Dear Alan,

I will subscribe to your comments when:

- private owners, in addition to obtaining financial gain from 'indiscrimnate rezonings', retrospectively pay rates at the improved property value post rezoning - of course only according to how long they have owned the property.

- when governments stop rezoning & forcing developments and privatising public infrastructure.

I suggest you look at the effectiveness of Rockdale City's 'optional' listing policy. Have a look at the specific case of Dunmore St (Bexley) and see how one 'poor' owner, on purchasing a heritage building, can demand to undermine the heritage & cultural landscape voluntarily maintained by the rest of the neighbourhood.

And on the topic of corruption & development, Rockdale again provides the paradigm you seek...

You are an idiot. Real property is just as speculative as any investment, and unless your advocating abolishing taxes, government regulations will always have an impact. If heritage is a risk, then don't risk it, get out now & let an owner who cares for the building look after it (some of us put civic pride before profit, and we are not communists!), and in the meantime, your ilk can move into one of those less 'banal' highrise buildings that are destroying Arncliffe near the airport (also under Rockdale's control)

Check out your model in action with Max Moore-Wilton's proposal for a shopping complex between the two north-south runways at Sydney airport and I think we can see where your planning/ property rights platform will get us.

If only those farmers at Bringelly had the vision to develop their own airport...oops, they are not allowed to, government regulations and contractual obligations to Macquarie Bank have killed these citizens property rights...surely wouldn't happen under a Liberal government?

Following is a simple 3 part IQ/EQ test to rate your intelligence/wisdom on heritage matters:

1) Please pick the odd one out:
A) Seems It Never Rains In Southern California.
B) California Dreaming.
C) Californian Girls.
D) Californian Bungalows.

If you picked “D”, great! However, if you selected a different answer, you’re quite likely silly enough to believe “Californian” Bungalows belong on “Australian” heritage-lists, and quite possibly need a ‘reality check’…

2) Despite the fact that the NSW Valuer General accepts heritage-listing reduces property values…after owning your property for 20 years, it has just been heritage-listed against your WILL and without ANY compensation. You think that’s:
A) A little unfair.
B) Unfair.
C) Completely unfair.
D) Outrageously unfair.

If you were looking for “fair” or couldn’t bring yourself to circle any, you’re possibly a good-for-nothing Bolshevik in desperate need of therapy. Seek help ASAP…

3) You want to build a new fence, pergola or erect a simple carport, but last week you discovered your neighbour’s property got heritage-listed. Do you:
A) Feel kicked in the guts that a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) will cost you thousands of dollars and also worry that it may be rejected by council.
B) Pull your hair out when you discover that your new structure must mimic your neighbour's old (that you’ll be trapped in the past or a time-warp).
C) Scatter ‘chicken bones’ at midnight to help determine your chances of challenging the heritage-listing and winning in the Land and Environment Courts (LEC).
D) Spend $30,000.00 or more challenging the decision in the LEC (win, lose or draw).

All are correct but if you couldn’t bring yourself to circle any, it could be that you’re shortsighted, nasty or a spiteful objector suffering The Curse of Envy. I suggest you skip the 'reality check', bypass therapy and head strait for Cuba...Communists are welcome there.

And if you think I’m going to react to idiotic antagonistic posts, please hold your breath waiting...why, because arguing with idiots is like wrestling with pigs: it’s a giant waste of time because you get muddy and the pigs enjoys it.