Aldermen can accept that they will be trusted more if they step-back from being the local "authority" and break the guild associations of their privileged status. Their lives will be easier and more productive. Communities will be better represented.
Finally, localism must be seen by communities as the opening of doors and options; not rewarding activism. Neighbourhood greening, improved safety around schools, proposals for diverse housing will all flow from community engagement. The objective is NOT to bar new developments or adaptive projects; all things that following generations will need.
There is recognition on all side of politics that we need to "fix the house". The status quo is not acceptable. There is a precedent from Sydney: in 1900 a reform movement from outside the City Council ran on an improvement platform, and won. They rolled up their sleeves, dumped the detritus of the previous slum landlords and fought the state government where it was neglecting city communities. That was localism at its best – it pushed Sydney to the forefront of city affairs. The same happened in other places, earlier and subsequently.
Advertisement
It can be done.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
About the Author
Robert Gibbons started urban studies at Sydney University in 1971 and has done major studies of Sydney, Chicago, world cities' performance indicators, regional infrastructure financing, and urban history. He has published major pieces on the failure of trams in Sydney, on the "improvement generation" in Sydney, and has two books in readiness for publication, Thank God for the Plague, Sydney 1900 to 1912 and Sydney's Stumbles. He has been Exec Director Planning in NSW DOT, General Manager of Newcastle City, director of AIUS NSW and advisor to several premiers and senior ministers.