Turn back the tide before it engulfs us
THE government will consider expanding development in Melbourne's green wedge zones, ostensibly as an overhaul of planning (''Baillieu reviews green wedges'', The Age, 24/6). It's really just about clearing more urban land for developments.
We are facing a slow and consuming tsunami spreading over our land, destroying biodiversity, increasing pollution, and now it threatens to eat away at our city's ''green'' lungs.
''Planning'' is a euphemism for growth. It has become the lazy and easy way to accumulate funds, from rates and taxes and political donations. The plan will offer no solutions to our housing affordability problem, or the supposed housing shortage. A lack of a population policy doesn't help.
Our city's growth will force more people to accept higher-density living. It means more stress for families from being confined indoors, and potentially more mental and physical health problems. It will add to our carbon emissions, and further increase our living costs. Green wedges were meant for trees, waterways, recreation, habitat, biodiversity and fresh air. Structures in green wedges will clog up our city's respiratory system.
Melburnians might accept change, but Melbourne's liveability is not improving.
Jenny Warfe, Dromana
This is the article
Language Analysis
The Baillieu’s strategic plan to implement new policies and to expand the city to accommodate a growing population has seen opposition and reluctance from the Australian Community. Indeed, one such author, Jenny Warfe, in her Letter to the Editor (Herald Sun), “Turn back the tide before it engulfs us”, published on 27th June , vehemently contends that the policy proposed is farcical. Pleadingly, she emphasizes that Melbournians will be further physically and emotionally choked as the policy will fail to meets its requirement. Even if the policies do meet the policy’s obligations, they will not address the problem of rising inflation. Though the issue is recent, the author is sure that her audience, metropolitan dwellers and young adults working within the city will be observing attentively changes that are made. The issue is set to spark further debate once the policies are finalized.
From the outset of the letter, Warfe establishes the provocative headline “Turn back the tide before it engulfs us” to exaggerate the issue as one being colossal as a “tsunami.” Thus, it is this comparison that further accentuates the parallel “Turn…Tide” as threatening and confronting to her audience. The “engulf[ing] tide” invokes a sense of threat by painting an image that appears destructive and malign. At the same time the nature of tsunamis themselves are confronting. This is because of human’s inherent fear of natural disasters. They are events that often result in destruction, death and decay. Such emphasis in the parallels between “tide” and “tsunami” also reminds the reader of the recent tragedies that struck Indonesia and more recently, Japan. As Warfe paints portraits of disasters involving tsunamis, events that have shaken the world, it punctuates the raw and unhealed fear within her readers. By evoking these images, Wharf highlights the urgency to recognize the development of green wedge land policy as folly. She provokes her readers to question the effectiveness within the preparation that is involved and the organization of the implementation proposed.
Thus, as Wharfe’s headline transitions to the introduction, the reader is invited to recognize the author’s ardent and robust character. The stammering capitalized first word, “THE” emphasizes the author’s fervor about the issue from the onset. It highlights Wharfe’s love and care for Melbourne. Her concern is is designed to resonate with and to be felt strongly by her readers. Followed by Wharfe’s scathing attack “Government…[is]..just…clearing more land for development,” it reinforces her strident and healthy cynical approach, inspiring and giving confidence to her readers that she is alert and defending their rights. That is, she seeks to undermine the government’s position. Warfe invokes a lingering doubt within her in the opposition as the author depicts the government as “destroying biodiversity, increasing pollution [and] eat[ing] away at our city’s “green” lungs.” The depiction, isolated as a separate paragraph within the article elucidates the author’s attempt to legitimize the government as destructive. With this, accompanied by the insinuating “Planning is a euphemism for growth,” it directly lambasts the government. The author conveys to the audience the apathy that has manifested within the government. Planning in fact, has become an “easy way to accumulate funds” whilst offering “no solutions.” Coupled together, the audience is truly invited to questions the government’s policy and sparks concern to whether the government is merely attempting to acquire more revenue.
The aggressive stance by Warfe’s in the previous paragraph attempts to condemn the government as “lazy” and appearing to struggle with administrative policies. It nurtures the outrage and anger within Warfe’s audience that is established from the body of her article. In contrast, by the denouement, Warfe is more forthright in her arguments however, she stamps her contention clearly. As she reminds the reader “Green wedges were meant for trees,” it facilitates a sense of responsibility and with urgency, beckons her audience to protect Melbourne’s biodiversity. To Warfe, biodiversity is pivotal to Melbourne’s psychological well being. By constructing a logical argument, she encourages her readers to reason that the outcome of such a policy will encourage “higher density living” which will result in “more stress for families…and potentially more mental and psychology health problems.” This is seen as undesirable to Warfe’s audience. Thus, it compels her readers to refuse the proposed policy of the Ballieu government. A sense of good judgment and achievement is also aroused as the reader feels that they are protecting the environment and Melbourne’s biodiversity.
In combination with an evocative headline and an aggressive but passionate tone Warfe firmly grounds her opposition to the government’s proposed policy. Warfe will further polarize the issue as she draws on provocative images of the state's actions and the consequences of its policy. With emphasis on individual’s lifestyles, many readers will feel threatened and thereby become doubtful of the policy. Indeed, Warfe leaves the government no opportunity to appear sympathetic or empathetic towards but rather strike directly to her audience’s welfare with “Melbournians might accept change… but Melbourne’s liveability is not improving.” Ultimately setting that the state cannot be trusted with authority over this planning.
PS: Updated with some editing, further edit will be issued ^^
Home
Help
Search
Login
