In my urban design experience, I have found the fiercest battle to be fought between interests that are public (for the greater social good) and interests that are private (individual owner or corporate group). The sustainability issue, the budget issue and even the aesthetic issue are most always overshadowed by the client wanting to overstep his ability to develop an opportunity to the detriment of those around him. At its core, this pursuit is motivated by greed. Plain and simple.
Greed.
The recognition that there are obviously limited resources, therefor one should acquire as many of those resources as possible in order to enjoy life and survive in that way for as long as possible.
(I am a bit grumpy so I switched off my politically correct setting this morning, sorry!!)
Enter stage(left): Local government
Certainly my greatest demand from local government is to ensure that these battles between public and private interests, between individual greed and the greater public good is mediated. Mediated in favor of the public good. This mediation includes securing funds for essential services and social upliftment. It includes teacher training, policing and environmental protection.
Obviously it would include abiding by its own rules drawn up in consultative public processes - the Urban Edge in particular springs to mind.
What the City has done in setting such a precedent constitutes a tipping point in terms of public engagement and the role of the local government in protecting the rights of the public good.
Very tricky. How can the City possibly defend, yes, defend the rights of the public when the City itself is seen to be bowing to private greed?
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Race Classification Bench: fantastic expression and art piece. Now vandalized. Who would deface an expression of democracy? |
