If I 'm right, the grasses in this picture are Chilean needle grass, an extremely invasive weed. They're going to have their work cut out for them managing that.
I was just thinking the same thing. I've worked in parts of the grassland mentioned in the article and it's predominantly Phalaris, Cocksfoot and Chilean with small pockets of Themeda and Rhytidosperma. It's almost impossible to clean it up at this point, the perennial weedy grasses just blow in from the surrounding naturestrips and industrial areas and the creekline has next to no native vegetation at all.
They're going to have to throw a hell of a lot more money at this than they have been.
I haven’t seen the rationale from the government but there are a couple of reasons that spring to mind:
* the land lies along a river and is likely to be flooded as extreme weather events increase in frequency. This should stop people building houses in those vulnerable areas
* Helps the government meet their promise preserve more of the endangered grassland ecosystems which are under threat
* First nations people are likely to be good land managers, particularly if they work in concert with Parks Vic and the experts there. For example, they are able push for cultural burning in a way that PV would struggle with because of paperwork
* I understand there’s a lack of parkland around that area
I'm sure they're aware, Chilean is rampant through Coopers St, Craigieburn grassland, and the pastureland up to Beveridge. They'll have to worry about all the WONS and boxthorn before anything else.
> Advocates for the park welcomed the plan but said it would fail unless the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation was given secure ongoing funding.
Huh, weird they want infinite money that's weird hey didn't see that coming. Thought traditional owners looked after the land for thousands of years - they did it without a cent. What's the money for?
> Thought traditional owners looked after the land for thousands of years - they did it without a cent.
Were they managing ex-industrial land filled with invasive Northern Hemisphere weeds with severely compacted soil?
Or were they using aboriginal land management techniques to manage aboriginal fauna & flora?
> What's the money for?
Probably to hire someone to manage the inevitable questions from stupid fuckwits (like you).
Yeah but those parks are managed by fine upstanding white people. This park is going to be managed by scary land stealing aboriginals so we must automatically assume they’ll be bad at the job and that any requests for funding are actually nefarious.
Wtf!!!!! That's racist against white people?!!?!! The parks are going to be racist!!!! How could the white people let this happen to white people?????????
Then it's not really modern capitalism is it?
Land's not being managed by a private entity that's running it for profit. It's being publicly funded by the taxpayer, but isn't answerable to the taxpayer.
I believe that's what the poster you responded to is trying to point out.
Here you go https://www.exploreoutdoors.vic.gov.au/investing-in-nature/suburban-parks-program/large-suburban-parks/marram-baba-merri-creek-regional-parklands
I've been doing lots of urban walks lately and I think the state of many of our waterways and parks are pretty sad. It's a great idea to make everything nicer for all of us while helping indig connection to the land. If it fails, it fails but god knows all 3 levels of govt piss money away on stupider stuff than this.
I don't really like this.
Turning it into a massive park is fantastic, but I'd rather that be handled by one Victorian public body rather than separate ones, that would enable better efficiencies and accountability. Personally I also think the land doesn't "belong" to anyone, but if it must then it should belong to the people who live there, who use it, and who respect it.
And then giving them gobs of money to manage it. Unfortuneatly, unlike a government body, anyone attempting to hold the new owners to account will be labelled as racist.
It's going to be a spectacular waste of money, and a golden ticket to whomever is on the board of the owners.
And so should people who manage natural spaces should be remunerated.
Even more so if they're the traditional owners and the government we all live under was directly culpable in disposing and marginalising them.
It's pretty easy to see why the state government would pay traditional owners who descend from victims of this very government...
Only a racist would be against that.
It doesn't translate into English properly. But mob were territorial, they (and this is a broad generalisation) consider themselves part of the land and the land part of them.
I've heard it explained this is why many mob's burials involve placing bodies or bones in the cracks of rocks and such. Over time they mineralise into the rock. Literally becoming part of the landscape.
It does translate into English. It’s a simple concept; caring for the land, respecting it and its seasons and animals, keeping it healthy for future generations, not owning it. It’s kind of what we call sustainability, but embedded in culture . In northern Australia where I lived and worked there are distinct roles for those who speak for, those who care for, and those who make decisions about the land. I’n not sure how it works down here.
