How does economic growth relate to quality of life in our complex society?
The well-being of a community should not be measured in money terms alone. We need a built environment in harmony with a protected natural environment and with its people. Development must be also be preceded by efficient infrastructure.
The community invests great trust in its political leaders at local, state and federal levels. They are the stewards of our environment and the supporters of our well-being. They also move us forward economically.
A quote in David Pilling’s book The Growth Delusion states,” . . . we need to get away from the idea, dominant since the invention of GDP, that the only measurements worth a candle have a $ in front of them.” (1)
It may be profitable in money terms to have a sewerage treatment plant in the midst of a residential area, or a noisy helipad placed in a quiet suburb, or a multi-storey building in a waterfront location on what could be open recreational space, but will people’s lives be better for these developments?
Ordinary people know what planners seem to miss. If traffic flow is greatly increased outside a school, if roads are clogged with traffic, if parking space is greatly reduced through population pressure, if safety is compromised on inadequate arterial roads, quality of life is reduced. We need to demand that the infrastructure goes in first.
Ordinary people need to be involved in these decisions. Communities need to be consulted. Otherwise “growth” can become malignant – not benign.
Examples of unfettered growth are easy to find in areas of Sydney such as Hornsby, North Sydney or the Inner West. Planners have had apparent disregard for the number of vehicles pouring onto already congested, narrow streets and inadequate supermarket car-parks. How are lives improved in this application of growth?
Closer to home are the multi-storey buildings Lake Macquarie Council are eager to see erected at waterside locations in Warners Bay and Toronto. In the case of Toronto, Council is itself the “developer”, proposing to build up to six storeys on lakeside land in public ownership. They are justifying this decision because the land is zoned “operational”. The details of just what the development entails remain “commercial in confidence”, so can’t be made public. Council have voted to allocate up to $1 million dollars to prepare a Development Application.
Interestingly, Council’s own planning documents make frequent reference to the prioritising of increased open public recreational space on Toronto’s foreshore. Their development will reduce that space.
Doubtless you will hear this proposal couched in terms such as, “good for jobs and growth”, “growing business”, “revitalising the town”. We are all too familiar with these buzz words. But what of references to community well-being or prioritising infrastructure?
The people of Lake Macquarie need to expect of their Council a more nuanced 21st Century conversation such as those starting to appear in contemporary books and media programs dealing with economic growth and development.
This newer kind of conversation recognises that there needs to be a careful balancing of the natural and built environments. There is a recognition that some important things are being left out of GDP: the present and ongoing value of the natural environment (our “natural capital”), the very significant issue of human well-being. Whilst growth is necessary and may be robust, it need not be insensitive.
People do not want to short change the future. Communities are more aware of and more vocal about the impact of big developments on well-being, on the environment.
People all across our country are starting to think ahead of their leadership. They are less likely now to accept the old idea that you can “maximise growth today no matter what the impact tomorrow.” (2).
There will be two groups of people watching what happens with Council’s proposal for the Toronto foreshore: one is the community, pushing back against the commoditising of the precious natural capital of open foreshore space. The second group will be the developers with a keen eye on the potential for similar developments around our beautiful lake. This is a story which needs to be observed carefully by all residents of Lake Macquarie.
A happier, smarter community will leave the natural foreshore environment as open recreational space for future generations. We are all its custodians.
Those voted to represent us need to prove that they are visionary leaders who get the balance right. That is their responsibility. Our responsibility is to make decisions at the ballot box for representatives who foster community well-being and the preservation of natural assets as a paramount consequence of growth.
The Toronto Foreshore Protection Group is holding a public meeting at Toronto High School on Tuesday September 4th at 7.00 pm to share current information on Council’s proposal. You are encouraged to attend.
(1) William Davies, The Happiness Industry, Verso, 2015, p65.
(2) David Pilling, The Growth Delusion: The Wealth and Well-Being of Nations, Bloomsbury 2018 p197
What I find these days our elected officials use the adage, governing the people not governing for the people, they feel they have licence to make decisions on what “they” feel is good for us, the community, the constituents. Self interest, the mighty $$$ rules and no matter whatever the decision they are not around in the long term to accept the responsibility of the impact that their decision. Accountability and the risk of investigation long after they have served council needs to be enforced
ReplyDeleteGreat commentary. I think that we need to be troubled by governance at all levels which fails to have a long term view in relation to environmental issues and the kind of built environments decision makers are leaving fo future generations. We need to demand more visionary, consultative representatives to lead us. I wish more people would “engage”. People have a lot of power when galvanised behind an idea: sometimes productive, sometimes destructive. Leaders will respond to the squeakiest wheel. The lake is silent. We are its voice. Thank you for speaking up.
