Category: Correspondence

Dear Minister

Alienation of parkland – Moriah College, Queens Park

As the responsible Minister, you recently announced the sale of approximately 18 acres of Crown land at Queens Park, Sydney, to Moriah College (or its nominee).

We are confounded as to why this strategic parcel of land was, for the first time since colonization, sold out of public ownership. It appears to be a classic case of “selling the family jewels” for a shortsighted and short-term financial gain and, given the timing of the sale, political gain.

We understand the history of the site as follows:

During 1920–30’s the growth of Waverley Municipality and adjoining areas produced a need for a Public Hospital. Following public consultation, a portion of Centennial Park/Queens Park was excised and about one third of this site used for the Eastern Suburbs Public Hospital. The residue of the site remained in its natural state.

About 20 years ago, Moriah College obtained a grant of a Crown long-term lease (99 years?) over about one half of the site for a private high school. About 10 years ago, the College obtained a further Crown long-term lease over another one third of the site for a private primary school. The leases were granted without a shred of community consultation or prior notice.

The Keneally State Government has now sold this huge parcel of strategically-located Public land, thus removing it from public use and access forever. Disgracefully, it was done without a scintilla of public consultation or prior notice and with the knowledge that the Waverley and Woollahra Municipalities have no public high schools and there is a critical shortage of publick high schools in Randwick Municipality.

Clearly, the land was originally intended as parkland in perpetuity.

Attached is an article from the Sydney Morning Herald indicating that the State Government proposes changes to “Special uses” zoning. In light of the proposed changes, what covenants did the State Government attach to this sale to prohibit the site being used for any use other than educational purposes to secondary school level? Without safeguards, the site may be intensively developed for commercial purposes.

The community is entitled to, and deserves, a full explanation as to:

• Why and how this site was sold and access to full details of all negotiations thereon.
• Why the site was forever removed from public use; and
• Why, potentially, it is open to further intensive development.

What is next to be sold, and commercially exploited, Mr Kelly? Land currently used as State schools?. Land used for purposes that the community considers sacrosanct, protected by planning restrictions, and taxation exemptions? It appears even these lands are threatened by a concerted and virtually manic development push that all freehold land be developed into strata subdivisions.

Will Labor be campaigning on a policy of conversion of public land to private ownership for intensive and unsympathetic development as well as open slather on development of private land?

Your early response would be appreciated.

Mike Danzey

Bronte, and Tamarama Advancement Society (1971)

Comments on “Green Paper” [GP] proposals for “A New Planning System for NSW.” [NPS]

8^th September 2012

From Bronte and Tamarama Advancement Society [BATAS]

C.J. [Mike] Danzey

Chairperson

Certified Valuer

Attention: The Hon. Brad Hazzard. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

Dear Minister,

Some brief comments on the proposed “New Planning System”. [NPS]

Foreword

+Today, Government is seen giving such precedence to the ‘Mining Industry’s’ fiscal interests that our rural production lands and water supplies are in peril facilitated by ‘Strategic Land Use Planning.’

+ Today, Government is seen giving such precedence to the ‘Urban Development Industry’s’ fiscal interests that our Urban residential and industrial Freehold lands and housing standards are in peril facilitated by a “New Planning System”.

The question is raised, “where, is State Treasury influence taking NSW?”

The Minister overview in Green Paper, states:

“The new legislation will be an ‘enabling’ Act which will establish the broad framework for a planning system. The Act will not included detailed prescriptive controls, instead these details will be covered by guidance and good practice advisory notes.

The objectives of the Act will emphasise in particular the role in facilitating and managing growth and economic development.”

Noticeably absent is any reference to:

[1] *Environmental, Planning.

[2] *Planning that preserves and safeguard existing suburban residential environments.

Disappointingly The Green Paper proposes a “malleable NPS” that appears pro-developer, and, swathed in flexible terminology, possibly, to conceal its core intent.

[3] Promotes the fiscal interests of the “Property Council members”

[4] Feeds State Treasury addiction to property taxes”, significantly generated and compounded, when, Freehold land is subdivided into numerous Strata lots.

“Facilitating Growth”?????

[5] What, is meant by facilitating growth?

[6] Does t mean facilitating development access to exploit residential airspace?

[7] Does it mean, “Facilitating Strata developments from Freehold land removing existing use, especially in established suburban residential areas”?

[8] Does it mean compromising local building and development standards?

Who will decide?