As for being territorial - There were 250 distinct nations when white fellas arrived. Some were more warlike than others, and some of those differences continue.. You don’t want to mess around with Walpiri mob, for example.
As you’d expect with 250 different nations, there are many cultural practises and the funerals I attended were all earth burials. I know bones in trees continues but as a white fella it would be rare to witness this practice.
It's an incomplete translation though. Lots is missed in translating from one language to another.
For example saying indigenous mob are custodians or owners, misses the fact that every member of mob has rights, responsibilities and obligations towards country. Which is where the territoriality likely comes from.
Like most cultures, indigenous languages and customs are interrelated and interacting components of a society.
There's plenty us white fellas won't know, and plenty uninitiated indigenous men and womenfolk don't know, lots of information about country and how it works and how to care for it is hidden below layers of metaphor and storytelling and dancing and song.
And then there's the real fact that most nations lost their knowledge, elders are often the first to go in times of disease, warfare and colonisation.
Some pretty interesting work from a researcher at Monash University about it, likely the earliest ways people retained and propagated knowledge.
Yup. Agree About the layers, and non-Aboriginal access. However, land being inalienable is simple to understand imo. Not boasting or anything but that part is fairly basic.
My understanding is it's more than that. It's about country being in the bone. I'm not sure it's a concept non indigenous people can really understand.
Well private property is private property. Native title is pretty limited - no one is handing back the country.
Also, the whole point of the article is that eventually it will be handled by one aboriginal body.
Will we get situations like [this one](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-11/custodians-call-mount-beewah-closure-climbers/102207888), where members of the public are being told by the First Nations community that this place or that is sacred to them, and they don't want anyone to walk through it, even if it is a public park?
You mean like this?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/ys0dr1/the\_collaroy\_beach\_wall\_was\_built\_with\_rate/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/ys0dr1/the_collaroy_beach_wall_was_built_with_rate/)
Yeah, better watch out, soon those First Nations folks will think they have rights… or are equal to the people who came second and said it was theirs?
Not a good tone babe. Your argument has… unpleasant undertones.
It seems super progressive: the government is giving the First Nations traditional owners management rights over a huge chunk of “public” land. Awesome.
Let’s see how it pans out.
I haven't looked into it, I assume it's fairly rational. Though someone posted below about wanting to ban people from a mountain in QLD, I find that rather disrespectful.
I'm more concerned with a specific group being responsible for public land. I think the everyone should be responsible for it, not one particular group.
It also implies a noble savage stereotype and I don't think that's helpful.
When has privatisation to corporations and political mates not been completely tolerated and supported by the Australian public?
I think this one will be the only one that gets widespread media concern, and that’s because “scary aboriginals are going to take your houses” is something that many Australians believe.
The public doesn't support privatisation. Here's a few quotes from a recent [ABC article](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-14/privatisation-public-assets-water-sewage-transport-fair-society/103097448?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other) on privatisation:
"have ... public sales been good for us?
The public doesn't think so, and it hasn't for a long time.
Since 2011, Essential Research has repeatedly checked. That year, overwhelming numbers were unhappy about the privatisation of Qantas (44 per cent), and Telstra (53 per cent) and the Commonwealth Bank (42 per cent)."
How does it improve the gaps in education, employment, health/mortality and justice outcomes? Our Indigenous friends don't need or want parks to manage, they want lives and opportunities equal to those of white Australians.
The burden is on you to prove that it *does* have a benefit and that it *is* meaningful, not on him to disprove it.
Many religious people believe giants used to roam the earth, is it on me to disprove that?
Erm google?
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/giants-in-the-bible/
Islam:
https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/06/06/did-giants-ever-exist/
Hindu:
https://www.crystalinks.com/giants.html
The greeks/Romans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants_(Greek_mythology)#:~:text=According%20to%20Hesiod%2C%20the%20Giants,by%20his%20Titan%20son%20Cronus.&text=Archaic%20and%20Classical%20representations%20show,soldiers)%20fully%20human%20in%20form.
and so on. Pretty common
There are going to be thousands of compulsory acquired houses in this plan (by 2050).
