Why must our parks be activated to generate income?
This weeks Letters to the Editor, the Sydney Morning Herald, following the release of the White Paper, capture the feelings of all in the community concerned for the welfare of our parklands.
Read the transcripts of the letters below.
So many buzzwords in the white paper for Stokes Greater Sydney Parks agency but I failed to see any business model (“Rare gems of parkland are not real estate”, May 27). As usual, we can expect a pop-up tent from the Department of Planning to give the community some colour dots to stick on their favourite park activity (dot-mocracy) and that’s it. Missing is transparency and real decision making on our public parks by the people it serves. Government must drop this neo-liberal attitude to passive spaces that they believe must be activated and generate income. Our parks are like hospitals - they must be there for the general health of our society. Suzette Meade, Toongabbie
Whenever we have debates about open spaces and national parks we do not hear of one factor: our mental health. Biodiversity itself is of course important, but the ability to spend time in an area that has trees, birds and is not crammed with man-made structures is vital to our psychological wellbeing. Having lived on the lower north shore, I remember the attractiveness and beauty of a place with many trees.We cannot allow politicians and developers with dollar signs in their eyes de-nature open areas of Sydney, particularly with the architectural disasters they are currently erecting. David Ashton, Katoomba
The pandemic has shown just how valuable our public parks are as places of solace, relaxation, exercise and biodiversity. Minister for Planning Rob Stokes has just released a white paper on the newly established Greater Sydney Parklands and it raises many questions (“Parks plan calls for new funding to meet demand”, May 24). Who exactly is the decision maker? What public lands would find themselves in this agency to be sold off? Isn’t this just a green light to overdevelopment proposals such as those for Moore Park? At a time when our city is growing in size and more apartments are being built, its essential that these parklands are protected for passive recreation use by the community and cooling sinks in a warming city. Everyone who uses and loves these great parklands should be following developments with concern. Maria Bradley, Coogee
I originally thought the Western Sydney Parklands would protect the high biodiversity of Sydney’s original green belt. Since then shopping centres, factories and other commercial developments have added to habitat degradation. Meaningful control of fox, deer and invasive weeds are put into the “too hard” basket while bigger and better playgrounds are used to provide a distraction. The Greater Sydney Parklands Trust is simply the Western Sydney Parklands Trust with more power and more land. Given their poor performance on protecting habitat and biodiversity for future generations, the trust should be held to account rather than given the last of our “green spaces” to do with what they please over the next 50 years. This is a bad model, putting the fox well and truly in charge of the hen house. Mark Fuller, Hazelbrook
I would not want to be a trustee on the proposed new self-funding Greater Sydney Parklands Trust. I would have to govern a vast revenue-generating asset portfolio, constantly fretting about money. If any time were left, I might think about trees and grass. Of course, much would be delegated to the bureaucracy. How is this a good idea, Minister Stokes? Linda Bergin, Millers Point
