I'm over it.... I give up.... (boat storage)

[dunc333]

dont give up mate .get even ,where i live in the inner west our local member for drummoyne started this whole boat trailer parking war and he moved into our area and built his house 100m from our ramp and winges about trailer boats and now he is suspended for building to many units and buying up property where a new train station is going which no one else knew about any way i say karma will get my local mp trailer hater sooner or a later!!!!! anyway dez check out cambell park at russellea plenty of boats and its like a merry go round peoples boats just do laps of this oval which is about over a 1km in circumfrence every 28 days to keep the local rangers busy chalking tyres lol. though i do hate unused and dumped trailers in our area that gives the other boat owners a bad name cheers dunc333

[jeffb5.8]

On 8/12/2020 at 8:05 AM, kingie chaser said:

E.g There is a building being proposed by Randwick council next door to me that they want to build 19 stories high, the current zoning limit is 7 stories, not only that in the proposal they have only allocated 9 parking spots to this building, YES you read right 9 parking spots

That might be 9 visitor parking spaces, as they are always the lowest possible

[kingie chaser]

2 hours ago, GoingFishing said:

As someone who works in property i cant help but point out that i think you must be mistaken.

How did you conclude that there is only 9 parking spots for 400 apartments. I challenge you to find one other building in the whole of Australia that has this arrangement.

There is no building or planning regulation that allows this, and, most importantly, let me tell you as a developer, we want parking spaces..... as much as humanly possible..... Because it makes it easier to sell our product. There's only a few people who want to buy an apartment without parking spaces (mostly in the inner city), the vast majority of apartment owners will want parking.

Do you have a link to the development proposal documents on Councils website that can corroborate 9 parking spaces for 400 apartments? 

Its being classed as a boarding house so I presume it classified differently?

This what I have been told by the action group & I have looked at the DA & cant actually find the car paring provision just going on what I have been told but they are only allowing 1 motorcycle spot per 7.62 rooms.

If you want to look into it go ahead be my guest I can send you the DA # 😉😉

 

 

 

Sorry Derek, didnt mean to get your thread off track!

Edited August 13, 2020 by kingie chaser

[GoingFishing]

24 minutes ago, kingie chaser said:

Its being classed as a boarding house so I presume it classified differently?

This what I have been told by the action group & I have looked at the DA & cant actually find the car paring provision just going on what I have been told but they are only allowing 1 motorcycle spot per 7.62 rooms.

If you want to look into it go ahead be my guest I can send you the DA # 😉😉

 

 

 

Sorry Derek, didnt mean to get your thread off track!

Yes please PM me the #da number.

[GoingFishing]

2 hours ago, kingfishbig said:

Well it's a moot point. Unless you can tell me that there is a car space for every unit owner who drives then there will be more cars parked on the street. Even medium density means more cars parked on the street with some of the latest planning regulations. You might have 5 adults living in a household for instance and only one car space required. And that's only the half of it. Cramming thousands of extra people into a small area just means more congestion and loss of amenity under all plausible build out strategies.   

So if 5 adults live in one apartment and each of them own a car.....how can u possibly blame the building/planning system for the overcrowding of vehicles 😂😂 as always, the problem starts with human behaviour. 

There is alot of science that goes into developing communities and suburbs.... the general public dont understand it, and some do but don't care. There will always be those few dozen or even hundreds of unhappy people who dont want to share their neighbourhood with others but the fact is the vast majority of citizens will benefit from the growth... and those few unhappy ones can continue to be unhappy 🙃🙃 

[kingie chaser]

14 minutes ago, GoingFishing said:

Yes please PM me the #da number.

PM sent.

Will be interesting to see if this gets passed as its 35 meters higher than any other biulding in the area.

 

Maybe you can make sence of it?

[GoingFishing]

Just now, kingie chaser said:

PM sent.

Will be interesting to see if this gets passed as its 35 meters higher than any other biulding in the area.

 

Maybe you can make sence of it?

With such a significant non compliance with height....i doubt it.

Some developers can't help but "have a go"

[kingfishbig]

44 minutes ago, GoingFishing said:

So if 5 adults live in one apartment and each of them own a car.....how can u possibly blame the building/planning system for the overcrowding of vehicles 😂😂 as always, the problem starts with human behaviour. 

