The Conversation published to items that may be of interest to users of our website. First, Dallas Rogers speaks with Western Sydney University's Cameron McAuliffe about leveraging conflict and informal processes in the urban planning process. The second argues many Australians are over-insuring when it comes to funerals.
One of the most common complaints about community involvement in the urban planning process is “NIMBYism” – the “not in my backyard” cry from local residents, which developers and potential residents of medium-to-high-density apartments see as an impediment to healthy urban development and affordable housing.
At the same time, local residents often see the planning process as freezing them out of having any real say in development that can affect local amenities, transport and neighbourhood character.
Recent changes to planning legislation in New South Wales make community participation plans a mandatory part of the process, in an effort to put consultation at the centre of urban planning.
But how do you balance these two competing, seemingly antagonistic groups?
Dallas Rogers speaks with Cameron McAuliffe, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography and Urban Studies at Western Sydney University, about how urban planning can leverage the natural conflict between groups with very different demands to reach better solutions, why the NIMBY slur is often misplaced and how local resident action groups are working beyond the current urban planning system to achieve their goals.
TV advertisements for funeral insurance often warn of the huge financial impost created for families when you die. They argue the only way to protect your loved ones is to take out insurance. However, what these ads don’t tell you is that funeral insurance is a financial product and not really any different from life insurance, except the cover is usually for a much lower amount.
This means the benefit paid upon your death is a cash amount, without any restrictions on whether it is used for your funeral or not.