Bring on Brogden’s bulldozers
I wasn’t going to comment on the Redfern riots because I’ve been too busy to follow the story in any great depth. However, I’m going to take the unusual step of jumping in to defend John Brogden, who said:
I’d bring the bulldozers in because I think allowing this to happen every couple of years, which is what’s going to happen, will never fix the problem.
Chris Sheil claimed that
the sound of the NSW opposition leader urging the government to immediately adopt Israel-style tactics ah la the Palestinians was a shocking thing to hear.
Alan Grieve was closer to the mark:
The Brogden statement (I think he means The Block, not the whole suburb of Redfern) grimly exposes the guy’s inexperience and his willingness to jump anything, including the shark, for coverage, any coverage.
The fact is, Brogden turned existing policy into a hyperbolic sound bite. There can be no doubt that the physical environment in slums like Redfern contributes significantly to the social problems there. If razing the Block is necessary to replace it with something that approaches community standards, so be it. When people are proud of their neighbourhood, they’re less likely to tolerate this kind of behaviour.
In fact, that’s a point on which the Opposition, the Government and the Aboriginal community agree:
[Bob Carr] said the government was committed to ensuring redevelopment of The Block was sustainable and financially viable.
He said 68 of the original 91 houses on The Block had been demolished during the past seven years.
Only three of these houses still stood on Eveleigh Street and only one was still occupied.
All three of the houses would be demolished as soon as the resident was relocated within the next four weeks, Mr Carr said in a statement.
A further 20 houses on Lewis, Carolyn and Vine Streets would be demolished when plans were completed for the stage-one redevelopment of The Block next year.
Mr Carr said the state government did not own the land, which was why it was working closely with the local Aboriginal community and the Aboriginal Housing Company on redevelopment plans.
“The redevelopment of The Block is part of the overall redevelopment plans for Redfern/Waterloo due out in the next few months,'’ Mr Carr said.
“It will involve 62 new houses, greater open space and will incorporate all the latest approaches to crime prevention and community safety.'’
In forceful terms, Brogden argued that the necessary and ongoing redevelopment of Redfern would reduce antisocial behaviour. He’s right — but he’s counting on knee-jerk responses like Chris Sheil’s to make it look like Carr disagrees.
(Of course, redevelopment alone will not solve the problems in Redfern. Moreover, the question of police racism is entirely separate. I don’t know whether it’s a serious problem in Redfern, but the locals certainly think it is. It should be thoroughly investigated — not just in relation to TJ’s death, but in terms of day-to-day practices and attitudes.)
Update: Christopher Sheil’s thinks Brogden’s comment was more sinister:
Over at Kick and Scream, my friend Robert Corr has suggested that Brogden’s statement was merely a hyperbolic expression of existing Redfern redevelopment policies, which are supported by the NSW government, the opposition and Aboriginal representatives. This is incorrect. Brogden has called for the complete bulldozing of the Block and the dispersal of the Aboriginal population into other parts of Sydney, a policy condemned by Aboriginal leaders.
I didn’t read Brogden’s comments that way, but since Christopher is in Sydney and is no doubt getting blanket coverage of the riots, I’ll defer to his judgment. If Brogden is indeed calling for the dispersal of the Aboriginal population, then he is a fucksnap.
Are ypu accusing me of a kneejerking to a kneejerk? I would sussest that progressive redevelopment is scarcely the same as ‘bringing in the bulldozers” Robert. Moreover, Brogden obviously didn’t have access to the facts about this incident (who has yet?), so on what basis was he proposing his solution? Think about it!
Redfern in world’s eye
Last night’s conflict sure has captured enormous hectares of world press, and it is a shocking thing to imagine a 17-year-old kid dying in this horrific way. There was much conjecture in the media this afternoon about whether the back…
‘In forceful terms, Brogden argued that the necessary and ongoing redevelopment of Redfern would reduce antisocial behaviour. He’s right — but he’s counting on knee-jerk responses like Chris Sheil’s to make it look like Carr disagrees.’
He’s only right if the residents are guaranteed places in the redevelopment. Even then, a shoddy new home won’t necessarily make things much better than a soddy old home, will it?
I walk thru there every weekday and outside of the block the place certainly is changing. Ivy St features a piano teacher and a flute teacher. I know a few people who’ve moved in there lately and they are youngish, urban professionals. They’re all white.
You can’t get closer to the city; the place is worth a motza. There’s been a few timid stories in the papers about how Charles Perkins’ family (and those of other prominent Abrigines) are shareholders in companies with interests in and around the Block. But they wouldn’t be on their lonesome.
I wonder if Charles and co have invested in the area in order to pay top dollar for a shiny new suburb, with a view to taking the present residents on as tenants. I have my doubts.
I think if you’re looking for a knee-jerk, loook to Brogden first. He needs to be asked - ‘what goes up if you knock it down, and who goes in?’
I thought Brogden’s comments were overheated but if dispersal was what he meant, why does that make you less favourable to them? This isn’t a matter of race - rather the point is poor families, who are disproportionately dysfunctional because of economic pressures, are better off integrated into more middle-class neighbourhoods where their children can play with children from other socioeconomic backgrounds and not feel like they are part of some ghetto banished from the rest of Australian society. To the extent that Aboriginals are disproportionately poor, these correlations compound the sense of isolation. There should be an end to public housing settlements which marginalise the poor. Instead poor families should have their housing needs met through rent subsidies or housing vouchers that allow them to move their children into neighbourhoods of their choosing and consciously choose the environments in which they would like their children to thrive.
Glenn, that’s a good point. I suppose the image I have in my head is what happened in the Perth suburb of Balga — council flats were bulldozed and replaced with nice, modern houses, but they remained state-owned. If Redfern’s development about turfing out the poor Aborigines because the land’s worth too much to put up with them, I’d be less supportive.
Jason, I support public housing scattered through the suburbs (including in wealthy areas). However, it’s my understanding that the land in Redfern is owned by the Aboriginal community. Forcing them to move off their own property seems to go beyond merely providing alternative arrangements elsewhere.
Doesn’t anyone remember any State Government decision in the past to “remove” a public housing area because the non-indigenous inhabitants had turned it into such a problem that the best solution was bulldozers? No one screamed “racist” then; but it’s a useful weapon, so I guess it would be asking to much to expect consistency of analysis, rather than consistency of political “purity”?
‘I thought Brogden’s comments were overheated but if dispersal was what he meant, why does that make you less favourable to them?’
If a bunch of well-heeled young anti-socialites went on a rampage in Double Bay (not entirely beyond the realms - ever been there on a Friday night?) can you imagine Brogden (or Carr) daring to suggest we bulldoze the joint? It was overheated sure, but also very unwise, very prejudicial in tone and import. Peremptory, strident, reactionary. Leadership is about more than leading the pack’s righteous barking. These sorts of issues demand in political leaders some restraint and caution, even if it’s contrary to their first reaction, perhaps especially.
‘This isn’t a matter of race - rather the point is poor families, who are disproportionately dysfunctional because of economic pressures, are better off integrated into more middle-class neighbourhoods where their children can play with children from other socioeconomic backgrounds and not feel like they are part of some ghetto banished from the rest of Australian society’
I agree, but it has to be a graduated affair. Or would you be happy to have the two blokes I saw blueing with security yesterday moving in next to you tomorrow? There is also the issue of the wishes of these people in terms of where they live and among whom. Would they prefer to be scattered or gathered and does their preference matter?
I don’t pretend to know the answers to these questions.
The only workable answers, Glenn, aren’t “acceptable”, so we’ll continue the search for evermore expensive bandaids.