fun by the sea
The other day our regular commentator here Craigy made a comment about the Sunshine coast and the way that it is developing.
“… It works better that way. Much better than what we presently have.”
When? How?
Ray, the Sunshine Coast has been in trouble since well before Qld’s current problems.
The Greens support sustainable environmental tourism over building more high rise tourist traps. If the Sunshine Coast goes the way of the Gold Coast, as it is now, it will just become a large ghetto (as parts of it have already).
As the hotels get older, and there isn’t enough money to keep up appearances, the over developments become shabby and people stop coming, which is how it is going as we speak. The developments destroy the natural beauty that attracted people in the first place.
Places that embrace sustainable tourism, that respects the environment, are being recognised world wide as the way to go for the long term benefits of full time employment and economic sustainability.
Queensland has always been the state for a fast buck and many places are suffering as a result. With small hotels going bust, large hotels and resorts empty and thousands of floodplain building sites un-sold, things are grim for regular workers on the Sunshine Coast.
But hey, let’s just keep voting for conservative Christians and keep ringing out every last bit of gravy for the wealthy few, while the coast is buggered by over development, it worked on the Gold Coast, didn’t it?
To my mind where he goes wrong is that he sees the Sunshine coast only in terms of tourism when the reality is that the vast majority of people who are there at any one time are not in fact tourists at all they live there all year round. and it is these people who are driving the style and nature of the the urban development in that part of Queensland. So I will argue that the tendency to high rise building is more about people wanting to live near the beach than it is about people wanting to holiday at the beach. Once you take in that salient fact the notion of “environmental tourism” can be seen as a nonsense when to comes to the Sunshine Coast. It was a nonsense even when I was a young chap and we would go to the those beaches on day trips and its a nonsense now .
As Ray suggests the Greens have no idea at all about business, especially tourism, because if they are honest they would just come out and say that their belief in AGW means that no one should fly or drive to a holiday away from home as it just adds too much to GHG emissions. They may talk about “eco-tourism” but by its very nature this has to be a restricted elitist activity that only allows very small number of people to access those “pristine places” lest they be sullied by “unclean” humans. So for a business to be based upon this sort of tourism it has to be able to charge a very high price per visitor to cover costs and make a profit.
I am by no stretch of the imagination that keen on urban landscapes even when they are by the seaside and the Sunshine Coast does not do much for me , However like Craigy I have family that live there and over the years I have probably spent much more time there than he has. Heck I even lived there for some months when my daughter was first born ( in a flat owned by my Mother in law that was only a 100m from the beach ) so I’ve got a pretty good “feel” for the place. While I don’t think that it will ever be as sleazy as the Gold Coast it is catching up fast in terms of urban density and that means that those who do decide to holiday there are not going to be the mung-bean travellers who want to pretend that they are visiting some fantasy paradise (at grossly inflated prices) they are people from the urban heartlands of the south who want to enjoy all of the comforts that they are used to (hot and cold running Lattes, booze and sex) in a different setting. Strangely enough most of the international tourists want this sort of experience as well so that is precisely what the business there offer.
Its the way that the world works.
Cheers Comrades
Where he goes wrong, in my opinion, Iain, is to claim that the Greens have the answers.
To say “The Greens support sustainable environmental tourism over building more high rise tourist traps” is just a meaningless, ‘feel good’ motherhood statement. So what if the Greens “support sustainable enviro-tourism …”? So do I. So do a lot of people. It doesn’t mean they can make it happen any more than any other political party can.
This is just a further example of the Greens jumping on bandwagons, without having any real solutions. Claiming the policies and platforms of other parties as their own – like gay rights. Saying “house prices are too high, let’s stop investors buying up homes by removing negative gearing and increasing CGT” without thinking through (or caring about) the economic impacts.
They’re just ‘Johnny-come-latelys, interlopers and agitators pretending to be a political party. No direction – no “sustainable” aims or vision. Give me Keating’s head-kicking style any day – he wouldn’t stand for their nonsense and grandstanding.
Iain, you have one major falsehood in your post, that locals live in high rise on the Sunshine Coast, very few do. The high rise development and the push behind it are for tourism.
Ray is quite right to point to the high dollar as a reason for the fall in tourism there, but you both fail to see my point. The high rises get old, and while we have to compete on quality rather than price because of the high dollar, people won’t come to stay in run down accommodation that can’t be maintained due to over-development and reduced income.