There is alot of science that goes into developing communities and suburbs.... the general public dont understand it, and some do but don't care. There will always be those few dozen or even hundreds of unhappy people who dont want to share their neighbourhood with others but the fact is the vast majority of citizens will benefit from the growth... and those few unhappy ones can continue to be unhappy 🙃🙃 

Well the overcrowding comes into it way way of Sydney growing by 100,000 people per year. Even Infrastructure Australia says we can't build our way out of this and there will be more congestion and loss of amenity. The building and planning industry aren't directly causing this but rule No 1 for these industries is to promote the population Ponzi whenever possible.

PS: how do most of us benefit from this growth? For a start we are here because we like fishing and this sort of population growth and what goes with it is unambiguously bad for the environment. Aside from the congestion I have already mentioned it gives us stagnant wages, high underemployment,  infrastructure deficit and unaffordable housing. The Productivity Commission 2006 says that the only people who benefit from high immigration/ population growth are the immigrants themselves and the big owners of capital and that the rest of us will be worse off.  

Edited August 13, 2020 by kingfishbig

[GoingFishing]

6 minutes ago, kingfishbig said:

Well the overcrowding comes into it way way of Sydney growing by 100,000 people per year. Even Infrastructure Australia says we can't build our way out of this and there will be more congestion and loss of amenity. The building and planning industry aren't directly causing this but rule No 1 for these industries is to promote the population Ponzi whenever possible.

PS: how do most of us benefit from this growth? For a start we are here because we like fishing and this sort of population growth and what goes with it is unambiguously bad for the environment. Aside from the congestion I have already mentioned it gives us stagnant wages, high underemployment,  infrastructure deficit unaffordable housing. The Productivity Commission 2006 says that the only people who benefit from high immigration/ population growth are the immigrants themselves and the big owners of capital and that the rest of us will be worse off.  

If you purchased a property in sydney in the year 2000 for $400,000. Chances are that property is now valued at least over $800,000

You don't consider that a benefit? You dont seem to be worse off to me.

Ps...up until Coronavirus. Australia had one of the lowest unemployment rates in th world. The raw figures dont agree with u buddy

Edited August 13, 2020 by GoingFishing

[kingfishbig]

3 minutes ago, GoingFishing said:

If you purchased a property in sydney in the year 2000 for $400,000. Chances are that property is now valued at least over $800,000

You don't consider that a benefit? You dont seem to be worse off to me.

It doesn't cancel out the other negatives I mentioned. And that's really false wealth when you consider that we also have the 2nd highest household debt in the World and that the IMF and OECD say that this is a threat to our economic stability. It also means we have a whole generation locked out of owning a home. All the mortgage debt is a drag on consumer spending too (and we have the double whammy of stagnant wages).

[kingie chaser]

3 minutes ago, GoingFishing said:

If you purchased a property in sydney in the year 2000 for $400,000. Chances are that property is now valued at least over $800,000

You don't consider that a benefit? You dont seem to be worse off to me.

My father bought his last house in Sydney for 120K then sold it for 900K, & even then they knocked it down & rebuilt so it was a 520Sqm bit of dirt for 900K 😱

Crazy to think how someone is going to be able to get into the housing market in Sydney now & as time goes on if you dont have 2 or 3 incomes?  

[kingfishbig]

4 hours ago, GoingFishing said:

If you purchased a property in sydney in the year 2000 for $400,000. Chances are that property is now valued at least over $800,000

You don't consider that a benefit? You dont seem to be worse off to me.

Ps...up until Coronavirus. Australia had one of the lowest unemployment rates in th world. The raw figures dont agree with u buddy

I don't know where you get your figures from .It was substantially lower in the US and the UK (by about 20%) and they were more affected by the GFC and didn't have a mining boom. Japan with it's falling population had 2.4% unemployment. And I mentioned there is a lot of underemployment, in fact our underutilisation rate is a whopping 14%

Edited August 13, 2020 by kingfishbig

[DerekD]

2 hours ago, kingie chaser said:

Sorry Derek, didnt mean to get your thread off track!

All good KC - it was written as a chance to vent and you took it....

This topic is also interesting as it is one of the reasons for my problem in the first place...

[Guest Guest123456789]

definitely no shortage of problems with Sydney but boy I love Sydney harbour, the northern beaches, the eastern suburbs and the inner west. And the food - seriously the best in the world IMO

[GoingFishing]

9 minutes ago, flatheadluke said:

definitely no shortage of problems with Sydney but boy I love Sydney harbour, the northern beaches, the eastern suburbs and the inner west. And the food - seriously the best in the world 

We live in one of the best countries in the world, yet we still complain. Sad really. Just proves that some people just cant be satisfied no matter what.

[kingfishbig]

1 hour ago, GoingFishing said:

We live in one of the best countries in the world, yet we still complain. Sad really. Just proves that some people just cant be satisfied no matter what.

