When will authorities take responsibility for their actions? Why should any development - old or new - have to put up with repeated flooding? In a country that is so managed with endless regulations that cover nearly every possible activity and action - one is not allowed to change a tap washer or an electrical plug, let alone build, without involving regulated specialists - why are houses and businesses still being flooded? It is not as though the world is short of town planners or hydrological experts. When we have so many trained professionals and tradesmen who are licensed by law to undertake specific activities that are denied to others - like planners, architects, plumbers, electricians and builders - one has to wonder why developed areas are subjected to repeated flooding. The proposition is that these areas should never have been developed. One can understand that older times may have had different perceptions, but today we know - either by research or by reality - that places are flood-prone. With this knowledge, one wonders why there is not immediate activity to stop development in these regions and to start a buyback scheme that can return these zones into the flood plains/areas that they are. Water will go where is wants to, where it has to, when it wants to, irrespective of political games.
The simple
question is: when will authorities take responsibility for their decisions, and
even the lack of them? Why do they continue with their spin to allow anything
to occur even in face of the facts that spell out differences. Even a simple
car parking matter can never be accepted by local government, (the Brisbane
City Council), in spite of the geometry and mathematics highlighting the
impossibly of the arrangement. I can recall a CEO at the Gold Coast who put
forward the concept that the flood plains in the region should never be
developed for housing. He was relieved of his position. He was also reportedly
threatened to be sued by the company that wanted to develop these areas. Now,
with a large area of Queensland and northern New South Wales flooding as this
is being typed - 10:00am, Monday 28 January 2013, after a night of raging wind
and rain at the Gold Coast in Queensland - the support for the development of
flood plains seems foolish: ignorant. Yet the arguments for this action were
supported with 'scientific' facts to prove that housing in these areas was,
(is? - have things changed?), a sensible possibility. One can even envisage a
future where support for these developments will again be strong in some
authorities. Why? Why on earth must this be so?
There is a conscious inactivity and self-evident unwillingness to attend to these potential impacts of disasters by governments, until they occur. Governments seem to want to force others to cover the costs of repairs for the results of their decisions, all while continuing to refuse to act to prevent their occurrence and recurrence. Already in this 2013 flood, that was promoted as not being as bad as the flood of 2011 - this seems to be wrong in some districts - the Queensland government is asking for public donations for its flood appeal; and the Federal government has, subsequent to the 2011 flood, forced insurance companies to cover everyone for floods, seemingly irrespective of the risk that usually determines the commercial response. The proposition was that insurers were being unfair – discriminating: unlike governments? What is rarely seen is a government taking responsibility for its actions. It is not as though folk have just moved in and built their homes and businesses in these locations without anyone knowing. Governments have approved these developments. They have colluded with developers to have housing/businesses constructed in flood-prone areas. All excuses have been used in the past to support this activity: "Science; don't you greenies understand? Go away. We'll do what we want." It is a retort that is frequently given to those who try to point out the problems with government decisions and indecisions.
Gosh, areas that
were flooded in Brisbane in 1974, have subsequently been developed. The
argument has been that the Wivenhoe Dam has changed flood levels for Brisbane,
making land that was flooded apparently available for development. This fantasy
was given such credence that those professionals who knew otherwise - that
there was a significant catchment below the dam that was a concern, (and turned
out to be one) - were apparently scared to tell the politicians the facts. It
took the flood of 2011 to bring out the truth. Here another 12,000 more
properties than in 1974 were inundated - see http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/what-flood-level.html And what has government done about this?
Only whinge that insurers are not pulling their weight, and enforcing changes.
What is needed is sensible planning - rigour.
Governments need
to clearly identify problem areas and begin a buyback, so that natural flood
plains/areas once more become just this: natural spillways for excess water.
Pressures from developers to open up low areas for their profit-making need to
be resisted. The riverside land that was reportedly given to a developer by the
Queensland government for the price of the Pat Rafter Tennis Centre at Tennyson
in Brisbane - no wonder the public spaces are so mean - was known to flood: and
the new developments did. The flooding has put a stop to completing the planned
construction of this high-rise dream. The developer apparently carried out
remedial work on those apartments that went under, but how would one feel as an
owner of such a property? Will the company be asking for some of the tennis
centre back?
