Gabba Ward Office Volunteers

Here’s some rare positive news out of the US…

Atlanta is restricting the amount of short term rentals (like AirBNB’s) permitted to operate in the city to two per person, and one of those must be your primary residence. So basically, only residents of the city are allowed to rent out.

Short term accomodations are becoming very controversial as these companies that were originally proposed as something to do on the side with your spare room and time, have now totally exploded into a predatory replication of the hotel industry. (This is also true for the food delivery and taxi services - originally proposed to shake up the industry and as something to do in your spare time for extra cash - which have now exploded into under-regulated predatory industries.)

Owners and operators are quoted in this article having a total sook about their new “job” insecurity, but the piece also quotes stats for the horribly low availability of long term rentals and the disgusting profits made from renting out short term accomodations. These people have been hoarding housing for years and holding it hostage so they can make as much money as possible, so forgive me for not being sympathetic.

Along with the total ban on parties that AirBNB has recently made, it’s great to see other cities setting examples of how to limit the negative effects of these dodgy businesses. Potentially this might start a domino effect that could seriously endanger the profits of this horrible industry.

Brisbane should follow, but unlikely under this current city council who aren’t looking out for regular people.

Do you live next to an AirBNB? Family of mine in Sydney do, and they always complain about the near weekly parties, although I suppose this should stop theoretically if the party ban is actually enforced.

City of Atlanta cracking down on Airbnb, short term rentals About 4,000 short-term rentals could soon no longer be allowed to operate in Atlanta because of a new ordinance cracking down on who’s able to rent out their home.

!!!Trigger Warning!!!
Referencing First Nations' lives lost during the colonial wars (the fight has not ended).

In whose world do the colonial Frontier Wars not represent invasion and genocide? 403 massacres confirmed across 500 nations. More than 10,000 lives lost due to the inherent evil that invasion, under the semantic mask of colonialism, brings.

Here's a link to Newcastle Uni's heavily researched Massacre Map:
https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php

And here's a link to the news article that ignited this post:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-16/aboriginal-people-genocidal-killings-massacre-map-nt-wa/100913106

"Not our fault? Wasn't our generation?"

Yes, but we stand atop the pillars of a colonial constitution as more drug-related deaths, more substance abuse, and more deaths in custody rage on among communities across the land. Who are we to stand tall while centuries-long effects of cultural trauma continue. Shame on white Australia. Shame on neo-liberalism and greedy capitalism.

'Massacre map' reveals violence against Aboriginal tribes intensified throughout the decades A pattern of "brutal" reprisals and "genocidal killings" began to emerge in the late 19th and 20th centuries as thousands of Aboriginal people were murdered in colonial times, new research suggests.

Today's discussion topic: Australian Basic Income

You might think a basic income would cost the federal government too much, but you're wrong. There's $100bn/year worth of tax sitting in offshore bank accounts, owned by none other than the multi-millionaires and billionaires who sit pretty on a passive incomes. These people are not active members of the community. They are leeches who hoard their wealth--what are they waiting for? Valhalla?

You might think the idea is Utopian, or unrealistic. It's not. Some of us already exist in a form of Utopia due to modern democratic thinking, but more still sit at the bottom of the utopian pyramid while the inactive wealthy exist in a world of our wildest dreams. We don't seek to live like them though; we seek stability and purpose. If we don't have the capital to invest in ourselves, then we are the product of an unbalanced system.

Imagine this:

Lost your job? No worries, a basic income will keep you going until you move to greener pastures. And hey, when you find those pastures, we'll keep paying you until you know for sure it's the right place for you.

Getting back on your feet? No worries, a basic income will support all of your needs. That's rent, electricity, hot water, white goods, technologies, internet.

You're a self-made student who needs to pay rent and eat? No worries, a basic income will give you a 'room of your own,' a space to think, create and collaborate towards a better future.

How could a Basic Income in Australia help you or someone you know? How would you invest in yourself and where could you see yourself going?

