they come before councils. Housing affordability is a top concern for most voters - it can’t be fixed if we’re not creating more homes that are genuinely affordable.
CHIA is leaving out very important information as it tries to inflame support for its fallacious pitch.
For instance, where does CHIA acknowledge that there have been sufficient housing approvals in existing suburbs and new growth areas, as well as a significant increase in multi-unit dwellings in established suburbs, indicating that councils have approved more developments than necessary in densely populated inner suburbs? (See Professor Buxton’s comments in https://candobetter.net/sheila-newman/blog/6892/podcast-transcript-post-growth-approach-urban-planning-michael-buxton)
The public need to know what the relationship between CHIA and the housing and property development industry is, considering the industry's lobbying for increased overseas migration through organizations like APop and the Property Council of Australia, as well as the involvement of state and federal governments.
The community also needs to know what the incentives are for the property development industry in its connection to CHIA. What financial benefits might CHIA’s push for [so-called affordable] high-density housing bring to the industry?
Given its connections in the trillion-dollar property development industry, what justification does CHIA have for urging taxpayers to provide public land for housing under its terms?
In light of these connections and the lack of relevant contextual information regarding the origins of population pressure and housing demand, what moral authority does CHIA have to influence local government candidates who are advocating for their communities, let-alone urging them to ‘stand firm against’ them – whatever that means?
"Candidates are encouraged to stand firm against opposition and utilize available tools to support community housing organizations."
Given its stance in local politics, shouldn’t CHIA disclose its relationship with the multi-billion-dollar industry represented by the Property Council of Australia, which, in 2010, included 'more political influence' among its ten aims?
CHIA is brazenly angling to alienate what little public land Councils retain. What, if any, community housing and land-production does CHIA advocate be provided by public, as opposed to private developers? (Until PM Menzies, Australia's land used to be publicly developed, which greatly undercut the costs that come with a commercially dominated development and housing industry.)
CHIA does not represent the voices of residents and citizens who are seeking to protect wildlife habitats and green open spaces from high-rise ecological footprints and sprawl. In fact, it doesn't mention them at all. It is as if our natural environment does not exist for CHIA.
CHIA does not address the concerns raised by the Victorian Auditor General regarding successive governments' neglect of their obligations under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. Without addressing these concerns, it is negligent and callous to go ahead with massive development, at the behest of property development advocates like CHIA.
CHIA’s pitch flies in the face of the rule that so-called affordable housing, achieved through new subdivisions and high-rises, tends to be significantly more expensive per square meter than established housing, even given positional variations in land value.
In essence, CHIA’s narrative not only overlooks critical facts but also raises serious ethical questions about its alliances with the property development sector. As it attempts to sway public opinion and local governance, we must scrutinize the motives behind its push for high-density housing, particularly when it risks compromising our community’s green spaces and wildlife habitats. The public deserves transparency and a genuine dialogue about housing solutions that prioritize sustainability and affordability, rather than simply serving the interests of a powerful industry. If CHIA truly represents the community, it should advocate for responsible development that respects both our environment and the voices of residents. Only through an honest conversation about these dynamics can we begin to forge a path towards equitable and sustainable urban planning.
Add comment