ABC 7:30: Is the great Australian dream broken beyond repair?

On the 10th of February 7:30 presented part 1 of what they say will be a series on housing affordability. Unfortunately, if the first instalment is anything to go by, we are unlikely to be impressed. I was initially asked to be interviewed for the program. I agreed to participate before the offer was withdrawn. I understand that representatives from the Boroondara team were actually interviewed, however it seems all of that footage wound up on the cutting room floor.

Opponents of the government proposals are characterised as NIMBYs - again. Cheap gas lighting devoid of intellectual rigor. It's what you do when you can't deal in facts. Cultivate a divisive debate focused on personality, name calling, and them vs us arguments.

We've heard plenty about the the affordability crisis in this report. However there is more than one solution to this problem. The government's solution is to unashamedly put a thumb on the scale in favour of developers at the expense of existing residents. They do this by:

• Reducing setbacks

• Reducing overshadowing provisions

• Reducing parking provided as part of a apartment development

• and completely eliminating oversight by locals councils and the right to request a review by residents

It shouldn't be a problem though, developers have shown themselves to be a trustworthy bunch always putting community ahead of profit. Excuse me for being sceptical.

Brendan Coates from the Grattan Institute says the plan is to build the "missing middle" - units and townhouses from 2-3 stories up to about 6 story apartments (3:56 minutes into the video).

Really? I must be looking a different plan because the one I'm looking at has 20 storey buildings in Activity Centres and 6 storey building in suburban streets.

There is a reason Jacinta Allan decided to launch the plan in Bayside (9 minutes in). Launching in an area encompassing wealthier suburbs feeds the narrative that it is only the wealthy, self-entitled, "Karen" types that are opposed to her plan. The ABC helps feed this narrative by conveniently omitting (gee I don't know...) say Broadmeadows and focusing attention on a bunch of chanting older people.

The balance to the argument (to the extent any was offered) was provided by Cr. Hanna El Mouallem (10 minutes ish in). I'm sure he was striving to be balanced when (with a straight face) he says tripling the number of homes being delivered (from day 1) - "is probably a stretch." That was it. That was the only argument surfaced that tempered the proposals.

Then we were into economist Peter Tulip (11:42), "the crux of the housing issue that to make housing more affordable we need to increase supply...and that is being opposed by local residents who don't like change." Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it? Yep that's the only reason. I would have thought Dr Tulip might have been able to come up with a more nuanced argument - something more than - I reckon it's these NIMBYs. Maybe those wound up on the cutting room floor as well?

Fact: the nature of the government plan is that it is necessarily organic and uncontrolled. All the land in inner suburbs is currently owned and built upon. Developers will need to buy up property as it becomes available when existing owners decide to sell. They will build when they get a large enough parcel, in whatever location that happens to be in. Far from orderly, controlled, well planned and ascetically pleasing. But let's not talk about that.

Increased housing density is achievable. It needs to be done responsibly, in a planned way with the necessary improvements in infrastructure to support that density.

Here is a link to the program. Unfortunately the ABC has turned off comments on YouTube. I can't imagine why. Hopefully the other side of the argument might get a hearing next time.