Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fw: Re: [PublicPopForum] New residents 'unwelcome' in growth state (NewsComAu Article)

Expand Messages
  • aditmore@juno.com
    Limiting building permits in the form of unit counts creates entirely the wrong incentives because limited units of unlimited size restricts adults but once
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 10, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Limiting "building permits" in the form of unit counts creates entirely the wrong incentives because limited units of unlimited size restricts adults but once a couple gets in, they can fit any number of kids, creating no incentive to limit FERTILITY.  Plus markets always respond to unit limits by building housing units that are bigger and thus fit more kids.  The way to limit the number of kids is by limiting the size of housing units, not the number of units.  The small units getting very crowded when couples choose to have too many kids, creating the right incentives rather than the wrong ones.
      Also domestic migration is essential, at least in the US, for two reasons, one is because too many people live in the North, which requires too much fossil fuel to stay warm, as well as requiring polluting road salt in winter.  Russian immigration may share that necessity, though global warming may mitigate it a little. 
            Secondly, and most important, only through domestic migration can overpopulation activists gain a majority in any community.  Without migrating, we are doomed to minority, and thus helpless, status everywhere. 
      On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 23:07:49 +1100 smn <nerodog1@...> writes:
      1. There are geographically defined groups in Australia that have higher fertility rates than others: heroine addicts, Northern Territory dwellers, new immigrants from certain countries, women of certain ages, people who live in Cranbourne in Victoria.

      2. There is a really simple way to stop interstate and inter-regional migration and that is by limiting building permits at a local level.

      Let the local community decide how it wants to live.

      This is, incidentally, the way that continental western countries of the EU work at an international level; legal immigrants and citizens have a right to public housing.
      But your right to migrate can be limited by the ability of the State to provide you with housing.
      In the end, citizenship is about membership of a community.  Usually the bulk of that is determined through blood, but all communities also have rules for accepting adoptees, spouses (generally from outside the immediate community) and immigrants.
      In a functioning subsistance society there are rules to limit legal fertility opportunities (by limiting who may marry whom - generally in line with stricter or laxer incest avoidance).  This exerts a mathematical lever on numbers of babies born and would adapt to the carrying capacity of the land.  If a child were born from an unlawful union it would be illegitimate and would not have the right to land.  If contraception and abortion failed, infanticide was next.  A child without land would theoretically die in a subsistence society because it would not have the means to take care of itself.  Generally all societies have some carrying capacity slack, so maybe an illegitimate child would grow up, but they would have to share their mother's land and would live poorly, and would not have enough to marry and would be non-citizens anyway, without the right to marry... etc.  A society that allowed that to happen might start to have a prostitute system, or sell slaves, or soldiers... (called a complex economy :-{)

      From these traditions we get town-planning and the right to limit building permits.

      In our society, which has had a growing component of landless labor since the 13th century, these methods tend to be overlooked for the more clumsy psychological stigmas that grew up from them - such as disowning a woman who conceived out of wedlock.   We tend to focus on the 'morality' instead of the practicality because we have been taught to see the earth in vague and generalist terms, abstractly,  and our laws and expressions reflect this.

      A society which confuses the ability to issue building permits to attract more people with attracting wealth has got things upside down.  A society that does not allow its people to limit the size of their community has abrogated self-government.

      Sheila Newman

      aditmore@... wrote:
      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:12:50 -0500
      Subject: Re: [PublicPopForum] New residents 'unwelcome' in growth state  (NewsComAu Article)
      What about immigration of people who have a lower fertility rate than Australians? like Japanese, Germans, or Russians?
      Differentiating on fertility rate is politically impossible here in the US, but is it in OZ?
      One reason I oppose limiting internal migration between states is because the internal migrants don't have a higher fertility rate, and in my area it's lower, than the locals.  So to me the newcomers actually have MORE right to be here than the locals.  Right as determined by fertility rate.
      Plus in my area we need the newcomer vote if we are ever to fund contraception.

      Good on you, Simon!!  People need to go to the link and provide a comment at the end, else write a letter to the editor  of the Courier Mail - cmletters@...

      New residents 'unwelcome' in growth state

      From: NewsComAu
      December 07, 2009
      RESULTS from a Galaxy poll suggest that 60 per cent of Queenslanders want the Government to take steps to limit the state's southeast population growth explosion.

      Alternatively, you can copy and paste this link into your browser:

      Queensland residents want to cap population growth

      • By Craig Johnstone and Natalie Gregg
      • From: The Courier-Mail
      • December 07, 2009 2:33AM


      Sixty per cent of Queenslanders want a cap on the population growth in the state's southeast, according to a poll / File

      • Queenslanders want population cap
      • Forecasts of six million "too many"
      • Premier has dismissed cap

      RESULTS from a Galaxy poll suggest that 60 per cent of Queenslanders want the Government to take steps to limit the state's southeast population growth explosion.

      A similar proportion say forecasts of six million southeast Queenslanders by 2050 would be too many.

      As the State Government prepares to beef up its population policy credentials, some mayors are protesting that growth is too far ahead of the transport system's ability to cope, The Courier-Mail reports.

      Allan Sutherland, the Mayor of the Moreton Bay region, which is expected to absorb an extra 84,000 new homes over the next 20 years, said infrastructure was needed to accommodate growth.

      "You can't just keep jamming terracotta roofs all over the place and not improve your transport system," he said.

      The poll found that 59 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of the Government working to limit the region's population growth.

      Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

      End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

      Thirty-five per cent were opposed.

      The result was even more emphatic among Labor supporters, with 65 per cent in favour of population limits.

      The poll also found that 59 per cent of Queenslanders thought the forecast population of 6 million for southeast Queensland by the middle of the century was too much, with 33 per cent saying it was about right.

      Concern over the region's growth has rekindled debate on a population cap for southeast Queensland, despite Premier Anna Bligh and property industry groups dismissing the idea.

      Population growth will be a key issue at today's Council of Australian Government meeting and Ms Bligh yesterday announced the involvement of scientist Tim Flannery, demographer Bernard Salt and environmentalist Ian Lowe at next year's South-East Queensland Growth Summit on March 30 and 31.

      Ms Bligh said southeast Queensland had more interstate migrants than any other state.

      But she said she was yet to see "any sensible or legal way" to cap the population.

      "As attractive as a population cap sounds, I think it's misleading to imply to people that such a thing could be done," she said.

      The Wells family, who exchanged Yorkshire in the UK for Springfield Lakes, west of Brisbane, are part of the influx that has made southeast Queensland the fastest growing region in the country.

      "We came here on holiday in 2002 and said we'll be back - we just loved it," Claire Wells said yesterday.

      Mrs Wells said she and husband Shane had poured over pages on the internet devoted to Springfield Lakes and had liked what they'd seen.

      "We were even more impressed when we saw it in reality," she said.

      The prospect of further growth didn't bother Ms Wells so long as the needs of residents were met.

      "There's room for everybody and with growth comes new opportunities," she said.

      However, southeast Queensland head of the Sustainable Population Australia lobby group Simon Baltais said there must be a limit.

      "Pro-growth lobbyists are ignoring the science . . . at the expense of the general community and the environment," he said.

      Cash Loan
      Need cash? Click to get a loan.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.