[9] * Will, Private Certifiers, be given powers to approve development and building applications, by-passing Local Councils?

[10] If so, will Council’s have powers to investigate non-compliance of condition of consent and building standards? Then, when warranted, have powers to enforce compliance and standards and recover costs from Certifiers?

Planning

[11] Town Planning is not all about facilitating, enabling, assisting or expanding development opportunities, especially facilitating multi level Strata housing to exploit the residential air-space of established council areas.

Planning to generate and compound State property taxes, and placate a hysterical development lobbyby facilitating the subdividing Freehold into numerous Strata Lots is carpetbaggery – not Town Planning!

[12] Suburban residential areas require a Town Planning System that “protects local residential heritage environments, and building standards”, standards that have placed NSW housing among the worlds highest.

[13] An essential intent of a “Planning System” is to support local resident’s expectations and desire to safeguard urban environments and streetscapes, enshrining resident participation, appoint Local Councils to administer intent.

[14] Not a NPS to “facilitate Freehold land being subdivided into Strata lots influenced by State Treasury’s ominous fiscal Planning agenda to generate and compound State property taxes.” That is carpetbaggery, not “Town Planning”

“Treasury fiscal agenda promoting Freehold land subdivision to Strata Lots, has already corrupted NSW Planning.”

[15] The NPS appears to be contaminated by such mutual fiscal interests of State and Development lobby, much like the mutual fiscal interest of State and exploration for Natural Gas in NSW.

[16] Residents [constituents] will remind members of NSW Parliament and Local Councils, of their expectation that the NPS is the Development Lobby’s facilitating agent for strata developments defying residents expectations their Urban environment and street-scapes be safe-guarded from opportunisticdevelopments. These are almost always motivated by mammon, chanting,Affordability– Rental /housing crises –Jobs –Amalgamation of Councils etc.

[17] Planning and Environment are inseparable, fundamental elements in a NPS, once lacking and the prime reason why Resident Action Groups formed in 1970’s that lead to,

Environmental and Planning Laws in 1981., Subsequently, eroded by the influence of State Treasury and hysterical Development Lobby.

Can Planning be “For Sale”

[18] If, the NPS intent is to “facilitate” strata development opportunities to placate *The hysterical interminable demands of the “Property Council”

Also.- *Feed State Treasury insatiable craving for property taxes, generated and compounded, subdividing Freehold into Strata lots.

“Then, Planning NSW is not only “For Sale” but, “Sold” to the highest bidder.

Along with discounted housing standards “Sold” to Strata housing merchants”.

We need well Planned Development, not Opportunistic Development.

Not profit and taxes from rezoned ‘Airspace” that’s Planning for carpetbaggers

[19] The massive costs to taxpayers at each level of Government to provide infrastructure, especially, transport in the Sydney region, dictates Strata developments be restricted and located to zone precincts close to existing rail transport networks.

e.g., Redfern -Kings Cross –Burwood – Homebush etc. and ribbon development discouraged.

“State Treasury fiscal connect with, Strata developments”

[20] The Fiscal booty connecting State Government and the Development Industry fortunes is a prime concern. Treasury and Banks [Property Council members] are the major fiscal beneficiaries from Strata developments to an extent;

the construction industry generally can be described as. “The State Treasury’s and Bank’s ‘Construction/team’.“State Treasury fiscal agenda and influence has debased NSW Planning.”

A Thumbnail. – Growth of State Property Taxes impact on Planning

[21] Strata title developments had a modest start following enabling legislation [1961] primarily, because residential property was then gridlocked with State rent controls, carried over from Federal WW2 provisions

that restricted gross rent to a 5% based on 1938/39 valuation and handed to State when WW2 ended.

NSW for both economic and political reasons continued rent controls for decades, impacting investment in Freehold land as lack of income neglected property maintenance to a degree many Sydney urban areas were regarded as slum areas.

Initially [1960’s] exclusively rental Apartment blocks, many classic [Freehold required] converted to Strata or Company title to re-capture capital invested and escape State rental controls.

[22] Following Strata title introduction in NSW [1961] rent controls were progressive withdrawn, replaced with a “New Planning Weapon” evolved to undermine viability of Freehold land if used as rental housing or small business.

[23] The new planning weapon would be State Land Tax SLT that would evolve to selectively target and undermine the viability of Freehold land if used as privately funded Rental Housing and Small Business.

