There was a brief time when state governments attempted to distance themselves from property developers – or at least pretended to. Certain changes were made in several states, including banning developers from making political donations.

But these days, most state politicians and property developers are joined at the hip, driven by a mission to increase high-density housing as well as satisfy Labor’s ideological hatred of residents in certain parts of the big cities.

Let’s not forget here that the planning functions that vest with state and local governments confer vast powers on those making the decisions. In certain locales, these far outweigh any role the federal government plays. Planning decisions can give rise to influence peddling as well as hidden financial rewards.

Just think Eddie Obeid and you know what I’m talking about. He opted to execute his influence by becoming a parliamentarian and handing out favours to his family and mates from his office in Macquarie Street. Sure, he ended up going to jail, but it was rich pickings in the meantime.

Various civil wars are now erupting in Sydney as the New South Wales Labor government, under evangelist Chris Minns, attempts to force the pace of high-density development in desirable inner/middle suburbs. There’s never been a better time to be a property developer in the Emerald City.

The same is largely true in Melbourne.  There, the state government took control of planning from local governments along auxiliary/declared roads. This has led to block upon block of newly constructed apartment buildings in the south-east suburbs, in particular. No one would suggest that these new dwellings are an answer to the affordable housing crisis, but what the heck. The starting price for most of these apartments is $2 million.

But let me return to Sydney. Let’s face it, Labor has never liked people who live in the eastern suburbs – think Woollahra, Edgecliff, Rose Bay, Vaucluse, Point Piper, Bondi. Even though the density of housing in the area is way above the national average, the Minns government wants it to be higher again. Hang any objections from the existing residents.

As a result of the planned completion of the Woollahra railway station, the Minns government is now planning to approve massive high-rise apartment buildings, some over 20 storeys. In time, the expectation is that there will be an additional 10,000 residents living in the area.

Now just think that one through. The Minns government expects the railway station to cost $250 million – in his dreams, I say – and the proximity to the station will form the basis of approval for a series of high-density building applications. Quite a neat trick, even though the Woollahra station is quite close to the existing station in Edgecliff.

Under the Minns government’s planning rules, known as the State Environmental Planning Policy, higher than normal developments will be allowed within 800 metres of a station or town centre. Additional stories are sanctioned if the developer promises to offer some affordable housing.

A legitimate question to ask is whether there is really any unused infrastructure – roads, parking, schools, health services and the like – in the area that can effectively accommodate this increase in the population.

But this is where ideology plays a role: the state government is simply assuming that there is unused infrastructure. It will quote the highly dubious estimate of the NSW Productivity Commission that the infrastructure costs of each house built on the urban fringe are $75,000 more than in existing suburbs to justify the cramming of more citizens into already built-up areas.

Similarly, when confronted with the strong evidence that people prefer overwhelmingly to live in stand-alone dwellings, state politicians will mutter something about people getting used to living in tiny dog boxes. After all, people do so in Brooklyn and Hong Kong.

Take another example from Sydney: the redevelopment of the shopping centre at Castlecrag, a suburb laid out by Walter Burley Griffin, no less. The suburb is full of the houses he designed but there are no schools – the infants’ school was closed many years ago.

The initial developer was given approval to build a five-storey apartment building after extensive consultation with the local community. But that developer decided to on-sell the site, and the new developer is now planning to build an 11-storey building, having had the project deemed a ‘state significant development’. There are no grounds for appeal and no need for any further community consultation.

It is not close to a railway station; there is only one way into the CBD; and the high school that could service the locals is full. You really wonder what went on behind closed doors to achieve this outcome.

A novel part of these developments, creating much local consternation, but happy property developers, are the activities of the iffy Yimby groups, ‘Yes, in my backyard’. If you try to find out much about these newly established groups, it’s pretty much a dead end.

To be sure, they issue heaps of developer-friendly guff on their websites like apartment buildings are really good; any quality issues are in the past; people deserve to live in desirable middle suburbs. But there is zero information about how these groups are funded. The Victorian YIMBY outfit has some paid staff.

Am I right to be suspicious? Who in their right mind devotes energy and time to campaigning for shoddy high-rise buildings to be constructed unless there is something else going on? Is this really an example of public interest advocacy, even though the Yimby-types know full well that people prefer stand-alone houses?

(I am reminded of the example of Purdue Pharma, maker of Oxycontin, which set up the ostensibly independent American Pain Foundation to provide supposed expert cover for its product without disclosing the funding link.)

This is the type of sludge that the Yimby groups release: ‘By trying to follow the endlessly shifting goalposts of those who claim that they would support housing if only their concerns were met, we have allowed the wealthiest and most desirable suburbs to largely opt out of new housing, placing most of the burden on areas with less powerful residents.’

Gosh, those self-serving, spivvy developers couldn’t have said it better themselves.

Needless to say, the new high-rise apartments to be built in Woollahra and Castlecrag won’t be offering truly affordable housing. Given that ‘affordable’ is defined as 15 per cent below the market rate, the affordable units will be way out of reach of ordinary folk. And bear in mind that the commitment to affordable housing is time limited.

Of course, most of what is happening in Sydney and Melbourne doesn’t have anything to do with best practice urban design or meeting the preferences of residents. It’s about brazen politics and avoiding the costs of developing new suburbs, given these state governments are strapped for cash.

But packing more residents into leafy suburbs and ritzy areas will likely swing voting patterns in Labor’s direction. How good is that, even if unscrupulous property developers end up making a motza.