What we don't understand: Dick Richards buys an 'investment' house with a loan he's proven to be able to pay off based on his hefty income and *insert banking jargon here*.

The prices skyrocket and Dick demands a rental increase from tenants who are finding their feet and have just finished a lousy 6 month lease. Now that prices are high, the resale value of a house Dick's done nothing to puts a great asset in his back pocket, yet he also has the audacity to jack up the rent.

Dick's winning on two fronts; he's got tenants who get paid less than him paying off his mortgage and when he finally sells to big time investors, he'll be a bona fide millionaire. The rich pull money from the poor and dare to question how much they're being taxed. Pure and simple, this is hypocrisy.

Discussions please--long and short answers welcome. Why are we being Dicks to one another?

Did you know that the laws of where you can and can’t use E-mobility devices and other things like skateboards are really confusing and inconsistent?

Check out the laws here
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices

We all know the basics of where you’re allowed to ride a bike, and with all the new bike lanes around Brisbane, it’s becoming safer and easier than ever.

The laws separate skateboards/scooters (categorized as toys) and e-mobility devices mostly based on the existence of a motor, but most of the laws are the same.

But did you know you’re not allowed to ride an electric scooter or skateboard on the road in most circumstances? You’d think it would make sense to allow these devices to use bike lanes, especially the new barrier protected lanes, but they’re basically restricted to the footpaths unless avoiding a blocked path, and with limited access to 50km/hr-and-under roads out of the city. Riding along a city footpath is definitely not safe.

A lot of people who grew up skating, or still do, will know there’s also a lot of silly rules for skateboards and scooters. Again, given you can reach quite high speeds on these things, just like bikes, you’d think the laws would be similar.

And who really thinks that riding a skateboard on a footpath is safe? Footpaths are typically uneven surfaces with pavers sticking out, as well as cars and people suddenly exiting properties to worry about. With such small wheels, scooters and skateboards are not able to ride over anything much bigger than a pebble unless you’re going really fast.

Have you been riding in a way that is technically illegal and ever been stopped? Do you think cops mostly ignore this given it is so silly?

Clearly this is another case of the law struggling to keep up with rapidly changing technology but surely something here needs to change.

Bicycles, skateboards, foot scooters and similar When you are riding your bicycle, skateboard, scooter or other device on the road, the road rules apply to you.

Some news on E-scooter/E-bikes and City Cycle network.

The Public and Active Transport Committee today heard BCC is seeking tender for two E-Bike providers to add to the Brisbane system of E-mobility devices.

This is great to see more embracing of electric vehicles as well as active transport but again it’s a shame that these are to be provided by a private company and not a publicly funded network that is free for residents.

Council is also talking about E-Mobility hubs that will allow the devices to be parked somewhere safe and out of the way, while also maybe charging the devices. This isn’t clear yet however it is clear the Council isn’t equally enforcing existing pathway blockage laws on the E-scooter companies maybe to give them special treatment.

The department managing this roll out have put emphasis on liaising with disability advocate groups to ensure the system is suitable for people with disabilities and not causing hazards or blockages. So hopefully such laws are enforced!

Also a lot of people may be aware that the City Cycle network is being decommissioned given it’s become obsolete in comparison to electric devices. This whole situation is a bit of a mess given this network is only about 10 years old and has been designed in a way that makes it incredibly expensive to alter to electric, and is already very expensive to establish stations.

This means we’ll be losing the great way the City Cycle network runs, with the easy subscription model where you can just scan a card and pick a bike. No need to have an app or the fumble of starting and finishing the ride.

Again, given the private management of the system, we don’t get what’s easiest and cheapest for residents, or a free system.

New political advertising rule changes will benefit parties that rely the most on corporate billboard advertising and limit residents' freedom of political expression.

The Brisbane City Council has created extremely restrictive election sign laws clearly in anticipation of the upcoming federal election. These laws limit residents’ political expression and force residents to register their yard signs, which may scare them into not getting one at all.

