Where Once There Stood a Tree

Today we eavesdrop on a poetically heated conversation between a Bureaucrat (Local Unelected Enforcer) whom we’ll call Blue and a Real Estate Developer whom we’ll call Red. Each blinded by his own perceived benevolence, we find them moralising about the property development process as the debate devolves to the brink of ideological gridlock before highlighting, in the end, the consequences of inflexible policies that incentivise conflicting priorities in the first place (and continued adherence to such policies in spite of changing circumstances)—i.e. the dysfunctionality of a system where people, planet and profit are at odds.

Where once there stood a tree
now stands a house that should not be,
but were it not for me there might be three.

What a bore. There should’ve been more.
Why stop at three? Why not build four?
The rules are meant to be ignored.

If it’s density you so desire,
why not five? Why not go higher?
Don’t let me stop your vast empire. 

You mock, but it’s your mockery
we should curtail and not my ‘greed’.
I seek your help to meet a need.

I think you mean it’s rent you seek,
I think thou dost prey on the weak.
‘Tis on their behalf I speak.  

Of all the nerve, sir. What’s outrageous
with costs increasing but not wages,
is that policy reform takes ages.

You merely want to increase profits.
While construction costs may skyrocket,
I’ll not help you line your pockets. 

I think you have misunderstood.
It’s not me but you who should
be blamed for overpriced neighbourhoods.

I do not see your meaning, sir.
Your accusation is absurd.
Please explain your loaded words.

The reason there is less homeowning
is largely due to flaws in zoning.
It’s such restrictions I’m bemoaning.

Such policies help to ensure
that proper land uses endure.
What you’d abolish, I secure.

So, you’re happy to perpetuate
supply too little and too late?
I’m growing tired of this debate.

I tire, too, of your objections.
Maybe you should seek election,
then you can ban all tax collection!

That’s not a bad idea, I say.
Let’s enact that law today!
Those taxes are a pain to pay.

I was kidding, but you prove my claim.
Developers are all the same.
Profit is your only aim.

Your hindrances are never-ending.
I do believe in some rule-bending
to compensate for tighter lending.

Take your complaints to banks, my friend.
I don’t control what’s lent or spent,
much less cause economic trends.  

But you do, in fact, affect supply.
When a DA gets denied
it burdens those who wish to buy.

Suppose we did approve DAs
at record pace with no delays.
You’d see the error of your ways. 

How so? The public would be thrilled
if I were free to finally build
without you interfering still.

If we allowed you unabated
to build beyond what is dictated,
I think, sir, that we’d both be hated. 

Let the anti-development crowd come crying.
Stifling building stifles buying.
Suggesting otherwise is lying.

They fear a loss of open space
and, might I add, that you’d replace
our heritage. Is that not the case?

Not at all! That makes no sense.
I’d commit no such offence.
I’d build more but not at that expense.

So, you’ll agree to protect
all the trees on your next project?
Forgive me if I’m circumspect.

I’ll do my best, but as I said before,
we need to build, and build much more.
I’m not sure how you’re keeping score.

‘Tis my job to serve the city.
If I go around permitting
trees to be lost, that’d be a pity.

Forgive me if I scrutinise
that which you prioritise.
It’d be wise to reach a compromise.

We could try and we just might,
but I fear there is no end in sight
for the vicious cycle of our fight 

And therein lies the problem, sir.
What you fear need not occur.
What is it that you would prefer?

My fear is that you’d overbuild
no doubt with workers quite unskilled.
My fear is not just trees but people killed!

Why do you all expect the worst?
This mass psychosis is a curse.
Is it worth it, safety first?

However low the chances be,
if there were some tragedy,
the fingers would all point at me.

Trust me, chances are remote
that you would be made a scapegoat.
If anything, they’d wring my throat.

I’m sorry but I must insist,
it simply isn’t worth the risk
to end up on some blacklist.

It sounds as though your motivation
is not to aid accommodation
but rather your own reputation.

You twist my words, but I must
confess I simply do not trust
you. What’s left to discuss?

Sir, you seem to be unyielding.
I protest the power that you’re wielding
over that which needs building.

It’s necessary, don’t you see?
You must comply willingly.
I say, ‘More laws not more autonomy!’

Let me try to get this straight.
You’re proposing more red tape?
Is there anything you’d not regulate?

I concede that laws make your life hard.
Indeed, if not, you’d go too far.
Proceed… but not in my backyard.

Wait, you mean that you don’t care
as long as I go build elsewhere?
The neighbours there won’t think it fair.

‘Tis not my concern, you see,
they’re not my constituency.
I’m sure you’ll still make your money.

My projects’ feasibilities
don’t have such contingencies.
Can I please build wherever I please?

Since you asked so pleasantly
and pulled some strings concurrently
I might approve conditionally.  

By that I will assume you mean
I'll need to pay a few more ‘fees’
and pretend to care about the trees? 

Yes, indeed, that is the case,
and in this way we both save face.
Pleasure doing business, mate.

Where once there stood a tree
now stands a great plutocracy
where no one wins except hypocrisy.

* * *