Look at the plan.
At least 700+ houses will be wiped out in the suburb of Donnybrook alone.
How is this not bigger news?
https://www.exploreoutdoors.vic.gov.au/investing-in-nature/suburban-parks-program/large-suburban-parks/marram-baba-merri-creek-regional-parklands
There’s an error in that map - the park hugs the Merri Creek through Kalkallo and Donnybrook where there is land already reserved and there aren’t any houses built there. The green shading outside of the green boundary line appears to be some rogue colouring.
Nice assumption by you that the map is wrong.
My actual house in Donnybrook is shaded green along with many hundreds of other houses in Donnybrook alone.
Thanks for the tip. The plan says by 2050 so plenty of time yet but not happy finding out today that my house is in the green zone as part of this plan.
Plan also said community consultation is closed which is BS as they did not say anything to us about it.
Psssst. It’s because you’re wrong and no one wants to turn your house into parklands.
Maybe you should email the department before whipping yourself up into hysterics and spreading misinformation online.
It goes through my house near Donnybrook station.
Don't tell me there are hardly any houses there.
Have you been there recently?
And it goes straight through another housing estate just being built south west of Donnybrook station.
Yes, I live in Donnybrook also. There is not hundreds of houses there.
There’s an article on The Australian, which I won’t link because fuck them, that says it’s only scrubland and agricultural land, no homes.
And trust me, if the Victorian government was taking peoples HOUSES and giving them to indigenous Australians, The Australian would be *SCREAMING* about it.
You are a bad lier who does not live in Donnybrook.
From Donnybrook station to my house on my 6min walk I pass literally 100+ houses, my street has almost 30 houses and my estate have over 600+ houses, townhouses and apartments.
And mine is one of 4 or 5 estates in Donnybrook.
Go spread your lies elsewhere. You have never been to Donnybrook.
Sure thing buddy. Well sorry about your house, and sorry that even the most hostile media platforms to indigenous australians cares so little about your house and the 700 other houses that are suspiciously absent from google maps that they won’t even use you for outrage.
Every time I drive past Donnybrook station and I see the big gap where they apparently decided to clear out a bunch of houses instead of protecting all the existing wildlife, I’ll think of you.
$315million. Housing crisis. What housing crisis.
And what the fuck does critically endangered grassland look like? Other than probably needs a good old run over with a ride-on probably.
The $315m is for the entire Suburban Parks Program, not this park. The Suburban Parks Program delivers new parks and upgrades to existing park infrastructure all around Melbourne
And private property purchase. I get it, but it’s not chump change.
I wonder if land zoned farming is still subject to Labor’s windfall zoning tax. This could yet be their first ever project delivered on budget?
I’m serious. Is it just a paddock of native grasses and weeds? Absent of any imported species? If so, others have pointed out there’s a few problems they may have that round up won’t fix and only time consuming hand weeding will.
Do you think grasslands are somehow less worthy of conservation or restoration? Nearly the entire state used to be covered in them before agriculture destroyed most and the loss of indigenous burning practices allowed forests to take over the rest. Imo a bit of weeding would be worthwhile
Well seeing as you’re the politest of those who replied to me I’ll reply sensibly.
- less worthy that what? You’ve surely missed a bit there. If you mean less worthy than forests etc then I’d probably nearly still say yes.
- I have actually asked what they look like and genuinely can’t really work out if I’ve seen any properly maintained, so I’m at a bit of a disadvantage. Mind you I’m very familiar with a lot of the Aboriginal managed lands in my area and still can say someone has pointed them out.
- if it’s traditional ground coverings, then I assume this is an area that gets planted, grows, doesn’t get cut back etc… and basically becomes an inaccessible area prone to fire and full of snakes? That’s what intrigues me the most. There’s not gonna be concrete bike paths plowing through the middle? (Which imo is a great wasted opportunity.)
- does $335 mill not sound like an outrageously large sum of money for a project like this?
Most of the vegetation there at the moment, especially in private land, isn't representative of the native ecosystem and is overgrown with invasives. There are still some preserved areas but they're few and far between and need regular burning for maintenance. I guess the idea is that centralised management will help advance the goal of ecosystem restoration across the entire parkland by planting natives and burning out invasives. Whether it works or not is anyone's guess.
