http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/news/release.asp?Ne_ID=320
Though the idea about how residential areas should be built on less
productive areas first I've heard about before and agree with, those
bulletpoints in the article are noisy blanks.
The main point they raised was that there is no
legislation stopping productive land being put to residential use. If it was explicitly suggested: "Should the government be allowed to stop subdivision of
highly productive rural land for the sake of our future economy?", I wonder what the public reaction would be.
Given all the street protesting and trespassing being done this year concerning new legislation changes in New Zealand, would you think we will see a lot of public demonstrations?
I'd think the level of social etiquette and experience found in the type of people who are thinking about subdividing their land is pretty high. I'd think they're the type of people who would submit their points of view in writing. The street walking and human roadcone activities of poor students from welfare backgrounds in response to the proposed reduction in the New Zealand student allowance (a free lunch weekly payment to poorer students in addition to the student loan living costs already available) I don't think you'd see. The trespassing into the top floor of the OGG building to make some statement about inequality ("Occupy") I don't think you'd see. The cheerful singing and marching of a couple of Maori people I don't think you'd see. The noisy standing-around of port staff following a pay negiotiation result they were unhappy with I don't think you'd see. Subdivision of productive rural land only affects the national economy and living standards in the future, only indirectly affecting people's lives now, so is not such a hot topic.
A lot of 'raising public awareness' is given to environmental sustainability and the future of the environment and ethical issues and special indigenous rights and genetically modified organisms and nuclear free here in New Zealand. There has been some 'raising of public awareness' about economic issues such as raising the retirement age, selling and buying of public assets, tax rates, but the preservation of productive rural land for productive rural uses is unheard of - perhaps because it doesn't affect many people directly. I think the article has a fair point to raise and would actually be quite happy to see public demonstrations supporting the article's point. Maybe I'd even be happy to see a television ad about it. If there's none, maybe I could make one.
Going off on an artistic tangent ... ... ...
Voiceover, fade in to wheat field and a couple of cows on a pasture.
Narration: "New Zealand, 200 years ago, year A.D. 1800. Our ancestors came here from their lands of overcrowding, tyrannical autocracy and feuding neighbours, to this land of freedom, peace and plenty. Most of us were farmers who put the land to good productive use."
Fade out.
Fade in to field and pasture again, and gradual replacement of photo with animation of same scene. Fast-forward animation of farm land
being cleared, concrete foundations being poured and the rest of
shopping mall construction process.
Narration: "A hundred years later, some of us had more money than others. Some of us could afford to put land to uses other than farming."
Quick cut to a guy putting on a golf course, quick cut to professional rugby players and pause. [Hit them right in the rugby! Ouch!] Fade out.
Fade in to field and pasture.
Narrator: "Now, 200 years later, New Zealand is about to be faced with something our ancestors never imagined. The productive land that they came here for is having houses with massive backyards plonked on it. So many that soon our remaining land can't produce enough food for our children. Soon we'll have to import food from other countries. They will want a lot of money in return because many of them are experiencing the same problem that we will soon face." Fade out.
Narrator: "This problem?"
White text appears on the black background ['Subdivision of productive rural land']. Narrator: "The problem is that our most productive land is being bought and subdivided into residential property." Pauses, and then continues narrating: "Currently, anyone rich enough to buy our land can do it. Anyone rich enough can subdivide and sell our nation's future food security. Anyone with enough money can do it to earn more money."
Fade out. Narrate: "Shall we make a new law so that they can't do that? Shall we make a law protecting our most productive land from being subdivided and sold? Shall we make a law so that there will always be enough land to grow the food to feed our children with?"
White text appears on black background. Narrator: "Support the new legistation protecting our most productive rural land."
Maybe someday I might make this video. Not until I've bought and subdivided my farmland though! TROLOLOLOLOL. Actually I don't plan to subdivide to zero. I plan to have land of an area larger than a lifestyle block, so that I can utilise the land quite efficiently and sustainably with a range of crops. There may be a small lawn, but running around on masses of grass can easily be done by future kids at a local park or sports field.
Hm, enough artistic ponder. Back to reviewing the article and making some final comments ... ... ...
I don't get the bullshit about topsoil wastage in the bulletpoints the author makes. I'd think that intensive farming ruins topsoil, not some sustainable grower of home veges that the typical lifestyle block owner is. That article's design is just a little bit fucked up, what was the author trying to get at? THOSE BULLETPOINTS? WHAT THE HECK WITH THOSE BULLETPOINTS? (Replace with 'flawed' if reproducing publicly [don't read that wrong]. Essentially 'flawed' means the same thing as 'fucked up' without the association of gross disfigurement.) That article is flawed and grossly disfigured. It should never be published in a respectable journal. People pay to avoid seeing certain things. Like that documentary I saw on the plane about how pepper berries are harvested, which I would my friends and dear lovers of pepper rather not see.
No comments:
Post a Comment