<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trouble in Paradise: Dual Occupancy at Jarlanbah</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kitchentablesustainability.com/dual-occupancy-at-jarlanbah/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kitchentablesustainability.com/dual-occupancy-at-jarlanbah/</link>
	<description>Transforming Community Engagement with Sustainability</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:52:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jo Penwell</title>
		<link>http://kitchentablesustainability.com/dual-occupancy-at-jarlanbah/comment-page-1/#comment-6228</link>
		<dc:creator>Jo Penwell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:52:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kitchentablesustainability.com/?p=1297#comment-6228</guid>
		<description>If there is an attitude of respect for all the people involved and their perspectives, I am sure a community like this can find a resolution.

My instinctive reaction, based on the information here, is that introducing new  residents (especially where there is need) is not unreasonable. We are a nation where people are increasingly living alone, which is far from ideal - socially, economically, or environmentally. 

I am not convinced that we (as a nation) need more dwellings, filled with more people living alone. I am in favour of more mature, sharing arrangements. This might involve modifications to an existing home or a new build. 

I personally abhor soulless suburban development on mass, so I sympathise with some of the objections. The test (for me) would be whether the development has been well-considered and designed for the individual need, or solely as an investment /money-making venture. 

Increasing the resident population need not involve more cars either. I don&#039;t believe any household in a well-designed community/ city ever needs more than 1 car. Perhaps this might be an opportunity for the whole community to review driving habits and instigate new car-pooling, car-sharing or other shared transport arrangements. 

Ultimately, too many Australians are aging in isolation, with very little support. I&#039;d love to see a community - like this one -  work towards a sustainable solution that works for its people. 

Good Luck to you all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there is an attitude of respect for all the people involved and their perspectives, I am sure a community like this can find a resolution.</p>
<p>My instinctive reaction, based on the information here, is that introducing new  residents (especially where there is need) is not unreasonable. We are a nation where people are increasingly living alone, which is far from ideal &#8211; socially, economically, or environmentally. </p>
<p>I am not convinced that we (as a nation) need more dwellings, filled with more people living alone. I am in favour of more mature, sharing arrangements. This might involve modifications to an existing home or a new build. </p>
<p>I personally abhor soulless suburban development on mass, so I sympathise with some of the objections. The test (for me) would be whether the development has been well-considered and designed for the individual need, or solely as an investment /money-making venture. </p>
<p>Increasing the resident population need not involve more cars either. I don&#8217;t believe any household in a well-designed community/ city ever needs more than 1 car. Perhaps this might be an opportunity for the whole community to review driving habits and instigate new car-pooling, car-sharing or other shared transport arrangements. </p>
<p>Ultimately, too many Australians are aging in isolation, with very little support. I&#8217;d love to see a community &#8211; like this one &#8211;  work towards a sustainable solution that works for its people. </p>
<p>Good Luck to you all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David (Peah) Menzies</title>
		<link>http://kitchentablesustainability.com/dual-occupancy-at-jarlanbah/comment-page-1/#comment-2180</link>
		<dc:creator>David (Peah) Menzies</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 14:04:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kitchentablesustainability.com/?p=1297#comment-2180</guid>
		<description>I was the Lot owner on Jarlanbah who used the terms &quot;slum and a ghetto&quot;. Even if half the other lots here build accessory dwellings thats potentially an increase of at least 21.5 more automobiles. That could translate into at least 84 more car trips per day on the community&#039;s private roads. Consider the effect on the wildlife we share this community with. Echidnas and the baby freshwater turtle I rescued from magpie attack recently. These creatures can&#039;t just sprint out of the way of vehicles. 

Since I moved here in 2000 about 10 buildings have sprung up around my lot. Im no stranger to people arriving as your labels &quot;nimby&quot; and &quot;banana&quot; suggest. I advocate for restraint to further building on the allotments because we are at peak capacity now. There is less noise and less heavy machinery on our roads now. People need a break from the noise and disturbance. Its nothing to do with disengagement from humanity as is being implied by some. I use a bike for about half my journeys to and from town. I have seen only one or two other doing this, and only rarely. This is over ten years of living here. I have stopped to remove a run over baby turtle inside the entry to Jarlanbah. So far wildlife casualties have been relatively low. How can we expect residents to be aware of the fragile ecosystem we are living in the midst of when the majority use motor cars even for most of their trips to neighbours houses? This is inspite of the provision of walking trails that are mowed regulary. 

Accusations of bullying have been flung about since day one of this hamlet. Most are fed up with it. 