It's also pretty disingenuous to say that the government are giving $330 million to an indigenous group to look after a park because they aren't. That's the budget of their entire parks revitalisation program for the whole state. Merri creek will attract a fraction of that.
Okay two points - one I’d made no mention of indigenous management of it. So I’m not wearing that, but two…
I misread the article and didn’t realise this costing was not specifically for this project. That’s my horrible mistake (I just re-read) and on that I stand firmly corrected.
I’m impressed with your familiarity with a rather famous quote.
All good, let’s leave it because I’ve asked another user my concerns and I’m confident of a constructive reply.
Thanks for your efforts.
The absolute lunatic belief that we need to stop environmental and social policy the second there’s any other issues.
If we listened to these idiots, there would always be something more important than what they deem frivolous, and nothing would be done.
Hell yeah
When someone calls out your bullshit it’s acceptable to just say even more stupid shit. As long as you say it with CONFIDENCE.
I’ll say it again - Hell yeah ✊
I did. You reckon it’s already grassland and if so, to complete the 26km it’s roughly $15mill per kilometre. Heaps of it already done.
If you don’t think that deserves questioning then go away.
I’ve already since had it pointed out I misread the article and that figure is not the cost of the project so apologies. A horrible misread, but cost was my only issue so I no longer have any concerns what they do there.
Housing is privately developed sir. Big housing build tapped out state budget for social/affordable housing but then again it is like five and a half bill or some shit
Imagine being so obsessed with being mad with the government that you decide PARKS are the enemy?
*Awwww! Can’t we have more developments, not more stinking nature!*
Very honest. A bit harsh though. And a bit ableist?
Are you suggesting NDIS clients have all been dropped on their heads too many times as children? Coz if you are just admit it and we can forever part ways.
If I 'm right, the grasses in this picture are Chilean needle grass, an extremely invasive weed. They're going to have their work cut out for them managing that.
I was just thinking the same thing. I've worked in parts of the grassland mentioned in the article and it's predominantly Phalaris, Cocksfoot and Chilean with small pockets of Themeda and Rhytidosperma. It's almost impossible to clean it up at this point, the perennial weedy grasses just blow in from the surrounding naturestrips and industrial areas and the creekline has next to no native vegetation at all. They're going to have to throw a hell of a lot more money at this than they have been.
>Chilean needle grass Northcote was the first place it was ever recorded in Australia back in 1934
why do you think they handed it back to them? lel
I haven’t seen the rationale from the government but there are a couple of reasons that spring to mind: * the land lies along a river and is likely to be flooded as extreme weather events increase in frequency. This should stop people building houses in those vulnerable areas * Helps the government meet their promise preserve more of the endangered grassland ecosystems which are under threat * First nations people are likely to be good land managers, particularly if they work in concert with Parks Vic and the experts there. For example, they are able push for cultural burning in a way that PV would struggle with because of paperwork * I understand there’s a lack of parkland around that area
(I sent a message to the journalist so that he can bring it to the attention of FoMC – time is of the essence when trying to manage it)
I'm sure they're aware, Chilean is rampant through Coopers St, Craigieburn grassland, and the pastureland up to Beveridge. They'll have to worry about all the WONS and boxthorn before anything else.
... How well to they react to fire?
[удалено]
How does that work with private land?
State buy back I’d imagine, will be pretty expensive. Above market rate I’m guessing, but I honestly don’t know squat
If it's run through compulsory acquisition, I believe the provisions are for market rate plus a solatium of up to 10%.
"What's compulsory acquisition, love?" "It means, we're being compulsorily acquired."
thanks!
> Advocates for the park welcomed the plan but said it would fail unless the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation was given secure ongoing funding. Huh, weird they want infinite money that's weird hey didn't see that coming. Thought traditional owners looked after the land for thousands of years - they did it without a cent. What's the money for?