[24]* State Treasury “New Planning Weapon”, “State Land Tax”[SLT]

NSW reintroduced SLT in 1955, about 50 years after Premier Caruthers government abolished SLT handing Land Tax to Local Government, a land tax we all call “Council Rates” which means the Council Land Tax “Rate”.

When Premier Joe Cahill re-introduced SLT in 1955 he never intended, or, envisaged it would evolve an agenda to selectively impact the viability of rental housing and small business need of a Freehold Site, and be called an “efficient” tax.

What NSW Treasury calls “Planning NSW”

[25] Treasury evolved SLT as a planning agenda, selectively targeting impact on Freehold land use as rental housing and small business. Treasury did/does this by exploiting the “mass valuation methodology provisions of the “Valuation of Land Act [1916] ”,

a valuation process that sets all land values for land taxing and was /is specifically designed to set land values for Council’s land tax “Rates” that,unlike State Land Tax, council rates cannot be selectively imposed on Ratepayers.[See 26]

SLT. The Catalyst the Facilitator

[26] State Land Tax agenda is so efficient that it undermines freehold land use, it became the catalyst, that gave birth to the “Planning fiscal baby” connecting Treasury and the Development Lobby – an ominous nuptial that influences NSW Planning.

[27] State Land Tax agenda corrupts NSW Planning, to be “A Property Tax Fountain”

Unpegged State Land Tax selectively taxes land values that are adjusted annually, to maximise impact on private Freehold land use as rental housing and small business, designed to promote Freehold lands conversion into Strata lots.

Essentially, Treasury does this by.

[A] Imposing unpegged State Land Tax ‘Rate’ at usury ‘Rates” compared with locale

Council land tax ‘Rates’ especially in established Local Government Areas [see 29 & attach. A.]

[B] State Land Tax taxes lands redevelopment value, that is deemed vacantwhen valued.

[C] Existing use of Freehold land was/is disregarded exacerbating the rental crises.

[D] Land Taxing all lands redevelopment value, taxes potential development value

that may not occur in 30 years. “Thus, State Land Tax as a punitive Planning Weapon.”

Regarding [A] and [B]

The % State Land Tax “Rate” exceeds Council land “Rate”[see 28] exposes Treasury agenda to use State Land Tax as a Planning weapon to impact Freehold land existing use, also, how ruthlessly Treasury exploits The Valuation of Lands Act [1916]

“Mass valuation methodology provisions” directing the Valuer General [or his agent] to value all land as vacant ready to build, when setting values for land taxing.

[28] A serious concern because Treasury was /is aware.

Aware. The valuation methodology that sets taxing value of, Treasury exploits to impact Freehold land with State Land Tax, exploiting a methodology that was only intended to set land values for Local Government land tax

State Treasury- Aware

Local councils, unlike the the imposition of State Land Tax, are, prohibited from selectivelytargeting rental housing, high street small business and industrial that require a freehold site

State Treasury – Aware. All  Councils must apply their respective local land tax “Rate” to all properties in the same class, unlike State Land Tax that is selectively with an agenda to impact Freehold land use.

[29] Make no mistake, STate Land Tax is used as a ruthless stealth Planning weapon deliberately designed to

destabilise Freehold land existing use, a Planning weapon New Planning System is silent about.

“State Land Tax is a stealth planning agenda that sneaks under the public radar guided assist by Treasury propaganda and a silent media. New Planning System agenda also appears primarily

about generating and compounding State property taxes, a destructive Planning agenda.

[30] *The extent State Land Tax ‘Rate’ EXCEED Metropolitan Council’s ‘Rates’ in 2010.

*Auburn—787%. Baulkham Hills—1093%. Canada Bay—909%

*Fairfield—801%. Gosford—645%. Holroyd—1046%. Kogarah—1001%.

*Ku-ring-gai—892%. Liverpool—1053%. Lane Cove—943%. Manly– 913%. Mosman—2204%. North Sydney—2177%. Ryde—1113%. Straithfield-1532%

*Waverley—1151%. Willoughby—1099%. Woollahra—2931%.

Also see attachment.A, Also go to. http://www.landtaxforum.com.au

Property Tax Fountain” becomes a “Tax Gusher”

[31] When Goods and Services Tax arrived [2000] the ‘New South Wales Government Property Tax Fountain’ became a ‘Property Tax Gusher’. State Land Tax undermining agenda performed overtime exploiting

increased land values, increasing its undermining of liable Freehold land existing use, exacerbating the rental crises, also exploited to advocate construction of more strata stack housing.

