Development levy would only add to housing costs
Mornington Peninsula Shire’s proposed building development levy of 3.3 per cent should not be introduced (Views sought on 3.3% development levy, The News 23/4/24). Rental housing or assistance with housing is not a council responsibility. Social housing is a state government and federal government responsibility. The federal government already provides rent assistance for low-income renters.
The need for accommodation is common across the country and has largely been created by federal govt immigration policies – it is the responsibility of government to fix. A council impost of a development levy would add to the cost of new and existing homes by about the levy amount. Thus, it would put all homes further out of reach for people struggling to buy a home. The peninsula is a preferred place to live, and any increase in house prices would increase homelessness just like in Byron Bay.
Council expends money for economic development supporting small business and industry. It’s rather a contradiction proposing a levy on new development to these same property groups. A levy would be a deterrent for residential, commercial and industrial development in the shire and create more problems than it resolves.
Social housing cannot be regarded as “essential infrastructure” because it is not a council responsibility. If considered as infrastructure, then it is unfair to slug only planning applicants rather than from rates revenue. The proposed development levy would have minimal effect in addressing the housing needs on the peninsula. The council should focus more on its own major responsibilities like better maintenance of roads, rather than proposing new ways to charge property owners.
Ian Smith, Tyabb
Levy ‘experiment’
As a local timber truss manufacturer, I consider Mornington Peninsula Shire Council’s proposal to mandate a 3.3 per cent levy contribution rate for building developments on the peninsula to be a major slap in the face for housing affordability (Views sought on 3.3% development levy, The News 23/4/24).
I’m in disbelief that the council is even considering this proposal as such a levy would make housing even less affordable. Of course, owners, builders and developers would pass this levy on to the end user. It would also greatly discourage development on the peninsula.
If the shire wants to help housing affordability it should be offering financial incentives to developers rather than punishing them. The council should drop any social political agendas and just concentrate on the reason why it exists – providing the essential services and facilities to the ratepayers and greater community.
At best, this proposal is an uninformed, unintelligent social experiment – at worst, an additional cash grab form a greedy local council.
Darren Hercus, Safety Beach
Parking fines
Recently we invited guests to join us at a Mornington restaurant on a Saturday night for dinner. Our booking was for 8pm and our guests arrived at the appropriate time. Upon returning to their vehicle after dinner, they were dismayed to have received a parking ticket issued at 7.59 pm. Yes 7.59pm. One can only assume car parking fines are for revenue purposes only. A check with our respective watches varied by minutes, surely the same must apply with our revenue collectors. Some common sense with car parking inspectors must be applied or it just makes Mornington Peninsula Shire Council the laughing stock of the community.
John Tingiri, Mornington
‘Absurd’ golf claims
While I appreciate Cr David Gill’s advocacy for his [Red Hill] ward, I take issue with his strange statistics (Market call to end golf losses, I 7/5/24). Yes, there are 250 [Mount Martha Golf Club] members, but we have been regularly reminded by the pro shop that we are not the main users. Claiming each member costs $9000 each is absurd.
The club has financed improvements to the clubhouse. Golf is great for mind and body with many players over the age of 60. This is an affordable shorter course for seniors and beginners. Cr Despi O’Connor reasonably points out that all council sporting facilities run at a loss. Our building is not the Taj Mahal, like some I could mention.
Janet King, Mount Martha
Never ban books
It is alarming that even in the 21st century, books are banned in Australia. This includes children’s books like Noddy, Dr. Seuss, Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and the doll called Gollywog. Adult books like Animal Farm, Brave New World, and the movie American Psycho have also been banned, with over 500 books prohibited.
Cr Steve Christou, a former NSW mayor, even proposed banning same-sex books in libraries in the Cumberland Council area. This is worrying, as a few objections can start a process that can gain momentum and spread to other states.
We must not ban books, especially for young adults. If some books are deemed objectionable, they can be placed in a different section or have restrictions placed on them. However, they should not be completely outlawed. Banning books is like burning them and we must always remember that during the Hitler regime, libraries full of books were thrown onto bonfires. Such actions must never happen again, here or anywhere else.