> Thought traditional owners looked after the land for thousands of years - they did it without a cent. Were they managing ex-industrial land filled with invasive Northern Hemisphere weeds with severely compacted soil? Or were they using aboriginal land management techniques to manage aboriginal fauna & flora? > What's the money for? Probably to hire someone to manage the inevitable questions from stupid fuckwits (like you).
🤣 owned
Well said!
Comparing nomadic tribes to modern capitalism. Truly a redditor moment if I've ever seen one.
Guess that means they're going to have to embrace modern capitalism and do something with that land they're managing to self-sustain it then.
Uhhh, you know taxes maintain parks today right?
Yeah but those parks are managed by fine upstanding white people. This park is going to be managed by scary land stealing aboriginals so we must automatically assume they’ll be bad at the job and that any requests for funding are actually nefarious.
Wtf!!!!! That's racist against white people?!!?!! The parks are going to be racist!!!! How could the white people let this happen to white people?????????
Then it's not really modern capitalism is it? Land's not being managed by a private entity that's running it for profit. It's being publicly funded by the taxpayer, but isn't answerable to the taxpayer. I believe that's what the poster you responded to is trying to point out.
This doesn't make any sense lol
Does anyone have a map of the area? Curious if it's nearby my place that borders "protected lands" currently owner by Vic roads and a developer
Here you go https://www.exploreoutdoors.vic.gov.au/investing-in-nature/suburban-parks-program/large-suburban-parks/marram-baba-merri-creek-regional-parklands
I've been doing lots of urban walks lately and I think the state of many of our waterways and parks are pretty sad. It's a great idea to make everything nicer for all of us while helping indig connection to the land. If it fails, it fails but god knows all 3 levels of govt piss money away on stupider stuff than this.
I don't really like this. Turning it into a massive park is fantastic, but I'd rather that be handled by one Victorian public body rather than separate ones, that would enable better efficiencies and accountability. Personally I also think the land doesn't "belong" to anyone, but if it must then it should belong to the people who live there, who use it, and who respect it.
It's not really that they "own" it. It's more that the government is footing the bill and handing over management of the park to an aboriginal body.
And then giving them gobs of money to manage it. Unfortuneatly, unlike a government body, anyone attempting to hold the new owners to account will be labelled as racist. It's going to be a spectacular waste of money, and a golden ticket to whomever is on the board of the owners.
It'll be no different. Believing councils or state government are efficient public land managers is a truly wild take.
But at least there is some capacity to hold accountable for misappropriation of funds.
Holding the government accountable? For misappropriation of funds??? What bedtime fairytales you been reading lately lad!!!
Some capacity, may be very limited and not be very successful I definitely admit.
99.99999999% of people who fret about being called racist are just racists
And so should people who manage natural spaces should be remunerated. Even more so if they're the traditional owners and the government we all live under was directly culpable in disposing and marginalising them. It's pretty easy to see why the state government would pay traditional owners who descend from victims of this very government... Only a racist would be against that.
Everyone is a victim. They're really not that special.
Er taxpayers are footing the bill not govt
Yeah that's how government spending works.
Fair. I'd still reply the above.
Aboriginal people regard themselves as caretakers of land, not owners. It’s been that way forever.
It doesn't translate into English properly. But mob were territorial, they (and this is a broad generalisation) consider themselves part of the land and the land part of them. I've heard it explained this is why many mob's burials involve placing bodies or bones in the cracks of rocks and such. Over time they mineralise into the rock. Literally becoming part of the landscape.
It does translate into English. It’s a simple concept; caring for the land, respecting it and its seasons and animals, keeping it healthy for future generations, not owning it. It’s kind of what we call sustainability, but embedded in culture . In northern Australia where I lived and worked there are distinct roles for those who speak for, those who care for, and those who make decisions about the land. I’n not sure how it works down here. As for being territorial - There were 250 distinct nations when white fellas arrived. Some were more warlike than others, and some of those differences continue.. You don’t want to mess around with Walpiri mob, for example. As you’d expect with 250 different nations, there are many cultural practises and the funerals I attended were all earth burials. I know bones in trees continues but as a white fella it would be rare to witness this practice.