[32] State Land Tax combined with Goods and Services Tax has become a monumental corrupting influence on New South Wales Planning and Government, especially, as Goods and Services Tax

was to replace State Property taxes, mitigating their influence on Government to corrupt Planning, however,

this did not suit the fiscal ambitions of NSW State Treasury and the ‘Strata Development Push’.

[33] The Property Councils constant urgings to gain more and more access to suburban Freehold land for Strata developments disconcertingly also boost Treasury fiscal fortunes and Bank profits

– both are major beneficiaries when Freehold subdivides into Strata lots they win by a country mile.

[34] Mutual fiscal interests of Treasury and Development Lobby is a vital factor, why, State Government persistently “facilitates” more and more suburban Freehold land for conversion into Strata Lots.

Massive areas of Freehold land have been rezoned /turned over and converted to numerous Strata Lots and cutely called “In-fill development”.

EG.–Raceways –Hospital –Industrial lands–. Schools—Public Waterfronts- Centennial Park lands- Council & Railway land, Transport Depots, Airports

What next. – Canterbury – Rosehill –raceways. More coastal headlands, foreshores -Beach-fronts? etc. The Air-space of Suburban residential areas.?

A List will appear on http://www.landtaxforum.com.au

Climate Change

[34] Governments constantly lecture supplies of Electricity, Water, etc. are already in crises. Yet Governments facilitate massive increased development of multi-level strata housing developments compounding demand for electricity, water, gas etc.

While, Taxpayers already finance infrastructure the State proposes another SLT.

[34] NSW government proposed a third “catch all Land Tax”,

[Sydney Morning Herald 9/3/12] upon New South Wales property [the catch -all bit remains to be seen] and called a “Levy” just like SLT and Council Land ‘Rates” proposes taxing land value,

reported to “Assist Developers finance infrastructure “and supported by IPART

[35] Recently the New South Wales Treasury proposed a NEW catchall land tax @.7% . “Called a Levy”.

The rationale

*To finance State Emergency Services, a more acceptable, worthy cause”

*Expressing concern that 810,000 NSW properties have no Home Insurance:, accordingly, avoid paying annual State charges and taxes on Home Insurance. [Presumably, they are self-insure and likely to be mortgage free]

*The Levy will replace all State charges and taxes on Home Insurance,

[Something the Goods and Service Tax was supposed to do]

[36] Regardless how Treasury presents a ‘catchall Levy’,[supported by IPART] “it is a catchall State Land Tax, with potential to evolve into an “efficient” ruthless Planning agenda to impact existing use of Freehold land, [ EG Homes] especially, in developed urban areas.  Its introduction can/will iundermine existing freehold land used as HOMES, just as State Treasury evolved Joe Cahill State Land Tax of 1955 to undermined.Rental housing, Small Business use of Freehold land.

ALSO there is strong evidence that State Land Tax on land title Treasury and Bankers call an efficient tax,supplements New South Wales Parliamentary Pensions

[37] If installed the “Levy” means NSW will have ‘Three Annual Land Taxes”. [Two State –one Council]. The Levy is in direct completion with local councils land rates,and,

[38] The proposed ‘Levy uses NSW Treasury old State Land Tax ploy to exploit the mass valuation methodology, that disregards existing use to impacts Freehold land, thus,a ploy.

[40] To proposed a second catch- all SLT

*While. Leaving the existing unpegged SLT to work its agenda

*While. IPART gradually unpegs Local Council land tax “Rates”

*While. Proposing erosion of private property rights, compelling minority Owners of strata /company Apartment blocks, to sell to Developers.

*While Council Amalgamation significantly reduces resident representation.

[41] The web wwwlandtaxforum.com.au will soon be posting data about the Proposed “Catch all State Levy” [ Don’t miss it]

[42] If all this comes to pass, [41] the O’Farrell Government [in my opinion] will suffer significant electoral damage at the next State election, especially, if the New Planning System facilitates the fiscal interests of Treasury and the Development lobby

[44] The Kennett Government in Victoria; found the State Treasury moneybox short of funds. Jeff Kennett place a Temporary Levy on all property [from memory $100.] Not ‘a land tax masquerading as a “Levy” based on very doubtful rationale.

Removing transparency, or, Public assess to Council’s taxing land values used for taxing

[46] Each council has “valuation rolls” were the taxing value -dimensions – proprietor -are registered and used for land taxing. The land values were always intended to be open to public scrutiny to protect the systemd veracity.

