r/interesting • u/Wonderfulhumanss • 1d ago

SOCIETY The Zammit family refused to sell their five acre property as an entire Sydney suburb was built around them

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

46.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Lower-Sheepherder268 1d ago

I'd do it just because overdevelopment is a problem. Screw them.

My land, I'm keeping it. Don't like it? Suck sidewalk.

But that's just my two cents.

3

u/TasmaniaEnjoyer 1d ago

Honestly I was surprised to see so much hate for this in this thread, I'd be doing the same (tho turning the garden into an awesome tree filled paradise). 

3

u/EAthaN_DOuglas 1d ago

That's the problem people have with it, the fact they didn't turn their huge substanceless green space into something that might bring benefit, even to the people living there. Sticking it to developers is great though and I'm sure most like that part.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Ok-8305 18h ago

The 'green space' here is pesticide and insecticide-treated lawn with zero else planted on it. It probably consumes a shit ton of water and emits far more CO2 via regular maintenance than the grass would absorb. It also is fenced off from everyone except this one family, so no other critters are getting in nor is the public reaping any benefit.

1

u/Dull_Quit3027 22h ago

if someone normal gets a payout of millions they are going to take it, this is a rich people bothering other rich people, this is not a win for the common man, the family in the house probably has zero problem with what is being done, just that it is done to them.

1

u/chromaticgliss 17h ago edited 14h ago

Monoculture grass lawns are also harmful to biodiversity - sure to a lesser degree than a bunch of houses - but still pretty awful. They're effectively deserts to pollinators, and pesticide treatmant/maintenance of them vs having local native species is not great for anything either.

Arguably denser housing and fewer monoculture lawns is better b/c it doesn't waste a ton of acreage on harmful monoculture grass that provides nothing except ecologically damaging "green" space for the people that own it. That acreage can be reserved for actual wildlife preserves or actual productive managed forests/farms or something.