TIME FOR MINDSET CHANGE

 

Context Link Click Here

A solution [?? in what context??] to Tasmania's housing crisis is causing angst for Kings Meadows residents who oppose a 109-lot housing development proposed for Techno Park.

Housing Tasmania plans to subdivide an undeveloped 10.7-hectare parcel of land into more than 100 residential lots, 85 per cent of which will be sold to the public under an equity affordable housing program. [Equitable & affordable in what context we might well ask??]

It will eventually apply for a subdivision permit with the City of Launceston.

Traffic congestion, too many houses, and habitat loss for the endangered Masked Owl and vulnerable Eastern Barred Bandicoots are some of the issues plaguing residents in the area. [Yes, sustainable urban ecosystems are important but focusing on two vulnerable species simply opens up a simplified binary debate when the issue is more complex and multi-dimensional ! ]

'We are not against the housing...it is just far too many.' Resident Matthew Kean said concerns were being ignored, and resident views seemed to have little to no bearing on the final decision to get housing at the site. [IF/WHEN realised this project might provide a 'home' for approx 220/230 people in a particular demographic. If a more diverse and multi-faceted demographic was considered that number could conceivably be increased]

He said he intended to oppose the developments' approval when it goes to the council, arguing that there should be fewer lots at the site. [It would be useful if a cohort of critical thinkers mounted a campaign to reimagine this development's premise based as it is on 'ownable lots' and thus open to different and more expansive mindsets!]

One of his major concerns was a drop in housing values in the surrounding neighbourhood. [Here we are endorsing ownable lots over other tenure options for home making]

"We are not against the housing. We just don't want 109 lots in there. It is just far too many. It should be halved, if anything," Mr Kean said. [The issue at hand here is not to do with 'housing' people rather it could/should be to do with 'homing' people and how best to achieve that.]

"Instead of just tearing up all the paddocks and putting housing in, there should be areas kept for the wildlife. The government wants to put in as many houses as they can, but there should be a few green spaces," he said. [Conceivably, more homing options could be achieved in a more sustainable cultural landscape IF the effort to do so was invested in a mind shifting approach towards that end]

"You have to keep both parties happy." [Actually, a realistic proposition]

Too many houses within 10.3 hectares?

A traffic report for the proposal shows 109-lots, including:

eight lots of 350 - 450 square metres,

62 lots of 450 - 550 square metres,

22 lots of 550 to 650 square metres; and

17 lots of 650 to 1000 square metres.

[.25 acres = 1112 square metres]

Mr Kean said he believed current average lot sizes in the area sat between 600 square metres and 1000 square metres. [Here we are endorsing ownable lots over other tenure options for home making. We do not own places, we occupy them and belong to them and in them]

"Instead of having all these little houses you could have a slightly bigger block and house, and then you could encourage families to go move in there." [Again ... here we are endorsing ownable housing as an investment rather than aspiring to make homes in communities that collaborate to make places safe and secure. The 'investment model' is prone to destroy the things in places that makes being in them, belonging to and in them less valuable ]

 

Traffic issue

Residents are worried about increased traffic congestion in the area, along Woolven Street, Techno Park Drive and Quarantine Road.

Homes Tasmania argued that any impact on the surrounding road network would not be significant, and referenced its independent traffic assessment. [Bureaucratic self serving assessments that assume some lowest common denominator 'greater good' all too often ignore alternatives to the status quo. Collaborative communities can determine bottom up from within and organically. That is rather than via top down disconnected one-size-fits-all determinations made well away from the lived experience.]

 

Wildlife issue

Residents note the natural values of the site, including gum trees, ovata tress and large hollow bearing trees that provide potential habitat for masked owls and swift parrots.

Homes Tasmania inspected the site and said the hollows were not being used by owls. [Here there may not be owls now albeit if they are not there will be other communities of fauna present and that will be depending upon access to the environmental resources available.]

LETTER August 16 2024 Techno Park wildlife

I NOTICED the article in The Examiner (August 12) about the proposed development in the Techno Park area saying about the traffic concerns and a few other concerns but one of the major concerns is the wildlife in the area which the government have done everything they can to hide the fact there is endangered and threatened species live on the site! I have provided pictures and videos as proof the government still chose to ignore and stated in their report that there was no significant wildlife in the area, which is a complete lie and, yet again, the government being sly and deceptive as they've been from the very start of this development! As for Pitt and Sherry's traffic report, what an absolute joke that was! They were very cunning in the times they chose to count cars doing it out of the peak times and only for one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon, which is not possible to get a correct indication of the traffic in such a short time period! This makes me think this whole report has not been properly done or done in a way to give the government what it needs to get this development rushed through!

Matt Kean, Kings Meadows