Politicians rely
on short memories. Sadly rigour is never a part of planning for futures that
seems to hinge on spin - that devised by the conjunction of politicians and
developers for political or personal profit/gain. The call for 'objections' on
development applications has become pure farce. Just what goes on behind closed
doors remains unknown, but it has been seen at one time in the Gold Coast City
Council how one approving planner was brazen enough to have his name declared
in the submission to be reviewed/approved by him as a consultant/advisor
planner. It may now appear unbelievable, but it was so. This planner was not
sacked, merely removed to manage another planning division. Then there were the
repeated reports on how agreements were (are?) being made between developers,
councillors and planners even before any application was (is?) lodged – all
with the certainty of approval! It appears that there was (is?) never any doubt
as to the outcome. One has to place this circumstance in context - this is the
same local authority that took exception to the proposition that flood plains
should never be developed.
Until authorities
take a rigorous stance on development with enforceable town plans that can
define, describe and deliver carefully determined outcomes, we will have more
and more flooded properties - see http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/why-bother-with-town-plans.html When town plans are so flexible and
variable, allowing every possibility to be a reality at the whim of any person,
developer, councillor or council, then disastrous outcomes will be repeated
into futures at an escalating rate. And as long as governments refuse to take
responsibility for their actions and in actions, and for those of others before
them, then floods and disasters will be recurring. Action is needed for future
planning that defines denials and repossessions - areas that must not be
developed, left to nature, and areas that need to be returned to nature. It
also has to include areas that are so environmentally significant that they
must be retained and enriched with complementary management – left as nature.
The future does
not look good when the current Queensland Government is unable to maintain any
rigorous control of existing National Parks, being keen to open them up to all
and sundry for whatever. In the same manner the local Council has councillors
who are careless about managing futures, allowing anything that can be
considered 'growth' to be promoted as sensible and desirable. It has been the
perception that growth in any manner is good, that appears to have allowed for
all of the stupid decisions, like developing flood plains and a reluctance to
manage traffic on roads - see http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/street-character.html
- to be seen as being reasonable. What is now needed is a backtracking to
reverse the outcomes of these activities and inactivities: admission and
appropriate remedial action.
Will we get this?
Never. Governments know best and never own up. There is always the classic
Howard ‘non-core promise’ to fall back on. Just call for flood donations and
for insurers to cover all of the results of silly decisions. Governments seem
to have some of that "She'll be right" attitude that some "On
ya" Aussies have. One resident - ‘a bloke’ - in Bundaberg was delighted
with the flood waters. He told the reporter that he "Just loved them (the
flood waters)"; that he "Looked forward to this (the flood
waters)", as he waded through knee-deep muddy swirls to get to the pub -
the true bronzed Aussie fool - even while all authorities were telling everyone
to keep out of the flood water. Like this fellow, governments always know best.
They'll do what they want irrespective of the facts - "On ya!": see http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/notes-on-development-application.html
What can one say?
Such is life in Australia: a country that burns in one region and floods in
another while developers reign and governments 'grow,' worrying more about
their own futures than anything else and anyone else. Everything will be OK -
just keep the beer flowing: "She'll be right." A report on the
television station that is covering the present flood situation, 'minute by minute,'
has just noted with some pride that the 'Breaky Creek' pub is still serving
beer, even with rising waters surrounding it. What chance is there for better
planning in Queensland - in Australia - when this is seen as the ideal? Who would want to lose this opportunity? There is no need for change!
"This State
will rise to the occasion," said Premier Newman, 2:00m 28 Jan 2013, on the
latest 'minute by minute' update. The cliché cry is, "We are
Queenslanders. We'll pull thru." It is a real shame that platitudes just
keep getting repeated when no other action is taken to prevent this nonsense in
planning. Why will governments not take advice? One can predict, in the same
manner as one can with other development approvals, that development in low areas
will continue to be approved. It will continue to be supported with the
argument that it has been 'scientifically' designed to 'world class' standards
so that the proposals will never, ever flood - until . . . well, until we get
that totally 'unpredictable,' never-before- experienced, storm of the century –
the millennium. "Who would have known?" Well, it seems, no
government.
See also related
blogs:
