Puddleglum has a very good post about the green-washing of the Frame.

In earlier posts I’d expressed scepticism about just how green the Frame would be (see this post) but I can understand why that scepticism wasn’t widespread at the time. In general, most people no longer have the time or inclination to scour these political processes in detail. They tend to trust the general impression that circulates in the popular ether.

Essentially, we should have never got our hopes up about the green-ness that was so prominent in the flyovers of the blueprint. However, there are still some questions outstanding for me – if we aren’t getting the wide green swathe, and perhaps we never were – then why are the CCDU being so forceful about buying up people’s land, including land with functioning buildings on it? The reasons given for acquiring say Calendar Girls, or the Bicycle Thief, is that they were businesses that did not fit with the intention of the Eastern Frame. It was vaguely arguable that these businesses could be acquired and bowled over so the government or council could increase the recreational amenity value of the area. I don’t think the argument that they should be compulsorily acquired and knocked over so the government can then flog them off to developers who can do what they like is a particularly good one. In fact, I’d be interested to know how it sits within the part of the CERA legislation that allows for compulsory acquisition of properties, which I believe was based on the Public Works Act. The CCDU used the green washing aspect as a touch-feely comfort blanket to mask their true intentions for the area – intentions that they knew would have been unpopular and heavily criticized.

Advertisements