Toondah benefits the few but costs the many

Some serious questions are raised in two letters to Redlands2030 addressing the quantification and distribution of project benefits plus the increasing costs of property insurance.

Toondah benefits questioned

The Redland City Bulletin recently made reference that “Redland’s Coast Chamber of Commerce has done “quantitative research” that proves the benefits of the Toondah PDA development will outweigh the disadvantages. 

One ongoing frustration in the public policy of the Toondah harbour Priority Development Area (P.D.A.) is the lack of verifiable reference and transparency of models that support various arguments.  The Queensland Government even contested the decision of its own Information Commissioner to release Toondah P.D.A. documents.

So, to assert that benefits “far outweigh” the negatives without challenge is akin to saying, ‘trust me, I’m from the government’.

“… the local government has the duty to propose infrastructures that provide the largest benefits to the community, and that are delivered on budget and on time. …. However, given the competition for scarce resources, the local government has an interest in understating a project’s risks and costs, while overstating its benefits.

The mechanism of benefit overestimation is very simple, … knowing that the next election usually happens before the time that the proposed project is built and sometimes even approved, the local government has little interest in providing accurate forecasts.”(Flyvbjerg et al., 2009, pp. 177–178) 

Another issue relates to the value of the current living environment of the Redlands and specifically the bay area. 

The Ramsar agreement was not achieved on a whim and a stroke of the pen.  This international agreement considered the worldwide impact of protection of Moreton Bay, which is far more important than the self-interest and profits of members of the Redlands Coast Chamber of Commerce. 

The Redland City Council will not spray targeted insecticides to reduce biting midges since the chemicals may get into Moreton Bay.  Yet they promote a scheme that will destroy the small amount of remaining seagrass, the critical feeding grounds for dugongs, in Toondah Harbour. 

The original proposal was deemed “totally unacceptable” by the federal environment departmental scientists, so the hypocrisy of each level of government is palpable.

The next issue concerns the benefits to RCC residents.  The current proposal, which deviates significantly from the original poorly implemented consultation, proposes 3,600 extremely high-density units on a geologically unstable foundation (similar to the continually occurring failures in the Raby Bay area). 

Other citizen infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals, police etc.) are seldom factored into the modelling.  Public benefits (like the ferry terminal) may not be delivered until unit sales become profitable.  This is a major weakness in the plan as the risk of not getting the major deliverable has many dependencies. 

Based on budgets for other Moreton Bay ferry terminals, a low-rise development on a combination of existing publicly and privately owned land, along with a redeveloped ferry terminal would be easily achieved and incorporated into a normal funding model.  

Lastly, I question the validity of community surveys to ascertain the value of the Toondah PDA.  Even if a majority of respondents favour the development, the adjustment for self-interest is an impossible exercise.  When will governments take their responsibility for future generations seriously? 

I have seen accounts from the residents of Stradbroke Island that their civil infrastructure is already stressed and that without major improvements, they will not be able to cope with any increased visitor numbers from the mainland.

Questions that need forensic and robust consideration are:

• How sustainable, reliable and achievable are the proposed benefits?
• What assurance is provided that project objectives will be met (e.g. using an external reference class forecasting firm)?
• Which public officials will be accountable for any disasters (e.g. death of dugongs from pollution)?
• What measurable success criteria will be used to assess performance of Walker Group?
• What markers will be used to provide early/timely indicators of benefit delivery?
• How are benefits and disadvantages quantified in order to perform feasibility analysis?

N.S.
Cleveland

---

Climate change and insurance costs

We need to have a very good look at zoning laws in flood-prone areas and where people are allowed to build. Insurers are already refusing to cover flood damage in some coastal areas because climate change has made the risk too high. 

My brother is a mortgage broker in the USA. He told me that in some U.S. locations, the cost of home insurance is higher than the mortgage payment and that home insurance rates are soaring. He said as long as people continue to pay these soaring rates, they can get insurance, up until the time the insurance company will not continue providing insurance no matter how high the premiums. 

This is another reason the proposed Walker Group development in Moreton Bay cannot be allowed to be built. We know disasters like these floods, storms and storm surges are becoming more frequent and more severe as the climate heats up and sea levels rise.

I’m deeply concerned about how badly prepared Australia is for current and future damage to our coastal cities from climate change. 

Why is our local City Council still advocating for Walker Group to build 3,600 high rise apartments in Moreton Bay’s Toondah wetlands?

Surely our council along with State and Federal government must reconsider their decisions to green light building a city in our wetlands?

We know the negative impacts include; twenty or more years of construction, devastating establish wildlife habitat for koalas, shorebirds and other endangered animals, destroying carbon-capturing mangrove wetlands, plus 10,000 people living on the waters of Moreton Bay.

This is a bad idea and it’s becoming more obvious to more people every day.

V.S.
Ormiston

Redlands2030 – 17 March 2022