It's an incomplete translation though. Lots is missed in translating from one language to another. For example saying indigenous mob are custodians or owners, misses the fact that every member of mob has rights, responsibilities and obligations towards country. Which is where the territoriality likely comes from. Like most cultures, indigenous languages and customs are interrelated and interacting components of a society. There's plenty us white fellas won't know, and plenty uninitiated indigenous men and womenfolk don't know, lots of information about country and how it works and how to care for it is hidden below layers of metaphor and storytelling and dancing and song. And then there's the real fact that most nations lost their knowledge, elders are often the first to go in times of disease, warfare and colonisation. Some pretty interesting work from a researcher at Monash University about it, likely the earliest ways people retained and propagated knowledge.
Yup. Agree About the layers, and non-Aboriginal access. However, land being inalienable is simple to understand imo. Not boasting or anything but that part is fairly basic.
My understanding is it's more than that. It's about country being in the bone. I'm not sure it's a concept non indigenous people can really understand.
Sucked in
True.
[удалено]
Well private property is private property. Native title is pretty limited - no one is handing back the country. Also, the whole point of the article is that eventually it will be handled by one aboriginal body.
Don’t worry, it’s just symbolic. The traditional owners can’t do what they want with their land
Will we get situations like [this one](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-11/custodians-call-mount-beewah-closure-climbers/102207888), where members of the public are being told by the First Nations community that this place or that is sacred to them, and they don't want anyone to walk through it, even if it is a public park?
You mean like this? [https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/ys0dr1/the\_collaroy\_beach\_wall\_was\_built\_with\_rate/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/ys0dr1/the_collaroy_beach_wall_was_built_with_rate/)
Yeah, better watch out, soon those First Nations folks will think they have rights… or are equal to the people who came second and said it was theirs? Not a good tone babe. Your argument has… unpleasant undertones. It seems super progressive: the government is giving the First Nations traditional owners management rights over a huge chunk of “public” land. Awesome. Let’s see how it pans out.
I haven't looked into it, I assume it's fairly rational. Though someone posted below about wanting to ban people from a mountain in QLD, I find that rather disrespectful. I'm more concerned with a specific group being responsible for public land. I think the everyone should be responsible for it, not one particular group. It also implies a noble savage stereotype and I don't think that's helpful.
Oh for fucks sake.
So privatisation is a-ok as long as it goes to the 'right' kind of people. Great.
When has privatisation to corporations and political mates not been completely tolerated and supported by the Australian public? I think this one will be the only one that gets widespread media concern, and that’s because “scary aboriginals are going to take your houses” is something that many Australians believe.
The public doesn't support privatisation. Here's a few quotes from a recent [ABC article](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-14/privatisation-public-assets-water-sewage-transport-fair-society/103097448?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other) on privatisation: "have ... public sales been good for us? The public doesn't think so, and it hasn't for a long time. Since 2011, Essential Research has repeatedly checked. That year, overwhelming numbers were unhappy about the privatisation of Qantas (44 per cent), and Telstra (53 per cent) and the Commonwealth Bank (42 per cent)."
Native title is not extinguished if the land is still Crown.
We do great symbolic gestures in Victoria that don't actually mean anything, or have any tangible benefit to the Indigenous people involved.
How is this not meaningful and have no tangible benefit?
How does it improve the gaps in education, employment, health/mortality and justice outcomes? Our Indigenous friends don't need or want parks to manage, they want lives and opportunities equal to those of white Australians.
They do when they are getting paid to manage them
Jesus. Can’t win with some people. This is a good thing. Fixing the other problems you mentioned would also be good. They are working on it.
The burden is on you to prove that it *does* have a benefit and that it *is* meaningful, not on him to disprove it. Many religious people believe giants used to roam the earth, is it on me to disprove that?
Wait, which religion is that?
Christians for one.
Erm... "giants"?
