Great article.

It is the first criticism I have seen of Sartor's plan that notes that it aims to exclude working families from an attractive region with huge potential in order to better preserve it for the moneyed elite currently in residence. An appalling piece of legislation for a Labor government, but not, unfortunately, out of character.

I don’t blame anyone for wanting to get out of the Sydney Basin; every step taken there costs and costs a lot. It is not possible to avoid the expense whether it is parking, water, rent, tolls or building codes. The no go areas of Redfern, Macquarie Fields, Lakemba and Sutherland do not endear Sydney. The further I can get away from the place the better. I don’t know that the North Coast is the answer, as the economy is Centrelink dependant and the only viable industry in town seems to be the club scene. The penguin like procession to the poker machines on pension day and the drive by the unemployed to the local drug dealer does not depict a desirable setting in which to live. The result is a malnourished social security dependant underclass as your neighbours.
I think the areas to west have most to offer eg. Harden, Leeton, Forbes Finley etc.

Ah, the joys of coastal development on the large scale!
Conveniently flat land, ocean views (except for the neighbour's house), and just pipe all the accumulated rubbish into the ocean and forget it, ---.
What's new in the perspective of coastal real-estate "nation-building" over the past century? Nothing much it seems, from this article.
The authors obviously don't want to know about anything that might exist in scientific data relating to it.
Certainly not in regard to:
Geological data from Fred Whitehouse and colleagues in the 1950s about the inadvisability of Gold Coast development upon beach foredunes built up during calm weather,in between savage erosion events from cyclonic seas drifting down from the north. (Only had one little scare so far in half a century - maybe about due for a big one?.
Geoscience Australia publications on City Hazards, which details the perils of coastal developments from Cairns southwards through south-east Queensland and into New South Wales.
The detailed mapping, currently taking place, of the already-familiar problem areas of acid sulphate soils.
The State of the Environment reports commenting on east coast developments.
Climate Change data (unbelievable to the authors of course) which would multiply all of the above hazards.
And most of all, the impossibility of ever-continuous increase of human numbers.

No, the authors don't want to know. Why? - Maybe they also want to believe in fairies at the bottom of their garden. Or are gardens a dirty word in the urban developments of their fantasy?

We have been better at protecting our arid zones than our coastal at least as far as parks are concerned. Even those are at the mercy of people who have a right to ride their trail bikes and four wheel drives exterminating wallaby and bush as they go for entertainment purposes. Australians seem to have an immature passion for toys and games which will see to it most of the coast line , not only Northern NSW will be divided up and over populated to become an eye sore of garages with gable and living quarters and seas and rivers of bitumen. There is already development on the over stressed Murray with the awful industrial drone of speed boats and jet skis.

Then again with moderate to worst case senario climate change much of todays coast will be gone and the Murray Darling basin will be flooded by the sea. This will create new areas for coastal development (Broken Hill may be the hinterland for the future gold coast) for those who had not lost their money on the current coast line or the lower topography of the Murray Darling basin.