[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

If you keep using the terms like I've hightlighted, your arguments become no better than SebC's - aggressive statements based on blind, albeit sincere, beliefs.

Free-for-all isn't accurate enough and a bit misleading but today's process does lack coordination/organization.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

If anything, it is the inner-city infill developments that have not to-date been paying enough based on their impact on existing infrastructure (it is being reviewed; see our earlier exchange with Bunk on this topic in another thread; I don't want to repeat everything).

I don't think this is an excuse but simply another important issue that needs to be addressed.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

so that we can discuss it further.

It's a complicated and comprehensive subject, that discussion will have to take place in the future.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I immediately think of all barely used inner-city school sites and the amount of land they occupy. Why not consolidate some of the schools, re-designate the remainder to the high density use and then sell all of the remaining land at a public auction for intensification?

As the City would like to repopulate the inner-city, it would be unwise to completely re-purpose the schools. However, the sites could be better utilized. For instance: the excess land could be sold off, the buildings could host temporary uses, or the land could be privately redeveloped to include market real estate and a more efficiently built school (i.e. occupying less land, a more urban design and adaptable).

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Just imagine the delay imposed by the addition of the legal review process. It is there now by the way, but it is hardly used for that reason and also for the reason of applicants not wanting to create enemies at the administration and political levels.

I like using the legal system because it creates precedents. Obviously this isn't going to be possible or feasible in every case but this can also work in the developers' favour. The length and costs that makes it appear unfeasible for developers can also act as a deterrent for political grandstanding in some cases.

Nevertheless, the courts shouldn't be the only way to prevent acceptable developments from not being granted permission. Proactive measures like avoiding the need to go before Council and reactive measures like an appropriate appeal process are needed as well.