The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A crisis in housing affordability > Comments

A crisis in housing affordability : Comments

By Andrew Bartlett, published 28/8/2006

Intellectually and morally bankrupt buck-passing has continued for years, while housing affordability has grown steadily worse.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. 28
  10. All
I disagree wholehartedly with your article.

As a 25 year old I should be the first one to whinge about housing affordability. The fact is, it has never been easier. her are a few reasons why:

1. With an agressive lending market offering up to 106% finance, the emergence of new loan products and the like mean people have the best opportunity in modern history of accessing funds.

2. With petrol costs rising, the flow on effect for building costs, land development costs and the like will ensure property will continue to increase in value, meaning that by governments assisting further with public housing not only do they face significant costs but it creates a 2 tier system where those in public housing never have the need position themselves in the continually rising property market.

3. As property is the basis of wealth for most Australians, you are discouraging and robbing these people of a fundamental asset that will assist in their prosperity.

4. In 2025 when there is 1 retiree for every 1 tax payer, I hope that people have taken the initiative and have invested in property to assist in funding their retirement. This also allows the rental housing need to be met.

At this point in the property cycle, affordabiltiy is at its lowest. rest assured it will change, as wages rise and property growth continues, rental growth will slow as people will be able to enter the market, allong with the government providing an incentive to kickstart the boom such as an increased first home buyer grant.

I find it appauling that you are in a position to discuss these issues without any real insight on the topic. its ok to go into bat for poor Australians, but you will keep them poorer by providing a roof over their head and robbing them of the need to enter the property market.

You might win a naive voter though, if thats your angle...
Posted by Realist, Monday, 28 August 2006 10:49:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have thought the housing affordability crisis was simply a function of too much demand for a restricted supply of land. Now the restriction on land supply is caused directly in most cases by State and then local governments artificially resticting the new land to be made available for house building. The research shows that the actual cost of building a house has in adjusted dollar values gone down in the last 20 or so years, but the cost of the land component has gone up manyfold. In adjusted dollar terms probably 3-5 or so times. (not sure about that actual quantum but anything more one times in adjusted dollar terms in a land with land to spare everywhere is a reflection of the Government influence in restricting the supply of available land). Accordingly whilst it would be nice to see the relief of Government charges on house prices, the solution is actually a lot easier. Work out a town plan then simply let anybody who wants to, within that town plan open up and develop the land for house building without the costly beaurocratic delays and restrictions that ramp up the development costs.
Posted by ghaycroft, Monday, 28 August 2006 10:50:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew,

don't you think we need a national population policy before we prepare a national housing strategy?
Posted by last word, Monday, 28 August 2006 12:36:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Writing as a 26 year old mortgage-hoder.

In response to Realist: yes, we can borrow a lot more money. But houses cost so much within a reasonable distance to the CBD (if you don't want to place yourself at the mercy of rapidly rising petrol costs), that the amount you need to borrow to buy a small family home places far too much pressure on people's incomes. The repayments go far beyond the 40% of income recommended as an absolute maximum. Being able to borrow 100% of the purchase price of a half million dollar 3 bedroom, one bathroom house, is not "affordability".

In reply to ghaycroft: the last thing I want to see is more land being opened up on the city fringes (of Melbourne, at least). It is already a full hour's drive from the outer suburbs to the city centre where many jobs are located, and the prospect of a 1.5 hour drive to the city every day for work, just to buy a new home, is a very lopsided view of priorities. I would personally far prefer to see high density living being encouraged with sensible planning and public transport in the inner and "middle" city - the 10km band surrounding the city centre.
Posted by nay, Monday, 28 August 2006 12:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Take the good with the bad.....

As a mortgage holder, you should be lapping your current equity depending on when you purchased.

Yes its unaffordable at present, but there are some fantastic buys and if you buy during a moving market the affordability is sufficed by increases in equity and the power of growth from your leveraging.

As a person who lived for 13 years in housing commission dwellings growing up, i can tell you from the inside the attitudes generally of the people who are provided this housing are far from being in line with people wanting to get ahead.

They often 'expect' housing to be provided for them, not the correct attitue that government gousing is a privelidge, and they look after it the way anyone would who does not have the respect that comes with ownership.

It might be unaffordable, but the basis of wealth for Australians is home ownership and i would rather see prices and affordability here than the alternate. We are just in a phase of a cycle for goodness sake, in 5 years we will be saying how great this current time was.

Discouraging people to get ahead by way of providing permanent goverment housing reliant on 25% of household income as rent means there is implications if they work therefore discouraging many from doing it and no need to yearn for the security and financial benefit that derives from home ownership, as they have a home for life.

We dont need more ghettos, we need more encouragement for them to get off their ass and make things happen as they are riding a gravy train at the moment that discourages them from crossing out of thier marginal lives. The democrats cannot expect to get anywhere when they only look for band aid solutions like this.

Its people with philosiphies like this who keep the generational cycle of poverty going.....Thanks alot.
Posted by Realist, Monday, 28 August 2006 1:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see a fundamental difference of opinion between Andrew Bartlett and Alan Moran http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4811.

Andrew calls for the sorts of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission, while Alan thinks that “The excessive costs are purely due to government rationing of land” and calls for the much freer release of land as the essence of the solution.

I have no doubt that with the right sort of tax arrangements and other financial incentives, the problem could be largely solved. But of course, this would mean a redistribution of wealth to a fair extent away from the rich and powerful real estate moguls and profiteers, and towards the battler, or more precisely the average citizen. And therein lies the problem - governments are just far too close to the big end of the property market.

Freeing up the release of land as a solution must be condemned, in this age of concern about urban sprawl and sustainability. Governments should be encouraged to be very careful about land releases, and to plan for limited releases that carefully wind down towards an overall limit to urban expansion, within their strategic planning processes.

--
last word,

Yes we definitely need a national population policy. We cannot escape the ultimate driving factor of high demand for housing – high population growth – which neither Alan nor Andrew have considered at all in their articles.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 28 August 2006 1:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. 28
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy