The current drafting would give the Victorian Government the ability to create Infrastructure Contributions Plans (ICPs) which, per Section 217, can be spent on:
Works, services, or facilities outside the ICP plan area if essential to, or generated by, development in the ICP plan area, or if they cannot reasonably be provided within the area.
In addition, the ability to recoup ICP preparation administration costs will be added, which was not available previously.
Now, what could “facilities outside the ICP plan area” possibly entail? For example, I could see spending on a major road intersection outside the immediate catchment being justified in some growth areas.
But could it also be a stalking horse for a certain #infrastructure #boondoggle? The wording is clearly intended to allow levying of contributions in one spot, and spending them somewhere else based on a tenuous connection – removing the usual nexus between where the growth occurs and where the infrastructure money is spent.
The anonymous government spokesperson says of course, they wouldn’t do such a thing, yet it’s not hard to see how the whole east (and eventually north) of Melbourne could be argued to generate demand for the #suburbanrailloop. Those Station Precincts, at minimum.
🤔Perhaps this explains why it was reported today that the Australian Government is considering a further contribution to this project, given a key outstanding query in the last assessment was about demonstrating the “value capture” mechanism involved.
These dots are not particularly hard to “track”. 🚅
💰Either way, you can bank on the fact that wider ICP powers will only lead to higher development contributions. They will increase the cost of new development and further widen the #feasibility gap – especially in established suburbs (the same ones which are meant to take the brunt of all the new development)