That can't be taken for granted. Look what happened to Argentina. It was one of the top ten richest countries in the World early last century, just behind Australia:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-tragedy-of-argentina-a-century-of-decline-2014-2?r=US&IR=T

[Guest Guest123456789]

7 hours ago, kingfishbig said:

That can't be taken for granted. Look what happened to Argentina. It was one of the top ten richest countries in the World early last century, just behind Australia:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-tragedy-of-argentina-a-century-of-decline-2014-2?r=US&IR=T

Australia will never go the route of Argentina- even if we had a complete idiot running the country for one simple reason: if in doubt, dig it out.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Guest123456789
Typo

[kingfishbig]

1 hour ago, flatheadluke said:

Australia will never go the route of Argentina- even if we had a complete idiot running the country for one simple reason: if in doubt, dig it out.

Argentina relied on it's primary industry too. It also had a population boom. Our fixed mineral wealth just gets diluted as the population gets bigger.

[Guest Guest123456789]

40 minutes ago, kingfishbig said:

Argentina relied on it's primary industry too. It also had a population boom. Our fixed mineral wealth just gets diluted as the population gets bigger.

And it still does - bloody awesome cattle 😋 though it’s dwarfed by what natural resources we have. 80% of the worlds uranium is in Australia for example.

our migration policy is not perfect but it is worlds best. Unlike the US and Europe for a long time we have had good screening of new arrivals to ensure overall new Australians as a whole contribute a lot more to the economy than they take out. And frankly we aren’t having enough babies so we need them. I really hope we pick up some of the young, smart hard working types from Hong Kong.

[kingfishbig]

1 minute ago, flatheadluke said:

And it still does - bloody awesome cattle 😋 though it’s dwarfed by what natural resources we have. 80% of the worlds uranium is in Australia for example.

our migration policy is not perfect but it is worlds best. Unlike the US and Europe for a long time we have had good screening of new arrivals to ensure overall new Australians as a whole contribute a lot more to the economy than they take out. And frankly we aren’t having enough babies so we need them. I really hope we pick up some of the young, smart hard working types from Hong Kong.

Most immigrants are working below their skill level and even the primary skilled stream has higher unemployment than locals. And we have the one of the least skills shortages in the World. All that would happen with immigration would be that we would better utilise our own workforce given that we have 14% underutilisation. An no one is talking about no immigration. About 60K pa NOM would be enough to stabilise the population. The pre Covid NOM of 250K or so was giving us the highest population growth in the developed World (depending on how you count it). Never before have we run mass immigration into a slack labour market - it has always been would back to suit the conditions. 

[kingfishbig]

5 hours ago, flatheadluke said:

 

our migration policy is not perfect but it is worlds best. Unlike the US and Europe for a long time we have had good screening of new arrivals to ensure overall new Australians as a whole contribute a lot more to the economy than they take out. 

Unfortunately the screening is not that good. There is evidence of widespread fraud in the skilled program - as many as 9 in 10:

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/leak-shows-widespread-visa-rorting-20140807-jke77

Also even on the dubious assumption they all get jobs, bringing in that many each year creates an infrastructure deficit of billions of dollars are year and it's mainly up to the existing population to pay for it.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by kingfishbig

[GoingFishing]

3 hours ago, kingfishbig said:

Unfortunately the screening is not that good. There is evidence of widespread fraud in the skilled program - as many as 9 in 10:

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/leak-shows-widespread-visa-rorting-20140807-jke77

Also even on the dubious assumption they all get jobs, bringing in that many each year creates an infrastructure deficit of billions of dollars are year and it's mainly up to the existing population to pay for it.

 

 

These kind of comments make me laugh. Unless your an indigenous Australian, your an immigrant in this country, or a descendant from immigrants.

Immigrants built this country to what it is today, provided the labour and brought in the skills and knowledge, they also brought in the foreign money that built this economy.

Wether you like it or not, Australia is not self sustaining. We cannot survive without foreign investment coming into this country and we cannot survive without without immigrants. So please, no high horsing, we are useless without them.

Its so hilarious when true blue "aussies" get on the bangwagon about "immigrants' and "foreign money" when really, without both Australia would just be big undeveloped bare patch of dirt.

[kingfishbig]

17 minutes ago, GoingFishing said:

These kind of comments make me laugh. Unless your an indigenous Australian, your an immigrant in this country, or a descendant from immigrants.

Immigrants built this country to what it is today, provided the labour and brought in the skills and knowledge, they also brought in the foreign money that built this economy.

