Housing Developments or Overshoot? Are we experiencing an affordable housing ‘crisis’ or is that another symptom of human overshoot?

In our personal lives, most of us recognise a limit to what we need, and a limit to what we can get.

So why is it apparently impossible to recognise our public limits, in public spaces; in politics?

Housing becomes ‘affordable housing’ when the housing cost is below about 30% of one’s income.

At the moment in the Lismore Local Government Area, median mortgage repayments are above median household income.

Meaning that it’s no longer ‘affordable’ for the average mortgaged homeowner, to live in their own home – it used to be a right, but now it’s a privilege.

Over the last generation or so, ‘affordable housing’ has become synonymous with rental housing.

When residential development proposals claim to provide affordable housing, they’re actually providing investment opportunities for asset owners who benefit from owning property in the Lismore LGA, without actually living here, or being a part of the Lismore LGA themselves.

It’s yet another way, capitalism sucks wealth from those who can least afford it, to make the wealthy wealthier – business as usual – another symptom of overshoot.

Human overshoot occurred in the early 1970’s. The number of planet earths required to support our average human footprint is now at 1.7 – Australian’s require 3.8 – and it’s rising just like atmospheric CO₂.

In 2010, of all countries, Australia had the 5th highest ecological footprint per person.

Since European arrivals began, 10% of Australia’s land mammal species have become extinct – this number is also rising.

According to the Genuine Progress Indicator, Australia reached an optimum human population of 15 million in about 1974.

During Australia’s 2019-20 fire-season about 3 billion individual non-human animals were killed by what the Australian National University say is a “wake up call”.

Some federal politicians (while in opposition) have remarked on an “accelerating and disastrous extinction crisis”, but during the same 12-month period of time, the number of Australians increased by 331500 individual humans.

Human population growth is growing, when it should be contracting.

But hang-on, I hear you say; if only we could live more responsibly, reduce consumption, we would reduce our damaging impacts on the environment, and then, a sustainable future would be possible for all!

Unfortunately, not. Self-interest is a hard-wired aspect of being human, for most people, most of the time.

When the 2015-2035 Lismore Growth Management Strategy is directed by ‘community aspiration’ for “population and economic growth … to be managed and sustainable in the longer term”, how can I possibly believe otherwise?

Don’t get me wrong, I still advocate for reducing consumption, but I believe the issues of human population and consumption must be considered together.

If our reformed human consumers are going to have something to consume, we must address human ‘overshoot’. I

’m afraid we can’t have our cake and eat it too. What happened to the warning of unlimited growth on a finite planet?

How is our Local Government Area not part of our planet? Lismore’s current LGA human population is close to 44000 people or about 34 people per square kilometer; that’s a higher population density than such countries as Sweden, Laos, Butuan, Papua New Guinea, or New Zealand.

Hovering just above us is the population density of the United States of America. The average Australian enjoys a lifestyle at the expense of an ecological footprint of 6 hectares, which therefore gives the 1290km² of Lismore’s LGA a carrying capacity of 21500 people.

On this basis alone, the Lismore LGA should reject any new residential development and manage the steady contraction of resident numbers.

Hey, we might even make housing more affordable in the process.

Given the current Council election, I’ve questioned each Mayoral candidate with the same question: What’s the optimum number of residents in the Lismore LGA?

Disappointingly, not one candidate has a numerical alternative to the growth agenda.

Responses below are summarised and listed in the order they were received.

Vote wisely.

Krieg = “… 50000 in our LGA is attainable by 2041”

Marks = “… the magic number is approximately 70,000 and above”

Rob = “I don’t do as I am told” (No response)

Ekins = “We need to meet the needs of our community first and I don’t think the growth model will do it”

Cook = “…we are not picking a number that would be optimal and committing to it”

Bird = No response

- Daniel John Petersen