Article: Bid to save water by limiting golf courses

[Drunkard #1]

Sustainable Development. Look it up. Its not about living in caves, but striking a balance between development needs and genuine environmental concerns.

You didn't answer the question. Why should the developer pay?

I won't distract you with any further response.

 

[wikk3d88]

You didn't answer the question. Why should the developer pay?

I won't distract you with any further response.

The developer stands to gain the most (financially) from a successful development. Why shouldn't he pay.

 

[wikk3d88]

and under no circumstances is it acceptable to resort to bribery and corruption in order to further financial gains.

 

[Drunkard #1]

The developer stands to gain the most (financially) from a successful development. Why shouldn't he pay.

If there's a negative EIA, there is no development. You're saying that property development should be a gamble. Throw the dice and if you get a good EIA then you win, but if you get a bad one you lose your investment. In that case, I don't blame anyone for loading the dice.

Edit: How would you like it if I pitched up at your house and said, "**** off, this land is needed for the good of the community. We're bulldozing your home and turning your land into a park. No compensation."

 

[2026]

Edit: How would you like it if I pitched up at your house and said, "**** off, this land is needed for the good of the community. We're bulldozing your home and turning your land into a park. No compensation."

Isn't that the same as:

"How would you like it if I pitched up at your water supply, said **** off this water is needed for the golf course, we're taking your water with no compensation to you"?

 

[wikk3d88]

If there's a negative EIA, there is no development. You're saying that property development should be a gamble. Throw the dice and if you get a good EIA then you win, but if you get a bad one you lose your investment. In that case, I don't blame anyone for loading the dice.

Edit: How would you like it if I pitched up at your house and said, "**** off, this land is needed for the good of the community. We're bulldozing your home and turning your land into a park. No compensation."

stupid post is stupid.

 

[noxibox]

Sustainable Development. Look it up. Its not about living in caves, but striking a balance between development needs and genuine environmental concerns.

That term is invariably code for try to stop all development. It most definitely is not about striking a balance, even though its advocates pretend it is.

Ecomentalists claim that protecting the environment benefits everyone, so why is it that the cost of protecting it falls squarely at the feet of one person? Developers are businessmen, not charities, but the way things are now, they're expected to carry a cost, that nobody would call negligible, for everyone. Get government to compensate those that have suffered damages due to environmental concerns, and you'll see a lot less bribery.

They're not entitled to compensation. Part of doing business is knowing the rules and risks. If they buy a piece of land and find they cannot do what they wanted with it that's just too bad. There must be some enforcement of responsible behaviour otherwise business would wipe everything out for short-term gain. They've proven that over and over. Because as you say they care only about their own profit. Nonetheless there's no doubt that in places like the UK and Europe it's gone well overboard in the other direction where they cannot even build more housing or dams/water storage in spite of there being plenty of land available.

Never mind the fact that ecomentalists are never going to be satisfied, since their goal is to see us living back in caves. Development is on the other side of the balance. Hinder development too much (through EIAs or conserving worthless old buildings or excessive betterment charges or punitive council tariffs) and everyone suffers.

We do need to be aware of environmental impact. We should neither be over-protecting nor under-protecting. I understand that to the money-oriented business mind anything, a building, all art really, has no worth unless some monetary value can be attached to it. We see the same thing in people who think reading for a degree that has no immediate commercial value is a waste.

If you own a building that is considered of historical value you either maintain it as required or sell it on to someone who will.

 

[noxibox]

You're saying that property development should be a gamble. Throw the dice and if you get a good EIA then you win, but if you get a bad one you lose your investment.

Of course it's a gamble. You're not automatically entitled to make a profit.

Edit: How would you like it if I pitched up at your house and said, "**** off, this land is needed for the good of the community. We're bulldozing your home and turning your land into a park. No compensation."

That's not really the same thing.

 

[wikk3d88]

That term is invariably code for try to stop all development. It most definitely is not about striking a balance, even though its advocates pretend it is.

Urban Development in a third world context such as ours is inevitable. More and more people are moving to cities in search of opportunities and better standards of living. Sustainable development is not about saying no to all development, but simply to keep the future in mind as and when we build. To incorporate technology and innovation in new developments so that we dont end up in a resource scarce situation. We're already approaching the point where fresh water availability is becoming a concern, nevermind food security issues (which is being addressed through urban agriculture initiatives in some of our cities, but we need to do more.

 

[Drunkard #1]

Isn't that the same as:

"How would you like it if I pitched up at your water supply, said **** off this water is needed for the golf course, we're taking your water with no compensation to you"?

