Save Our
Sydney Suburbs (NSW) Inc.
News
Release September 2004
Suspect Statistics / Terrorism
Hi SOS Members
SUSPECT STATISTICS
We have recently seen newspaper reports to the effect that people living in
suburbs are overweight compared to those living in high density. We have now
unearthed the source of these reports, a study termed “Measuring the Health
Effects of Sprawl”. It proves to be merely another example of the political
spin advanced by the advocates of high density.
The study (which cost US$5 million) purports to demonstrate that people living
in more sprawling, suburban areas are fatter than people who live in more dense
central cities. They say this is because people in the suburbs use cars and
therefore walk less. However when we look at their numbers we find they are
insignificant. The difference in weight found between people living in high-density
and in houses was in the range of only 181 to 907 grams! They are equivalent
to walking 25 minutes more per month, or 50 seconds per day.
Western nations are of course experiencing an excess weight problem. This is
measured in kilograms, not grams. And this weight gain only
started happening recently - in the last 10 years whereas suburban living has
been significant since the 1940s. Also, the study omitted to take into account
significant factors relating to obesity such as family income – poorer
people tend to be heavier. The greatest factor is considered to be a change
in dietary habits - junk food.
The misleading propaganda of the high-density advocates is mind-boggling. We
all know the real reason underlying the push for high density in New South Wales
– money (large profits and huge donations), not consideration for our
welfare. For those of you interested in further examples of this misuse
- please see below.
TERRORISM
We are all appalled by the increasing incidence of dreadful terrorist acts worldwide.
SOS member Hugh Knox has written the following letter to some newspapers:
Dear letters editor
Premier Carr has not learned
the lessons of history, despite his stated interest.
Lesson 1: Dictators who ignore community consensus can end by being shot and
hung by the heels upside down in the town square.
Lesson 2: In world war 2, both sides were killing civilians as fast as they
could go. Their targets were medium and high-density housing. That was the way
to kill more civilians.
Lesson 3: Terrorists can and will strike anywhere. Nowhere is safe. Their targets
so far have been overcrowded places of work or play. It is only a matter of
time before they target apartment buildings.
Lesson 4: The overcrowding of cities leads inevitably to rising prices, rising
unemployment, more congestion, more pollution and other environmental damage,
poor quality construction, more infrastructure overload and more crime, and
in addition, the increased probability of terrorist attack.
We don’t have to make the same mistakes that other countries have made.
Overcrowding is not inevitable. Mr Carr’s policy of “urban consolidation”
and “housing choice”, which everyone else calls “overcrowding”,
is turning Sydney, which he says is already bursting at the seams, into an overcrowded
slum and the very obvious target of terrorist attack.
So no one benefits from overcrowding but developers. Developers make huge donations
to the NSW Labor party. How long will it take Mr Carr to grasp the fact that
his betrayed supporters are not stupid, and might assume a connection even if
there is not one?
Not “if” but “when” terrorists attack a high-rise apartment
block in Sydney with readily available explosives, or nerve gas in the air-conditioning,
killing hundreds at one fell swoop, Mr Carr and his collaborators will have
much to answer for.
Yours sincerely
Hugh Knox
MORE SUSPECT STATISTICS
For those of you interested in the misuse of statistics, another example:
High-density advocates say that high-density is the major factor relating to
public transport use. However studies show that if one looks at all the variables
involved such as income and accessibility, high density is an insignificant
factor relating to the use of public transport.
In this regard it annoys us to hear Professor Peter Newman, Sydney’s “Sustainability
Commissioner” referring to greater public transport use by residents of
the denser inner ring suburbs as proving that high density increases public
transport use. He ignores the fact that people living in the inner ring are
more likely to work in the city than those living in less dense outer suburbs.
In most cases it is just too expensive and difficult to use one’s car
to travel to the city and public transport is conveniently directed to city
destinations. However only a minority of jobs are in the city. If the whole
of Sydney were to be as dense as the inner ring, any extra public transport
use would be minimal as most of the community would be travelling to destinations
other than those well served by public transport. Traffic congestion would increase
due to the greater number of cars (as we all know).
So density is only coincidentally associated with the greater use of public
transport in the inner ring. The more important factor is nearness to city.
People living further from the city centre and working elsewhere will not use
public transport to the same extent, irrespective of density.
We are easily misled by high-density advocates. They can rely on people not
having time to ascertain the truth or otherwise of their assertions.
Tony Recsei
President
Save Our Suburbs (SOS)