The private housing market is also depressed because people don’t want to live on the flood plain, where most of the new developments are going. This needs addressing also BY GOVERNMENT PLANNING OVERLAYS (you listening Ray).
Eco tourism and sustainable tourism (like what is being created around the world BY GOVERNMENT PLANNING) doesn’t need 5 and 6 star accommodation and all the tourist bling, it relies on maintaining and preserving the natural beauty of an area by low level simple development, that is all so much cheaper to build, run and maintain. Done right it also doesn’t fowel up the environment like many tourist area do, the results being that you need to build more pools and fake gardens as the local beaches are in shade by 3 pm and the parks are full and dirty. Yes less people can be crammed in, but this is why it is sustainable, our kids kids will still be able to enjoy these area like we can.
My Mother lived in Maroochy 30 years ago before her death and it was a beautiful little town with a lovely river, now lined with empty, dilapidated high rise apartments. So much for the ‘market’ Ray.
And Ray, reading your comment above makes me think why have political parties at all, why have them express ideas and aspirations, after all we have them to. Why have them work at policy development, like you say, political parties can’t make anything happen.
Your arguments are particularly silly today.
Thanks for giving me my very own poat Iain, you are so kind.
Oh and nice animation
Don’t know here guys ?
The resorts/places you mention here all were built before any “green” movement was even perceived, let alone any sway ? One only has to look again down in Tassy. Everythng down there, tourism wise, is built with “green” in mind. There are many attractions designed for just that, the greenies, and they all work very well. It had to, as the green movement has been active down there for a whole lot longer than the mainland ? Why can’t we have both ? Certainly, Sufferer’s is falling down due to our dollar, and now it is getting old hat. People want something new. Gone are the days, when the twenty somethings would lob into a guesthouse up there, and spend a week boozing. People are a lot more discerning these days. They want more now. They want the hiking, mountain climbing, and generally everything that offers a bit more adventure than just a beach. That’s how the market is changed ?
Agree with you Sax, we have plenty of 5 star resorts for those who want them and younger people are looking now for something they can’t get in the city. They are also concerned with the impact their holiday has on the area. The days of the big resort towns are numbered. My guess is that it will go like Miami in the US and the Gold Coast high-rise resorts will end up old peoples homes.
Craigy, you’re sounding particularly angry today with all the shouting and personalised remarks, which is your usual response when you’re losing an argument.
Anyway, the only issue I have with you on this is as I explained above – your claim that the Greens have the policies to “boost tourism”, which I call bullshit on two levels:
1) They’re not the Greens policies per se. They’ve just jumped on the eco-tourism and “sustainability” bandwagon with motherhood statements. Do you realise that all buildings now have to meet environmental sustainability standards? It’s not a new idea, Craigy, stop claiming to have reinvented the wheel.
2) You can’t force an industry like tourism to build stuff it doesn’t want to build. They’ll just go away and invest elsewhere.
As for your rave about “why have political parties at all”, we have them to do the things they can do, not to pontificate and spout theory over matters beyond their control or abilities like the Greens do. As much as you despise the main parties, they do get things done.
Sorry Ray, I’m not angry, I’m just pointing out (by using capital letters, which, a long time ago, had the function of highlighting something) that Governments have a big hand in influencing development (and therefore tourism) in many areas, through the planning system. A point you continue to ignore, which is what you do when you are losing an argument or have no answer.
As for the Greens tourism policies, of course they support ideas from other people. This doesn’t make them any better of worse than any other political party. As I said your point is a silly one.
I know you have never read it, so check out the NSW policy:
http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/tourism
In the real world, the people asking for eco-tourism are probably not much greater than the number of people who vote Green. Everybody else who can afford a holiday wants just that, a holiday. Sure, given the information that’s out there now, they’d all prefer an eco friendly holiday, but the reality is that people budget, save for a holiday, and choose a package that is the most enjoyable holiday for them, not the most eco-friendly holiday.
Craigy, your altruism is most admirable, but like most Greens policies, totally devoid of pragmatism and reality.
Governments have a big hand in influencing development (and therefore tourism) in many areas
They only think they do, Craigy. That’s what governments & bureaucrats do, they hone in on industries and pretend to run them. It’s no more evident than in tourism, right down to local council level. But the reality is that the tourism industry runs itself and the only controls a government has is in planning matters, which merely controls the buildings, not the type of tourism people will buy. As GD points out, most people want a holiday with all the frills & luxuries they can afford. They don’t want to rough it in ‘the swamp’ and pay twice as much for ‘the privilege’ of being eco-conscious.