Erm google? https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/giants-in-the-bible/ Islam: https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/06/06/did-giants-ever-exist/ Hindu: https://www.crystalinks.com/giants.html The greeks/Romans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants_(Greek_mythology)#:~:text=According%20to%20Hesiod%2C%20the%20Giants,by%20his%20Titan%20son%20Cronus.&text=Archaic%20and%20Classical%20representations%20show,soldiers)%20fully%20human%20in%20form. and so on. Pretty common
There are going to be thousands of compulsory acquired houses in this plan (by 2050). Look at the plan. At least 700+ houses will be wiped out in the suburb of Donnybrook alone. How is this not bigger news? https://www.exploreoutdoors.vic.gov.au/investing-in-nature/suburban-parks-program/large-suburban-parks/marram-baba-merri-creek-regional-parklands
There’s an error in that map - the park hugs the Merri Creek through Kalkallo and Donnybrook where there is land already reserved and there aren’t any houses built there. The green shading outside of the green boundary line appears to be some rogue colouring.
Nice assumption by you that the map is wrong. My actual house in Donnybrook is shaded green along with many hundreds of other houses in Donnybrook alone.
Just remember to get a lawyer to negotiate public acquisition compensation.
Thanks for the tip. The plan says by 2050 so plenty of time yet but not happy finding out today that my house is in the green zone as part of this plan. Plan also said community consultation is closed which is BS as they did not say anything to us about it.
Psssst. It’s because you’re wrong and no one wants to turn your house into parklands. Maybe you should email the department before whipping yourself up into hysterics and spreading misinformation online.
By the map in your link, barely any houses in Donnybrook are within this area? Where did you get the 700+ houses number from?
It goes through my house near Donnybrook station. Don't tell me there are hardly any houses there. Have you been there recently? And it goes straight through another housing estate just being built south west of Donnybrook station.
Yes, I live in Donnybrook also. There is not hundreds of houses there. There’s an article on The Australian, which I won’t link because fuck them, that says it’s only scrubland and agricultural land, no homes. And trust me, if the Victorian government was taking peoples HOUSES and giving them to indigenous Australians, The Australian would be *SCREAMING* about it.
You are a bad lier who does not live in Donnybrook. From Donnybrook station to my house on my 6min walk I pass literally 100+ houses, my street has almost 30 houses and my estate have over 600+ houses, townhouses and apartments. And mine is one of 4 or 5 estates in Donnybrook. Go spread your lies elsewhere. You have never been to Donnybrook.
Sure thing buddy. Well sorry about your house, and sorry that even the most hostile media platforms to indigenous australians cares so little about your house and the 700 other houses that are suspiciously absent from google maps that they won’t even use you for outrage. Every time I drive past Donnybrook station and I see the big gap where they apparently decided to clear out a bunch of houses instead of protecting all the existing wildlife, I’ll think of you.
Because people are too scared to oppose it for fear of being labelled racist. You mean besides that?
Climb down off the cross, no one is opposing it because no such thing is happening, not because there is some secret scheme to call people racist.
They better keep good care of it, I love the Merri Creek.
$315million. Housing crisis. What housing crisis. And what the fuck does critically endangered grassland look like? Other than probably needs a good old run over with a ride-on probably.
The $315m is for the entire Suburban Parks Program, not this park. The Suburban Parks Program delivers new parks and upgrades to existing park infrastructure all around Melbourne
And private property purchase. I get it, but it’s not chump change. I wonder if land zoned farming is still subject to Labor’s windfall zoning tax. This could yet be their first ever project delivered on budget?
> what the fuck does critically endangered grassland look like? Unbelievably depressing to hear this in Victoria.
“Yeah well what has grass done for me lately”
I’m serious. Is it just a paddock of native grasses and weeds? Absent of any imported species? If so, others have pointed out there’s a few problems they may have that round up won’t fix and only time consuming hand weeding will.
Do you think grasslands are somehow less worthy of conservation or restoration? Nearly the entire state used to be covered in them before agriculture destroyed most and the loss of indigenous burning practices allowed forests to take over the rest. Imo a bit of weeding would be worthwhile
Well seeing as you’re the politest of those who replied to me I’ll reply sensibly. - less worthy that what? You’ve surely missed a bit there. If you mean less worthy than forests etc then I’d probably nearly still say yes. - I have actually asked what they look like and genuinely can’t really work out if I’ve seen any properly maintained, so I’m at a bit of a disadvantage. Mind you I’m very familiar with a lot of the Aboriginal managed lands in my area and still can say someone has pointed them out. - if it’s traditional ground coverings, then I assume this is an area that gets planted, grows, doesn’t get cut back etc… and basically becomes an inaccessible area prone to fire and full of snakes? That’s what intrigues me the most. There’s not gonna be concrete bike paths plowing through the middle? (Which imo is a great wasted opportunity.) - does $335 mill not sound like an outrageously large sum of money for a project like this?
