By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In Barden Ridge, a property developer was fined $70,000 for illegally clearing approximately 600 trees, including protected species, from a native wildlife corridor, with the intention of building a luxury mansion. The developer also faced charges for excavating land without approval, which he has admitted to, and must now restore the land by planting nearly 600 trees and other plants. Despite the council dropping the related court case, the community and environmental groups have expressed outrage, calling the fine a “slap on the wrist” for “environmental vandalism”. The council will monitor the site, and the damage from the clearing has already flowed into the Woronora River.
Read the original article here
Okay, let’s dive into this situation: a Sydney developer, Mr. Abara, made headlines for illegally clearing hundreds of trees on his property to build a $3 million mansion, and the response has been… well, let’s just say it’s complicated. The main takeaway here is that the developer, who purchased the land in 2019, faced charges for removing protected trees and excavating without proper consent. The issue? The penalties seem, to many, like a slap on the wrist, and that’s got a lot of people riled up.
If you’re wondering about the specific punishments, it’s crucial to understand what’s actually happening. The developer is now mandated to restore the land to its original state. That sounds good in theory, like a fair way to address the damage. However, there’s a real question of whether this will truly be a “like for like” restoration, with a full reinstatement of the trees and vegetation. If it’s not, many people believe the fines need to be increased. Some comments suggest that if the authorities were serious about deterring this sort of activity, a land confiscation would be more effective.
Now, let’s talk about the money side of things. The consensus is that the original $3 million estimate for the mansion itself seems low. The fact is that construction costs in Sydney can be sky-high, and several comments suggest the actual cost would have been much higher. Considering the land was purchased for almost a million dollars, the $3 million figure raises questions of what it actually includes, and whether there was underreporting involved. Perhaps it’s a reduced value put on the DA or an estimate that doesn’t reflect the true scope of the project, as has been suggested by some.
Here’s where things get really interesting, and the conversation turns to the motivations behind the developer’s actions. Some people believe the developer just didn’t give a damn and were rich enough to simply shrug off any fines, regardless of the cost. It’s often the case that penalties are just seen as a cost of doing business. It reflects a sense of entitlement, and the feeling that the wealthy are able to use their money to sidestep consequences that would be much harsher for the average person.
Adding more fuel to the fire is the perception that the legal system seems to be biased in favor of the rich. The case highlights a potential class divide, with the rich seemingly treated more leniently than the average citizen. Some people are angry that the well-off are able to avoid serious repercussions while ordinary individuals would face a stricter hand.
Of course, the legal issues aren’t always black and white. The developer had pre-existing development consent from an application in 2007, and the removal of five trees was permitted at that stage. However, the consent also stipulated that “no significant landscaping is to be affected.” Furthermore, it’s emerged that the land had government easements and that the trees were protected, which might be an important aspect often missing from media coverage. This situation underscores that regardless of property ownership, if the land or trees have protected status, any modifications have to follow precise legal processes.
Now, let’s consider the impact on society and the effectiveness of the current approach. Some believe the focus should be on forcing the developer to put up something to block the view until the land is restored, and that the solution has to be to make the punishment match the crime. However, others argue that we need to move on, since the damage is done.
There are a lot of opinions on this. Some think that this is a prime example of soft-on-crime strategies and how those types of policies ultimately hurt society, while others, understanding all the possible risks, see this as an appropriate solution. This leads to an essential question: What’s the right way to ensure this doesn’t happen again?