Search

Copyright of Urban Policy & Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

As decarbonisation interventions proliferate within cities, local governments setting ambitious targets are increasingly engaged in complex financial relations. Recognising the necessary cost of renewable and energy efficient infrastructures, and the ever-present constraints on public funds, this paper argues that finance is a critical node through which local governments advance decarbonisation in urban localities. While local decarbonisation strategies have been viewed cautiously for their potential to overburden individuals at the expense of more systematic and organisational change, this paper reveals a more complex picture. Drawing on decarbonisation initiatives in two Melbourne municipalities—Moreland and Darebin—it identifies four ways in which local governments are using public finance to achieve their sustainability objectives. Local governments are brokering bulk product purchases for residents; lending upfront capital for solar PV via local property taxes; purchasing energy efficient products and funding innovative technology pilots; and procuring renewable energy supply through multi-stakeholder power purchase agreements. By targeting lower income households and pooling resources with other organisations, the paper shows that local governments can address socio-economic inequality and facilitate extra-local change towards a low-carbon city. However, these incremental achievements emphasise the need for co-ordination and state engagement to realise decarbonisation at a meaningful scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores relationships between community opposition, planning assessments and local political processes. While resident opposition to development proposals is thought to delay housing supply, the nature, extent and pathways of influence have not been quantitatively established. In Victoria the number of third party objections has no direct legal weight, but in practice, development applications involve multiple decision makers. Community expectations that objection numbers “count” may reflect suspicion that refusals are more likely from elected local decision makers. This paper tests for relationships between procedural and political pathways in planning. It uses descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression models based on one year (15 676) of Melbourne residential development assessments. It is found that objection numbers increase significantly with local socio-economic status and that, as applications receive more objections, elected representatives more often intervene. Assessments by elected councilors are significantly more likely to be refused, and have relative odds more than seven times higher of resulting in appeal. The paper argues that local contestation of housing, particularly from better-resourced groups, is highly adaptable to reforms seeking to overcome or rationalise it. Reducing or shifting opportunities for third party opposition may less reduce planning uncertainty, than increase its variation, complexity, and spatial concentration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]