Building houses is flood areas creates revenue
for the local councils. Roundabouts on city streets
are cheaper than traffic lights. Mulch under trees
doesn't overload the garbage dumps. Bicycle tracks
reduces motor car traffic. And for all these decisions
its not the town planners that are responsible -
but the individual council councellors. They're the ones
who make the decision at their council meetings and often
totally ignore what town planners advise them.

Some houses flooded in Brisbane were above the government published 100 year flood levels and some of those because government did not put one way gates on its storm drains on the Brisbane River. That is just to take a couple of examples that are proved. One could add stage 2 of Wivenhoe that was never completed although ratepayers and developers have paid for it many times over. What about overstocking dams made for flood mitigation because over-enthusiastic immigration for decades has over-stretched water supply?

It is simple amazing that even after such instances are given the stereotypical blame spin from insurers and politicians who tried to avoid liability is repeated.

Regarding mulch, where it is placed at the trunk of trees rot becomes established, which will quickly render a safe tree into a risk. Australian trees like eucalyptus for instance are prone to rots that become tubes up the tree. A puff of wind and goodbye picnicking family.

Bicycles. Daily the ferocious lycra-clad set ride in traffic in preference to the expensive bike paths duplicating the route. The hire bikes provided by Council stand rarely ridden. Anyone who wants to ride a bike has one apparently.

Roundabouts. The issue is where these structures are unnecessarily and frivolously applied for 'traffic calming' to suit small but noisy lobby groups.

The community is not encouraged to participate in decisions affecting them and most 'consultation' exercises are a complete sham. The Brisbane City Council just tried that scam to wipe out bus routes but thankfully citizens immediately got involved and guess what? No prizes for guessing that the decision makers now say it wasn't really their idea and plan. So whose idea and plan was it? Never you mind.

It's fair to assume that the majority of people of authority within governments/councils have never created a job in their lives, they have always been job takers, not job providers.

In the real world, if you get it wrong, you borrow money, to pay your bills and, if you get it wrong badly enough, you go broke.

In government, the worst that can happen is you get voted out, no strings attached, no financial scar, but what usually happens is you get shoved off to what can only be considered a less important role (Peter Garrett as an example) in the hope that you can't do as much damage.

As for councils approving development in flood areas, I say again, many decisions made by council planner are challenged by lawyers, on behalf of dissatisfied developers, who only objective is profit, often at any cost.

But by far and away our main problem is our lack of democratic rights.

While we may have a say in who gets elected, we have no say in what role they may play, you know, minister for environment one day, education the next.

Lexi around here it is rarely the counselors who have an idea, hell a large number of our councils haven't had one of those in decades. The planners feed them the ideas, & often get something voted through with little thought.

No it's the planners, sometimes working with "community groups", like our local 6 member "Environmental Association". Together they admired the voluntary tree clearing ban in a more citified nearby shire.

The trouble was it was an opt out trick. If you didn't opt out in a time frame, you were in, like it or not. This was carefully not publicized.

Someone found out, probably slipped a message, & arranged a few public meetings. After 5 of these attended by hundreds, & a couple by thousands, with everyone really angry, a few hundred hours of work rate payers had not asked for was shredded. The planners returned to the tea room, with their tails between their legs.

It is a bit like publish or perish in academia. Only planners who can claim grand schemes in small councils get the jobs on the big ones, with the pay & study trips that go with them.

So don't blame your councilors too much Lexi, they are just the putty these planners manipulate to our detriment. We've had some that were really good people, trying hard, but with a hundreds/thousands strong bureaucracy working against them, they are really up against it.

Dear Hasbeen,

A relative has worked for the Victorian Public Works
Department he found a storage room full of a Master
Plan for the City of Melbourne. It was preapred in
the late 30s early 40s. The plan showed wide avenues,
leading in all directions of the compass. When suburbia
developed their own City Councils those wide avenues
stopped at the Municipal borders, streets narrowed
down to two lanes, and massive building development took
over. Which was all controlled by the local Councils.
Nobody cared about the grand Master Plan prepared by the
City Planners.

More development, means more Council Rates, and bigger
profits.

1978 I started a job on the road, working for then then DMR, had more name changes the 20 con men.
Plans provided had ok to proceed in 1959 marked on them!
As we started putting the concrete form work in position a nice old bloke turned up with a shot gun.
Not kidding we left as requested, it was his land, part of a diary, that he had still not been paid for!
As it was a road widening job, it took only a month to get him paid, plus all those years.
We can do better than that by contracting such things out and policing them.