Back to News page

Save Our Sydney Suburbs (NSW) Inc.
 News Release January 2004

Press flow-on from "Tree" letter 2

Hi SOS Members

SOS member Gordon Hocking has had this letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald today (20 Jan).

Tap into restrictions

Faced with relentless growth of Sydney's population, the Carr Government struggles to find an electorally palatable mix of urban consolidation (which carries environmental cost and loss of neighbourhood character) and urban sprawl (with environmental costs). Dr Tony Recsei (Letters, January 15) opposes urban consolidation and Ian Napier (Letters, January 17 {should read "19"} opposes further urban sprawl.

But the main issue is population growth underlying this dilemma. Must we wait until Sydney is unliveable, traffic chocked, polluted and continuously water stressed before the population tap is turned off?

Gordon Hocking,
Oyster Bay, January 19.

The letters referred to are copied below:


Trees not for parks only

Sydney is losing many more trees than those obstructing water views ("trees losing in race for water views", Herald 14 Jan). Urban consolidation flattens attractive homes with their charming gardens, smothering the soil with concrete, bitumen and tiles.


Trees bestow tranquillity, peacefulness and beauty; they provide a sanctuary for wildlife; they control rain rainoff, they cool and purify the air. Urban consolidation not only destroys trees, it increases traffic congestion, so intensifying the concentration of atmospheric pollution. We thus suffer a double whammy – more pollution generated while our surrounding cleansing trees are razed.

We wouldn't dream of ridding our parks of trees, yet every day countless trees are removed for urban consolidation.

Dr Tony Recsei
Warrawee, January 14


Dr Tony Recsei (Letters, January 15) blames urban consolidation for the loss of trees and for pollution, but fails to consider the alternative.
An equivalent number of homes built as single-storey houses on the outskirts of our cities, lacking public transport, jobs or community services, will occupy considerably more land, remove even more trees or sterilise arable land and generate far more pollution per person than the consolidated option.

Let's strive for better urban consolidation solutions that incorporate trees, but lefs also recognise the environmental costs of further urban sprawl.

Ian Napier,
Cremorne Point, January 17.

Ian Napier is of course wrong - the Save Our Suburbs website explains just how naive his assumptions are. We do consider the alternative - view Policies on our website, www.sos.org.au.

Tony Recsei
President
Save Our Suburbs (SOS)

Back to News page