When I walk around my neighbourhood, I am struck by the beautiful character of the houses here: the draughty Queenslanders and timber fences, the majestic external staircases, I could go on forever. But something always felt off, and I finally realise what it is. How can I admire a house with elegant stilts and sweeping verandahs when there is a bright red 2019 Ford Puma sitting in the driveway? Or appreciate a compact, postwar masterpiece when it has a Hilux poking out around the side? In the hours I’ve spent positioning myself on the street so I can bathe in the heritage of my neighbourhood, I have not found an angle without some such monstrosity in my field of view.

We’ve spent years fighting the vandals who want to destroy the heritage of our neighbourhood. Why should we make an exception for this? I see no other option: we must forbid residents from bringing any new cars into the area. This is already a compromise, as if I had my way we would ban every car newer than the house it is parked in front of. (Of course, some especially old houses would need hitching posts to be reinstalled.)

I’ll be specific. Any house on the heritage register should be banned from locating a non-heritage-appropriate vehicle on the premises. Any resident who buys a new car must submit an impact assessment to be evaluated by the vehicle heritage committee.

It’s not that I have an issue with cars; I just think they should be appropriate and affordable cars. It’s hard to imagine anybody disagreeing with this, but I already hear the “NIMBY” slur from the usual suspects.

  1. “This would be an assault on our personal freedom.”

    Whose freedom is really at stake here? The residents of our community should be free to live in a neighbourhood that respects its heritage, something we are currently being deprived of. There is no reason that your personal preferences should be inflicted on the rest of the community.

    If you are not happy with our efforts to maintain the character of the neighbourhood, you are perfectly free to live in a place where people drive cars more to your taste. What the modern car activists demand is the silencing of local opinion: does that sound like freedom to you?

  2. “This application process would be excessive and onerous.”

    The community should have a say in what vehicles are allowed on their street, it’s as simple as that. It’s shocking what people are able to get away with; an impact assessment for each new vehicle is really not that much to ask.

    Anyone worried that the committee would be too strict can rest easy. Myself and some other passionate community members ran a small trial involving people with a range of backgrounds – from owners of pre-war classics to mid-century sedan enthusiasts. After discussing which makes and models we would be willing to accept, I am happy to say that we approved many of the heritage-appropriate cars that were submitted. These regulations really would not be a burden.

  3. “Old cars are worse than modern ones: less efficient, less powerful, less convenient, less safe.”

    This is a non-issue. Nobody is preventing you from replacing the engine and interior of your character-appropriate car with something that suits you better. Why don’t we hear about this kind of conversion happening more often? It’s because these problems are imagined: clearly people are happy with their heritage cars as they are. Although now that you mention it, the committee might want to get a look-in on the interior too.

    In any case, there are workarounds. In rare situations, and strictly subject to the committee’s approval, it may be enough to change the shape of a part of the offending car so that its character-ruining design is not visible from the street. These are the kinds of improvements that we on the committee could generously assist a car owner by suggesting. Frankly, they should be grateful that the committee is considering the non-compliant proposal at all.

    Slowing down the churn of new vehicles is all to the good: we want to encourage people to maintain and cherish their beautiful existing vehicles. Ultimately this is far more sustainable than having people switch to newer cars. Our group has the full support of local environmentalists in this regard.

  4. “Some people would get a lot of benefit from a new car.”

    Of course, but let’s check the other side of the ledger, how the rest of our community is affected. Do we have the infrastructure to support all the cars that people want to bring in? Adding any more before improving the existing roads is irresponsible. Reducing the number of people who could drive, which wouldn’t happen, would in any case be a good thing, if it did happen, which it won’t. I’m sure you agree our traffic problem is out of control.

    Think also of how bright LED headlights can be. This is not a joke: the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment makes very clear that sleep deprivation is capable of amounting to torture. I encourage you to bring this up at the next council meeting.

  5. “Allowing modern cars means cars are cheaper and accessible to more people.”

    Finally, the economic illiteracy we all knew was coming. The price of a car is influenced by a multitude of factors: global supply chains, financing tricks, tax incentives and manufacturer greed, to name a few. There’s no evidence that our heritage rules would have any impact on the price or availability of cars.

    In fact, the current free-for-all is probably contributing to the price issue. Beyond lining the pockets of car manufacturers, having “luxury” cars in our neighbourhood increases demand for similar cars, and so in fact increases their price for everyone. The way to have truly affordable cars is to preserve the existing stock of older vehicles and prevent the speculation caused by these new luxury models.

    Like everyone, I believe Australia will need more cars to match our growing population. But is our neighbourhood really the best place for them to go? There are already lots of cars here, and plenty of Holden EHs and Valiants to go around. And if there does end up being a shortage, it’s clear who’s to blame: anyone who owns one of these cars and don’t drive it much.

  6. “Making only heritage cars is not feasible for car manufacturers.”

    When people make this claim you should check them for an earpiece: they are getting their lines directly from the manufacturers. Who do you think profits most from the current free-for-all? The manufacturers who want to pump out modern cars for people to endlessly buy; it’s pure corporate greed.

    Sure, it could be that the heritage committee reduces the inflated profits of corporations. I struggle to see how this is an issue. If Toyota isn’t interested in building a perfect replica of the Ford Falcon XK, the solution is simple: manufacturers should be forced to reserve some minimum percentage of their fleet for heritage vehicles. If we allow manufacturers to build however they like, they will only ever build their unaffordable luxury cars.

    I wouldn’t have such a problem with these modern cars if they were just built to a higher standard. Some of them are so small; no one wants to drive a Kia. We should enforce at least a minimum boot size to prevent these unreasonable cars from being built in the first place, that would certainly save the manufacturers a lot of trouble.

Write to your councillor to demand a vehicle heritage committee. Myself and the other concerned residents stand ready to serve.