Look around Sydney and you’ll see battles being waged in nearly every suburb between residents’ action groups and the state government. From Penrith to Bondi the warzones are green spaces, heritage buildings and community facilities. The terms of conflict are consistent: the government is attempting to override local opposition to overdevelopment in underserviced suburbs.

A conflux of changes has contributed to the explosion of residents’ action groups. The immediate factors are the back-to-back victories of a business first (people second) Baird/Berejiklian government, which decided in 2016 to forcibly merge councils and appoint administrators to oversee decision-making. Stripped of local representation, residents were forced to self-organise to oppose reckless developments.

All across Sydney people feel squished into train carriages. Credit:Kate Geraghty

The deeper trends are the subject of academic debate. How does the modern individualised subject who no longer sees himself or herself as belonging to a neatly identifiable bloc choose to engage in politics? Frequently, it seems, by joining a residents’ action group.

The common refrain by those whose commercial interest is interrupted by these groups is to accuse them of NIMBYism, naive tree-huggers unaware of economic imperatives. Developers argue that they are responding to demand fuelled by Australia’s soaring population. People must live somewhere. Do you want house prices to rise even higher by stymieing supply?