Satterly should go down in history as contributing more than his share of environmental destruction.
Worst bit is the treeless and car centric sprawl him and others have “master planned” will continue to cost more in carbon emissions for decades to come.
Where can we find a politician with a moral compass / spine who can refuse political donations from developers?
On weekends, Nigel Satterley often visits the housing estates he’s created, checking in to see if the people who live in them are happy with their lot.
It’s tempting to blame rich people for every woe on the planet. We can’t do a lot about many of the issues, and those who can do a lot more, don’t seem to prioritise environmental concerns above simple money.
But we need to take some of the blame here. We buy these lots of land and the first thing we do is clear the trees on them to make our homes. Yes, developers should do more to ensure more trees survive the encroaching suburbs. But we should also demand it.
We need more than a single local park/playground. We need tree lined streets, we need councils to stop approving houses that take up every square cm of the block, to the point where there is no room between our houses for trees. Blocks too small for that? Then make smaller houses or larger blocks.
It’s us. We ruin this planet, too. Not only the rich people. Yes, they ruin it more. Yes, even if we all did everything we could to minimise our carbon footprint, it would barely make a difference to the bigger picture. But that’s the point, right? If Nigel Satterly did everything possible to minimise the carbon footprint of his developments, that would also make barely a difference to global climate change. If everyone falls back on that argument, nothing will happen.
The thought of Satterley pretending to care if people are happy is a laugh.
Considering he agitates for increasing immigration. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nigel-satterley-b086171a6_skilledimmigration-labourshortage-economicrecovery-activity-6866932421162627072-Q2er
Is it really insurmountable to have increased density while also improving affordability, build standards (so people actually might want to move to an apartment) and urban planning to maintain tree canopies? Seems like the state government could be doing a lot more here.
Thats a funny idea Satterley’s got. ‘Lets make a town-site exactly like a country town, for a city!’ Where will the jobs be coming from? What is driving the economy forward in the area, of which will invariably become enmeshed with the culture of the place?
Go look at any thriving and successful cultural hub, big or small, and there is a prosperous economic base underpinning and pushing that community and their cultural exploits onward.
Satterley hasn’t created the ‘quaint country village in the big smoke’, he’s created a deserted leech suffocating the vibrancy of a growing city.
Although, i think Nath has a very good point in his comment as well.