Dictators like Mussolini and Stalin banned books that opposed their rulings, attempting to change history to suit themselves. Gaddafi and Mao Ze Dong are other dictators who wrote to suit their beliefs and forced those ideals onto the people. The truth in books went against their designs. This is an omen that governments should never ban the written word.
Anne Kruger, Rye
Drug policies
The Victorian government has abandoned its proposed safe injecting room in the Melbourne CBD but is not closing the injecting room in North Richmond.
In your article you quote from the Lay report that there were 29 drug related deaths in Frankston, which are old figures dating back to 2020 and 2021 (Dozens dead from drugs in Frankston, The News 30/4/24). We need to know today’s figures so the Frankston people will know the full impact of the drug epidemic in Frankston today.
The problem with the government’s new approach to stop drug deaths in Victoria is that if drug users do not wish to “kick” the habit will continue to use drugs and not utilise new government services. We need to stop young people accessing drugs and wanting to use them, and one way is to bring in more severe laws to punish those who push drugs and those in organised crime syndicates.
If the numbers in drug users death continue to increase through the use of heroin and other injected drugs the Victorian government will reverse it course and reinstate self-injecting room policies, not in the Melbourne CBD but in the outer suburbs where Frankston will get a safe injecting room which will expose more young people in Frankston to heroin addiction.
Not closing the North Richmond safe injecting room shows that the Allan government has not given up completely it’s policy to establish safe injecting rooms in Victoria.
Russell Morse, Karingal
Refunds required
Questions about the Frankston waste charges are about what is included in the charge, not the cost of the various services. The cost efficiency of services can be assessed by benchmarking with like providers. The Local government Act 1989 S162 (1) (b) clearly indicated the charge is for waste, recycling and resource recovery. If there were any doubts about some cost centres under the new legislation, direction should have been sought from the department.
I laugh at the suggestion by Frankston Council that others engage in similar practices. I tried a similar line when I misbehaved as a 10-year-old. That line didn’t wash then, and it doesn’t now. The issue is whether or not it is right. The minister has clearly indicated council’s practices have been wrong. Some media have alleged the overcharging is around $10 million.
The correcting action must be transparent and fair to property owners. The compensation per property is over $150 (assuming the $10m is accurate) and should be paid, with interest, immediately to the owners who have overpaid.
It cannot be offset by rate changes. That would substantially distort the benefits. Rates are a property tax reflecting property value. The waste charge is a fixed cost per property which receives the service and should reflect actual costs. If the redress was through rates the owner of a $5m property would get 10 times the benefit of the owner of a $500,000 property.
Council’s draft budget 2024/25 does not indicate council intends to redress the overcharging. In fact, the minor change in the proposed charge suggests the issue has not been addressed. Council must come clean and advise the principles to be used to address the issue and state when and how this issue will be resolved.
Ian Robins, Frankston
Climate target
In recent weeks, two interactive maps of Australia have been released showing the risk from heatwaves by region and how low-income households in those regions could benefit from home energy upgrades. The first map is created by the Australian Climate Service and uses age and health status, built and social environment, and access to cooling and health services to rate regions according to one of five categories from lower risk to higher risk. Mornington and most of the Flinders electorate, for example, has lower to medium risk.
The second map developed by Climateworks for the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) found that on average energy efficiency, electrification and solar could save low-income households thousands of dollars a year – a strong argument for the federal government to establish a national fund to subsidise home energy upgrades for low-income housing in the May budget.
The map reveals that more than 12,000 low-income households in the Flinders electorate would save on average $3600 a house and more than $2700 per apartment while reducing CO2 emissions by more than 65,000 tonnes a year.
A national home energy upgrade program would help those struggling most with the cost of living while assisting the nation to meet its 43 per cent 2030 emissions reduction target. A clear win-win.
Ray Peck, Hawthorn