To label others as bullies perpetuates an us and them scenario, divide and conquer being the actual agenda behind it. I detest this competitive to-ing and fro-ing betwen factions that readily disintegrate as people line up in a different order when a new issue arises. Meanwhile the environment suffers as stressed people take out their frustration in their driving and other habits. Talk of higher density housing on Jarlanbah is psychologically detrimental. People who only have experience of it in overseas locations do not understand that it is a whole different set of relationships here. Their comparisons don&#039;t make sense.
Peah.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was the Lot owner on Jarlanbah who used the terms &#8220;slum and a ghetto&#8221;. Even if half the other lots here build accessory dwellings thats potentially an increase of at least 21.5 more automobiles. That could translate into at least 84 more car trips per day on the community&#8217;s private roads. Consider the effect on the wildlife we share this community with. Echidnas and the baby freshwater turtle I rescued from magpie attack recently. These creatures can&#8217;t just sprint out of the way of vehicles. </p>
<p>Since I moved here in 2000 about 10 buildings have sprung up around my lot. Im no stranger to people arriving as your labels &#8220;nimby&#8221; and &#8220;banana&#8221; suggest. I advocate for restraint to further building on the allotments because we are at peak capacity now. There is less noise and less heavy machinery on our roads now. People need a break from the noise and disturbance. Its nothing to do with disengagement from humanity as is being implied by some. I use a bike for about half my journeys to and from town. I have seen only one or two other doing this, and only rarely. This is over ten years of living here. I have stopped to remove a run over baby turtle inside the entry to Jarlanbah. So far wildlife casualties have been relatively low. How can we expect residents to be aware of the fragile ecosystem we are living in the midst of when the majority use motor cars even for most of their trips to neighbours houses? This is inspite of the provision of walking trails that are mowed regulary. </p>
<p>Accusations of bullying have been flung about since day one of this hamlet. Most are fed up with it. </p>
<p>To label others as bullies perpetuates an us and them scenario, divide and conquer being the actual agenda behind it. I detest this competitive to-ing and fro-ing betwen factions that readily disintegrate as people line up in a different order when a new issue arises. Meanwhile the environment suffers as stressed people take out their frustration in their driving and other habits. Talk of higher density housing on Jarlanbah is psychologically detrimental. People who only have experience of it in overseas locations do not understand that it is a whole different set of relationships here. Their comparisons don&#8217;t make sense.<br />
Peah.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wendy</title>
		<link>http://kitchentablesustainability.com/dual-occupancy-at-jarlanbah/comment-page-1/#comment-2017</link>
		<dc:creator>Wendy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kitchentablesustainability.com/?p=1297#comment-2017</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Peter. We need to look into that. That would certainly be a good idea here. We do hold Torrens Title to our individual blocks and the local Council is very vigilant about environmental matters (which we applaud). I can&#039;t see the need for much more when Dual Occupancy is clearly allowed (indeed encouraged) by law in NSW and in Lismore City Council.
Wendy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Peter. We need to look into that. That would certainly be a good idea here. We do hold Torrens Title to our individual blocks and the local Council is very vigilant about environmental matters (which we applaud). I can&#8217;t see the need for much more when Dual Occupancy is clearly allowed (indeed encouraged) by law in NSW and in Lismore City Council.<br />
Wendy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Van Beek</title>
		<link>http://kitchentablesustainability.com/dual-occupancy-at-jarlanbah/comment-page-1/#comment-2015</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Van Beek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 00:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kitchentablesustainability.com/?p=1297#comment-2015</guid>
		<description>It seems almost inevitable that where-ever small goups of people have to share &#039;power&#039;, especially over the use of land, the basests of human behaviours surface and dominate. This has been well demonstrated over the past two decades in many Eco-villages across Australia: the Utopian dream of harmony and reasonable behaviour has turned consistently into real nightmares.
A landmark court case in Queensland took away much of that decision-making power from Bodies Corporate in Queensland. Any development within the boundaries of a Lot is solely a matter between the owner of that Lot and the local Council and a Body Corporate has no legal standing in these matters. Hopefully this will reduce the amount of abuse by bullies within Bodies Corporate. As a result a community spirit may have a chance to develop. (Our Eco-village is a Body Corporate.) 
Perhaps there is something similar in NSW, depending on the legal base for Jarlanbah?
See: Bartlett v Brisbane City Council [2003] QCA 494 and:
Bartlett &amp; Anor v Brisbane City Council [2003] QPEC 001,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems almost inevitable that where-ever small goups of people have to share &#8216;power&#8217;, especially over the use of land, the basests of human behaviours surface and dominate. This has been well demonstrated over the past two decades in many Eco-villages across Australia: the Utopian dream of harmony and reasonable behaviour has turned consistently into real nightmares.<br />
A landmark court case in Queensland took away much of that decision-making power from Bodies Corporate in Queensland. Any development within the boundaries of a Lot is solely a matter between the owner of that Lot and the local Council and a Body Corporate has no legal standing in these matters. Hopefully this will reduce the amount of abuse by bullies within Bodies Corporate. As a result a community spirit may have a chance to develop. (Our Eco-village is a Body Corporate.)<br />
Perhaps there is something similar in NSW, depending on the legal base for Jarlanbah?<br />
See: Bartlett v Brisbane City Council [2003] QCA 494 and:<br />
Bartlett &amp; Anor v Brisbane City Council [2003] QPEC 001,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clare Cooper Marcus</title>
		<link>http://kitchentablesustainability.com/dual-occupancy-at-jarlanbah/comment-page-1/#comment-1920</link>
		<dc:creator>Clare Cooper Marcus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:30:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kitchentablesustainability.com/?p=1297#comment-1920</guid>
		<description>Unbelievable!   A slum a ghetto?? Sounds like the same arguments we have all heard about introducing an apartment building into a single-family neighborhood. At root is people&#039;s belief that a place should stay exactly the same as it was when THEY moved in...something about an inability to deal with change - of any sort.  I hope there is a positive outcome for you. Clare Cooper Marcus, Professor Emerita, University of California, Berkeley.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unbelievable!   A slum a ghetto?? Sounds like the same arguments we have all heard about introducing an apartment building into a single-family neighborhood. At root is people&#8217;s belief that a place should stay exactly the same as it was when THEY moved in&#8230;something about an inability to deal with change &#8211; of any sort.  I hope there is a positive outcome for you. Clare Cooper Marcus, Professor Emerita, University of California, Berkeley.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