And don’t be fooled by the thumbnail of this story. The ridiculous amount of signs at polling booths are obviously an issue, and should be limited, but that’s a whole seperate issue to residents showing support at their homes

New limits for candidates across their electorates
- local and state may have 50 yard signs
- federal may have 150
- Mayoral may have 500

How on earth will this be enforced? Someone would have to prove more than 150 signs are up at once.

What’s most concerning is the idea of a registry for the signs, presumably the only way they can enforce it. Rather than counting they just get you if yours isn’t registered.

I’d imagine a lot of people would rather not be added to a list like this that is managed by the LNP Council.

What about issues based signs?

“A council spokeswoman said issues-based signs on private properties were separate to candidate signs, but residents still needed council permission to install one.”

And we all know who this hurts the most - smaller parties like the Greens. There’s no new restrictions on TV ads, billboards, etc.

So big money can buy expensive ad space while regular people are restricted in what they can do to support their preferred candidate.

Brisbane City Council limits election signs for candidates, but can the corflutes be stopped? A 2015 decision to allow unlimited corflutes on private property has been wound back by Brisbane City Council.

Today, the Public and Active Transport committee meeting heard a presentation about the consultation process for the West End green bridges. In the consultation process, the community was given 3 options for a bridge from Toowong to West End and 3 options for a bridge from St Lucia to West End. Overall, BCC said it received over 4000 responses, with strong support for Option A for both bridges (83% for the Toowong Bridge and 64% for the St Lucia Bridge).

The Council has released two detailed reports about the consultation process. In the Toowong Bridge Consultation Report, page 47 breaks down the responses by suburbs. West End and Toowong were most represented, accounting for 34% and 20% of responses respectively. St Lucia and Highgate Hill had significantly less responses, only 5% and 3% respectively.

In the St Lucia Bridge Consultation Report, the suburb breakdown can be found on page 48. West End was again most represented, with 33% of responses. St Lucia had more than the first bridge, with 27% of the responses. Highgate Hill and Toowong had 9% and 4% respectively.

Jonno also conducted consultation, and West End also had the highest percentage of respondents, but suburbs like Highgate Hill and St Lucia made up a higher percentage of respondents than in the BCC consultation (https://www.jonathansri.com/bridgevoteresults). Jonno also included an option for those who don’t want any bridge, which was a notable gap in the BCC process. Potentially, only residents who were in support of a bridge would have responded to the BCC consultation which could have led to results which don’t represent the general feelings of residents in those areas.

Next, BCC will produce a Concept Design and a Business Case for both bridges. This will involve looking into the benefits of the project as well as the potential complications, costs and major negative impacts. Further community consultation will follow and discussions about funding will commence. At this point, the Toowong Bridge is being treated as a higher priority than the St Lucia Bridge. Overall, it is promising to see residents and concerned stakeholders being listened to, but it is important to remember that the results may not be indicative of the views held by all members of the community.

For those interested, the BCC Consultation Reports can be found here:

Toowong Bridge: https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/roads-infrastructure-and-bikeways/green-bridges/toowong-to-west-end-green-bridge

St Lucia Bridge:
https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/roads-infrastructure-and-bikeways/green-bridges/st-lucia-to-west-end-green-bridge

St Lucia to West End Green Bridge The St Lucia to West End Green Bridge is proposed to cater for pedestrians, cyclists and potentially public transport pending community consultation and traffic studies, making it easier to walk or ride between the University of Queensland at St Lucia, West End, Highgate Hill and the Brisbane Centra...

Last week the BCC Public and Active Transport Committee saw a petition to reinstate loading zones in a location that now has barrier separated bike lanes. It was promising to see the committee rejected the petition on the basis that the new bike lanes are a part of a trial and therefore must be seen to the end of the trial at least.

However the committee, and primarily the Chair Ryan Murphy, refused to commit funding in the next budget to further trials of these lanes despite apparent immediate success.

It's disappointing to have no commitment to further roll outs, and that this is being treated as a trial, but of course it's a positive that council is sticking to the plan and not cutting the bike lanes in half.