Wether you like it or not, Australia is not self sustaining. We cannot survive without foreign investment coming into this country and we cannot survive without without immigrants. So please, no high horsing, we are useless without them.

Its so hilarious when true blue "aussies" get on the bangwagon about "immigrants' and "foreign money" when really, without both Australia would just be big undeveloped bare patch of dirt.

Well if you are saying immigration worked well in the past what's wrong with returning it to the same level? The average post Federation level was around 70,000 pa - a big difference to the 200,000 plus of the past 15 or so years which is plainly not working. I'm not sure why you are conflating foreign investment with immigration either - they are different things. Indeed immigrants are no money tree given the infrastructure deficit they create. Instead of spending 10's of billions a year just to stand still in the face of population growth we could be spending more on community services. And there is no positive link between population growth and prosperity. If that was all there was to it then India would have a better standard of living than us  And look at how good things are on the ground in Japan with it's falling population.

Also how can you have endless population growth in a finite country? We are already having problems with our water supply and we will outgrow our food surplus by the end of the century and will have to be a net importer in a resource constrained World.  

[GoingFishing]

22 minutes ago, kingfishbig said:

Well if you are saying immigration worked well in the past what's wrong with returning it to the same level? The average post Federation level was around 70,000 pa - a big difference to the 200,000 plus of the past 15 or so years which is plainly not working. I'm not sure why you are conflating foreign investment with immigration either - they are different things. Indeed immigrants are no money tree given the infrastructure deficit they create. Instead of spending 10's of billions a year just to stand still in the face of population growth we could be spending more on community services. And there is no positive link between population growth and prosperity. If that was all there was to it then India would have a better standard of living than us  And look at how good things are on the ground in Japan with it's falling population.

Also how can you have endless population growth in a finite country? We are already having problems with our water supply and we will outgrow our food surplus by the end of the century and will have to be a net importer in a resource constrained World.  

Sounds like entitled arrogance to me..... "yes we want your money and want your investment to make our country better, but no your not welcome here" LOL..... what a joke.

Immigration has served us well yes. Post federation? Do you mean when our population was a measly few million compared to what it is now? As a percentage against population our immigration intake is very low comparatively on a global scale.

You continue to talk about defecits and all this other nonsense when Australia has one of the best economies in the world. Stable, low federal debt, and up until corona did not experience any recession. Post GFC on a global scale the entire world turned to australia as a shining beacon of how economies should be managed.

You are actively nit picking the one or two negatives to draw a picture that paints an overall terrible economy in this country. Thats rubbish sorry.

This is a great country, with one of the highest qualities of life across the world. And sorry....you wouldnt have none of it if it werent for immigrants and foreign investment.

I also find your example about india humorous. Noone likes reductio ad absurdom. No one wants Australia to have the same population as india, nor have i suggested we should.

Ie.... don't exxagerate the result/argument in order to give yourself oppprtunity to critisize that result/argument.

Edited August 14, 2020 by GoingFishing

[kingfishbig]

23 minutes ago, GoingFishing said:

Sounds like entitled arrogance to me..... "yes we want your money and want your investment to make our country better, but no your not welcome here" LOL..... what a joke.

Immigration has served us well yes. Post federation? Do you mean when our population was a measly few million compared to what it is now? As a percentage against population our immigration intake is very low comparatively on a global scale.

You continue to talk about defecits and all this other nonsense when Australia has one of the best economies in the world. Stable, low federal debt, and up until corona did not experience any recession. Post GFC on a global scale the entire world turned to australia as a shining beacon of how economies should be managed.

You are actively nit picking the one or two negatives to draw a picture that paints an overall terrible economy in this country. Thats rubbish sorry

Numbers aren't entitled, arrogant, racist or any other pejorative you want to throw at me  2% of infrastructure has to be replaced every year due to age,  wear and tear. So if you grow the population by 2% a year then you double the infrastructure bill. So population growth comes at a cost. It's no wonder that every new road is a toll road these days or that our infrastructure is simply not keeping up due to underspending. 

The GFC was more a northern hemisphere thing as we were fortunate not to have all the toxic sub prime debt that other countries did. And our economic growth record is an illusion as most of it (especially the last 15 years) has come from dumb population growth. Indeed we have had several per capita recession in the past 30 years. And it's per capita growth which matters in terms of standard of living. 

PS: I don't know where you got the idea that our per capita immigration is very low. Actually it's one of the highest and on top of a relatively healthy birth rate at that. 

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by kingfishbig