DeleteThis is an excellent essay. I completely agree.
ReplyDeleteIt resonated with me because it firstly draws attention to the fact that we are more than just consumers but part of a community, and secondly that there is indeed a framing of language which boxes us into the neoliberal paradigm.
Your article aligns so much with what Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Newcastle, Bill Mitchell, has been driving at for years. He writes a daily blog and it is so fortuitous that he touched again on this issue just three days ago, namely:
Reclaiming our sense of collective and community – Part 1
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=40174
In that he has links to several of his previous postings which are highly relevant and you might find interesting, including
1. Framing Modern Monetary Theory (December 5, 2013).
2. The role of literary fiction in perpetuating neo-liberal economic myths – Part 1 (September 11, 2017).
3. The role of literary fiction in perpetuating neo-liberal economic myths – Part 2 (September 12, 2017).
4. The ‘truth sandwich’ and the impacts of neoliberalism (June 19, 2018).
“Our first refereed journal article together in this project (many more to come) came out last year – Framing Modern Monetary Theory (June 14, 2017)”
Mitchell also says there:
“That literature makes it clear that the way we frame our arguments and the language and vocabularies that we deploy is highly significant in whether our views are accepted or not in the public discourse.
It also sets out a strategic path which allows us to understand how neoliberalism has permeated every area of our life and is so resistant to opposition, even when the material outcomes that are associated with it are so poor.”
Graham Wrightson
Carey Bay
Thank you Graham for that considered and detailed response. The factors around political decision making are nuanced and complex. Language is central to the way ideas are “sold”. We are captive to this unless we are prepared to step back and question what the message and subtext are, who gains, who/ what is diminished, which cultural values drive the language. “Growth” for instance, despite its link to malignancy, has become a positive term; “Refugee” a negative one.
DeleteIt has been interesting examining the way questions have been framed in the online Council survey seeking feedback from the community on how they want to see the foreshore used. Creating the language of a survey is an exercise in how language can be manipulated towards a particular outcome. Then there is the huge area of what is not asked in a survey.
Once the public meeting is out of the way I will have time to travel up the reading tributaries of your various links. Language is all!
Dear Linda,
Deleteyes, language is all.
Take, for example, the word “deficit” which has a strong sense of the negative about it, as opposed to “surplus” which sounds good. It would seem that everyone would like to have a surplus, say by savings. We are often told that, just like a family household the Australian federal government should reduce its deficit and preferably run surpluses otherwise our children and grandchildren will have to pay it off in the future plus all the interest. You are supposed to believe that the federal government’s budget is just like a household’s budget. This is the framing.
One of the facts that is not driven home is that for every surplus(deficit) there has to be a deficit(surplus). So if the federal government is running a surplus then someone has to be running a deficit. It is a basic rule of accounting, simple as that. The other point is that the federal government issues the Australian currency, the dollar, and can buy whatever is for sale at the time; it cannot run out of money.
Yet some folk will come back and say that this will cause runaway inflation. Well not necessarily, it depends upon whether all real resources in the community are being fully utilized.
What I am driving at is that the household framing is inappropriate, the federal government is not a household. Understanding how modern money really works is critical for improving our community. The household metaphor blinds us to reality.
Question to reflect upon: If the federal government is running a surplus then who has the deficit?
Graham
Great piece of writing Linda. Examples of economic growth over environmental protection or community well being are numerous. Shipping lanes near the Great Barrier Reef, removal of rain forests in Tasmania, mining projects on prime agricultural land on the NSW Liverpool Plains and the ongoing urban sprawl in Western Sydney. Here, as it appears, we have yet another situation where Local Government are seeking develop a natural resource for short-term economic gains. While economic development is crucial if we wish to continue as a prosperous nation, I can only hope that the well educated Environmental Planners working with the Lake Macquarie Council have a more long-term vision when give weight to proposals such as the Toronto Foreshore Development.
ReplyDeleteI think public opinion is ahead of governance now. The people want the environment protected and preserved. I am not sure “long term vision” is a popular perspective in the face of pragmatic decisions around immediate economic gain. This is where community push back is vital. The advantage that Toronto has is that this side of the Lake, especially the Toronto suburbs, has clear geographical boundaries which make it a discreet community with a strong sense of history and loyalty. When it gets behind a cause it goes hard.
DeleteMore and more concerned residents share the comments made by Linda Ireland, I can only hope we bring the mayor and the councillors into the mix
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is an increasing number of people agreeing with Linda Ireland. We can only hope that we have the mayor and the councillors on board. A well researched article Linda Ireland.
ReplyDeleteThank you Robin. We all value progress. Good leadership handles progress with sensitivity to the people and the environment. That is 21st Century thinking.
Delete