Erm, yeah, because golf courses are now stealing communities' water. You really shouldn't comment if your only source of information on the topic comes from a cANCer policy document that was designed to get the masses excited at the expense of "the evil elite".

stupid post is stupid.

Stumped, eh?

That term is invariably code for try to stop all development. It most definitely is not about striking a balance, even though its advocates pretend it is.

Pretty much sums it up.

They're not entitled to compensation. Part of doing business is knowing the rules and risks. If they buy a piece of land and find they cannot do what they wanted with it that's just too bad. There must be some enforcement of responsible behaviour otherwise business would wipe everything out for short-term gain. They've proven that over and over. Because as you say they care only about their own profit. Nonetheless there's no doubt that in places like the UK and Europe it's gone well overboard in the other direction where they cannot even build more housing or dams/water storage in spite of there being plenty of land available.

What if they owned the land before the act was passed? Is that also considered "a risk of owning land", that some new law will suddenly make it worthless? Business is profit driven - end of discussion, so how do you balance the good and bad that comes from the profit motive. Turning development into a lottery isn't helping anyone. It chases away respectable, responsible developers and opens the field to yahoos and speculators who have no incentive to keep anything sustainable.

We do need to be aware of environmental impact. We should neither be over-protecting nor under-protecting. I understand that to the money-oriented business mind anything, a building, all art really, has no worth unless some monetary value can be attached to it. We see the same thing in people who think reading for a degree that has no immediate commercial value is a waste.

In Africa, you don't "read for a degree". And yes, I do see some arts degrees as worthless. They don't benefit the economy or society.

If you own a building that is considered of historical value you either maintain it as required or sell it on to someone who will.

My policy is to either: demolish it before it's 60 birthday, demolish it behind some high walls, then get a demo certificate, or let it decay to the point of worthlessness before applying for the certificate. Why? Because most of the time the people asking for it to be saved are pissed because they missed the LSDF hearings, and now want to stop all development, so they're using conservancy laws on buildings with no historical merit. Once a building is stuck with that label it becomes worthless. Again, why must the owner bear that cost?

Take an actual example. Bob buys a house for his family in 1987, its then 40-odd years old, but he fixes it up and they live there till today. Now Bob's kids have moved out and he wants to demolish it, and build something new, more valuable, and more suitable for his current situation. The day he applies for a demo certificate, a thousand unwashed hippies will pitch up saying that a dilapidated piece of **** house has historical merit, and want it preserved.

Is it historically valuable? No, its barely habitable due to the mould in the cavity walls, the leaking slate roof, the DDT under it's hollow floors, the outdated design and shoddy foundations. But if he doesn't bulldoze it, his investment is worthless, because no-one pays good money for buildings they can't use. Bob now looks at his options, one of which is to rent it out per room to the the sort of people willing to live in a barely habitable ****hole. And that's the first step to the deterioration of the neighbourhood.

Most of the time the only two options are redevelopment or deterioration. There's only a small number of people who'd choose a refurbished old place over the clean, modern, well designed places that the majority demands.

 

[jambai]

How many jobs do Golf courses create?.many more than if you were to close a few and excluding developments.What about investing in desalination plants if they are so worried about the future of our water supply, which I am not saying is not to be used carefully.If water is a issue you make a plan (used recylced,etc etc) ,you create you dont destroy.

Just proves my point on why africa is so behind the rest of the world.The so called intellectuals are not very clever and dont create value but rather destroy it.

 

[Drunkard #1]

How many jobs do Golf courses create?.many more than if you were to close a few and excluding developments.What about investing in desalination plants if they are so worried about the future of our water supply, which I am not saying is not to be used carefully.If water is a issue you make a plan (used recylced,etc etc) ,you create you dont destroy.

Just proves my point on why africa is so behind the rest of the world.The so called intellectuals are not very clever and dont create value but rather destroy it.

It's not about water or golf courses; it's about distracting the brainwashed masses from the failings of their elected government by pointing the finger at "the evil elite". Classic tactic, and your average South African voter is dumb enough to still fall for it

 

[jambai]

It's not about water or golf courses; it's about distracting the brainwashed masses from the failings of their elected government by pointing the finger at "the evil elite". Classic tactic, and your average South African voter is dumb enough to still fall for it

True,I was just attacking the factual message about the water as it has no logic to it.Gov cant manage our water supply so it must be the so called evil elite is the real just of the argument