Dear Ludwig,

Banning property developers does not brand all property developers as baddies. There is ample precedent for that. It eliminates a potential conflict of interest. Governments make decisions on zoning and other property matters which affect the value of property. Various persons routinely are kept from making such decisions. Judges must recuse themselves if they have a personal or financial interest in a case. Lawyers cannot sit on juries as their interest in legal maneuvers may outweigh their interest in determining the validity of the charges. Developers are not all baddies, but all have a financial interest in decisions regarding property. Therefore to avoid a possible conflict of interest it is reasonable to keep them from serving on entities which make such decisions.

Property developers should be kept out of any local government to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Just as judges remove themselves from a case where they could have a conflict of intereste so too should everyone on Council declare interests and remove themselves from decisions where that interest could be affected.

Our protections are freedom of speech and transparency of decision-making. Once some group is arbitrarily removed from the process and representation, democracy and freedom are weakened.

I would much prefer to have developers and other knowledgeable people like them on Council where their expertise can contribute to decisions and where they must declare interests and are subject to scrutiny, which many would welcome because they really do want to serve the public interest and contribute to their regions and Australia.

<< Banning property developers does not brand all property developers as baddies >>

Davidf, it certainly does give that impression.

No not all property developers are bad. So the ban includes good people as well, simply because they are employed in the field in which some operators have been shown to be shonky.

Sheesh, you could say the same for just about any sector.

Yes of course there is the potential for conflict of interest. But again this surely applies very widely with all sorts of professions.

I don’t particularly like property developers overall. There is a very strong pro-expansionist, population-growth-promoting vested interest amongst them, which is anathema to my sustainability philosophy.

But my desire to see much-improved democracy, and to definitely not see blatantly undemocratic impositions from our supposedly democratic government, takes precedence.

Kevin Rudd's 'Big Australia' demands property developers.

Isn't that why Rudd's over-enthusiastic migration program continually set new records? That and Rudd's relentless diversification of Australia to impress the UN in the hope of winning a job there one day?

One of the key promises Julia Gillard made when she took Rudd's place was that she would wind back Rudd's flood of migrants.

Dear Ludwig,

Banning developers does not give me the impression that all property developers are baddies any more than banning lawyers from juries makes all lawyers baddies. A property developer who holds public office will be in a position to help or hurt another property developer on every decision he or she makes concerning development. It doesn't seem to me much different from leaving one's keys in the car when parking in a public place.

It is not sensible to make such an opportunity available even though most people will probably not take advantage of such an opportunity.

Banning property developers from public office which makes decisions on zoning removes a conflict on interest.

<< Kevin Rudd's 'Big Australia' demands property developers >>

Yes OTB, you’d think that property developers would be Ruddy’s best buddies!