Paul Osborn raises a good point. However it is not just an issue relevant
to leasehold land.
I met a landholder once who owned a reasonable amount of uncleared bush
near a city and had held it for many years, incurring not insignificant
holding costs. Gradually all other areas around the land were cleared and
subdivided, and then the new residents applied pressure to get the land
rezoned. It eventually was rezoned after a long battle, preventing the
landholder from clearing and subdividing because it was the only
undeveloped land left in the area. The landowner's attitude at the end of
this was "I have tried to keep this area as some undeveloped urban bushland
whilst I have been holding it, but I have just been penalised for doing so.
I should have bulldozed the lot as soon as I got it."
That strikes me as a not unreasonable conclusion to reach in the
circumstances, given that he effectively had to bear the entire financial
burden resulting from other people's decisions to clear other land. Too
often people advocating change to land management regimes forget that what
they suggest is for a small sector of society to bear the cost when
everyone shares the benefit.
I guess I could paraphrase this by saying "we're never going to solve this
issue on birding-aus"!
Murray Lord
Sydney
|