A fundamental tenet removed by the Bob Carr Government. Removing public access to council Valuation Rolls debased land taxing debased Council application of “Council Land Rates” Transparent provided a safe-guard

the funding by of Councils and State be equitably distributed among Ratepayers. Bob Carr ended openness and fair play.

[48] The Carr Government attempted selectively imposing State Land Tax on all land used for rental housing and business in New South Waled [2005] Now, with IPART gradually relaxing Council Rate pegging [IPART, at one time suggested a SLT on all land ]

Now, the O’Farrell Government proposes to install a second catchall State Land Tax callin it a ‘Levy”,

Formation of Bronte and Tamarama Advancement Society [1971][BATAS]

[49] Bronte and Tamarama Advancement Society formed in 1971 when resident concerns were raised about proposed and opportunistic developments right on the beach front. The Bronte and Tamarama Valleys and Beachfronts exploiting the then lack of adequate Planning controls.

E.G. Developments Proposed..

* Demolish the entire Bronte Beach front commercial precinct, replace with.

Two [2] strata towers of sixteen levels above Hotel-Motel of four [4] levels

* A Council sponsored private club at Bronte Baths. Etc.

E.G. Approved

* Multi level Strata blocks above western end of Tamarama Park /Valley.

* A multi level Strata block at the western end of the Bronte Park valley.etc.

All opportunistic development planned for Bronte and Tamarama coastal Valley areas, facilitated by lack of planning controls.

BATAS held a number of well-attended public meetings in Bronte Park, one titled, “Save The Family Home” in 1975, called to obtain planning controls and enshrine resident participation in Planning,

to safeguard these and others areas from opportunistic Strata developments.

Speakers at “Save the Family Home “public meeting were:

* Neville Wran [State Opposition Leader]

* Lady Violet Braddon [State Land Tax potential impact]

*Juanita Nielson [Victoria Street Resident Action Group ]

*Prof Neil Runcie [Centennial Park Residents Action Group ]

*John Buchannan [Randwick Resident Action Group ]

*John Glebe [Sectary Plumber Union]

*Mike Danzey [Bronte and Tamarama Resident Action Group ]

Neville Wran as Opposition Leader advised the meeting, words to this effect.

* “If Labor wins the next State election [1975] Planning legislation will be introduced to protect existing residential environments and involve residents participation in the planning process”.

[Mr Wran was not invited to speak; he personally requested to do so]

Yours Sincerely,

C.J. [Mike] Danzey

Certified Real Estate Valuer.

Chairperson of BATAS

http://www.landtaxforum.com.au

Attachment.A.

Residential property only.

The following data provides a comparison between in 2011

State land tax [State Land Tax ]. – Imposed on rental housing within Council areas.

Council land tax [Rates]. – Imposed on all residential housing within Council areas.

SLT upon rental housing only. Council Rates upon all housing

*Burwood — State Land Tax  revenue from 2074 properties = $ 5,000,000. [rounded]

Council Rates revenue from  10,792 properties = $10,500,000.

*Canterbury–State Land Tax revenue from  4641 properties = $11,000,000. “

Council Rates revenue from  44,444.properties  = $100,000,000. “

*Kogarah. – State Land Tax revenue from 2889 properties = $ 8,000,000. “

Council Rates revenue from. 20,746 properties = $19,000,000. “

* Ku-ring-gai-State Land Tax revenue from  3909 properties. = $21,000,000. “

Council Rate revenue from  39,253 properties  = $24,000,000. “

*Manly State Land Tax 3667 properties  = $.17,500,000. “

Council Rates revenue from 15,851 properties  = $18,500,000. “

* Randwick. State Land Tax revenue from  8063 properties  = $40,500,000. “

Council. Rates revenue from  “ 47,630. properties  “ = $45,000,000. “

*Waverley—State Land Tax frevenue rom  6713 properties = $43,000,000. “

Council — Rates. “ 27,807 “ = $ 26,000,000. “

*Woollahra –State Land Tax revenue from 7443. properties = $64,500,000. “

Council. Rates revenue from 24,365. properties = $25,000,000. “

The above Council only.

State land tax raised

From 39,399 rental-housing properties SLT revenue was $210,500,000.

From total 230,888 residential properties councils rate revenue was $268,000.000

The above data was received in writing exposes how determined SLT agenda is used to destabilise private rental housing use of Freehold land.