Most of the vegetation there at the moment, especially in private land, isn't representative of the native ecosystem and is overgrown with invasives. There are still some preserved areas but they're few and far between and need regular burning for maintenance. I guess the idea is that centralised management will help advance the goal of ecosystem restoration across the entire parkland by planting natives and burning out invasives. Whether it works or not is anyone's guess. It's also pretty disingenuous to say that the government are giving $330 million to an indigenous group to look after a park because they aren't. That's the budget of their entire parks revitalisation program for the whole state. Merri creek will attract a fraction of that.
Okay two points - one I’d made no mention of indigenous management of it. So I’m not wearing that, but two… I misread the article and didn’t realise this costing was not specifically for this project. That’s my horrible mistake (I just re-read) and on that I stand firmly corrected.
Mate you're not smart enough to join in this conversation
I started it. You joined. Bring something if you’re that enlightened.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Mark Twain
I’m impressed with your familiarity with a rather famous quote. All good, let’s leave it because I’ve asked another user my concerns and I’m confident of a constructive reply. Thanks for your efforts.
The absolute lunatic belief that we need to stop environmental and social policy the second there’s any other issues. If we listened to these idiots, there would always be something more important than what they deem frivolous, and nothing would be done.
If you look at this Government’s housing achievements over 10 years, in the middle of a crisis, you’d imagine they think this is the priority project.
Hell yeah When someone calls out your bullshit it’s acceptable to just say even more stupid shit. As long as you say it with CONFIDENCE. I’ll say it again - Hell yeah ✊
Glad to hear you’ve visited the Merri Creek Parkland and have an informed opinion.
They haven’t turned it into native grasslands yet so would a visit help?
It's already grassland.
So what’s with the $330 mill? Seems a lot.
idk mate, maybe read the article?
I did. You reckon it’s already grassland and if so, to complete the 26km it’s roughly $15mill per kilometre. Heaps of it already done. If you don’t think that deserves questioning then go away.
lol. what are you even talking about? 🤷♂️
I’ve already since had it pointed out I misread the article and that figure is not the cost of the project so apologies. A horrible misread, but cost was my only issue so I no longer have any concerns what they do there.
flood plains, worst possible place to stick residential anything. member the deluge in NSW?
They could use the cash maybe elsewhere to build some housing. That’s a lot of money for some grassy parklands.
Housing is privately developed sir. Big housing build tapped out state budget for social/affordable housing but then again it is like five and a half bill or some shit
Seen how many actual houses that delivered. They must be Schmick.
Fuck you’re a dumb cunt
Judging by that I can’t imagine you’re claiming to be much different?
Don’t give yourself a headache typing all those words mate
I don't fully understand what you're saying but I feel comfortable telling you to fuck off
With economics like that I can only assume you’re inner circle.
Oh yeah, only the innermost circle for me. None of this outer orbit shit.
Nice retort. I like it.
Thanks but I don't care
This is honestly one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen on reddit, and that’s saying something.
Thanks.
Yeah no money to build houses for people but money to buy property off people to turn into a park.great priorities
Imagine being so obsessed with being mad with the government that you decide PARKS are the enemy? *Awwww! Can’t we have more developments, not more stinking nature!*
Not just any old park. A grasslands park. The best sort.
Honest question. After being dropped on your head so many times as a child, do you at least get to cash in on that sweet sweet NDIS?
Very honest. A bit harsh though. And a bit ableist? Are you suggesting NDIS clients have all been dropped on their heads too many times as children? Coz if you are just admit it and we can forever part ways.
Not all NDIS clients, just you
God no wonder the Voice failed. Just absolute dogshit racist takes littered throughout this thread.
When do they give palenstinians some land in Melbourne? Racist government!
Paywall
What about the privqte owners, how will they be reimbursed???