Comments on: Bring on Brogden’s bulldozers

By: cs

cs — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

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!

By: Glenn Condell

Glenn Condell — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

‘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?’

By: Jason Soon

Jason Soon — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Norman

Norman — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

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”?

By: Glenn Condell

Glenn Condell — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

‘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.

By: Norman

Norman — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

The only workable answers, Glenn, aren’t “acceptable”, so we’ll continue the search for evermore expensive bandaids.

By: Back Pages

Back Pages — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

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…