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 > General Discussion > Campaign to Make Housing Affordable, Website announcement

Campaign to Make Housing Affordable, Website announcement

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I have created a website to promote a campaign to make housing more affordable.

The URL is http://www.australian-voters-for-affordable-housing.org

The idea is that:

1. Housings costs are too high and caused by government policies.
2. Property owners are a fairly well organized voter group who want to see house prices rise.
3. Propertyless younger and poorer people are not an organized voter group and need to unite.
4. Voting against governments who preside over rising prices will encourage more balanced housing policy.

Obviously it is going to take a long time to have a effect.

Comment and criticism is welcome.
Posted by Avfah, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 8:31:04 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
Hi AvFah....

No matter which type of current housing model 1 b/r unit, 2 b/r unit.. etc.. if its mainly for ONE person/family, then.. I for one don't want to see the investment value of such things deteriorate.

BUT...having said that, I've been pushing an alternative which, while it hasn't gathered much support, is at least an alternative.

LARGER BLOCKS... EXTENDED FAMILY We presuppose our housing needs to be for 'us' as a single person, or a nuclear family. But this means the total financial burden is always on that very small economic unit of the person or the bread winner(s).. perhaps until children arrive -both of the couple working.

Why not consider the advantages of a family buying a larger block, a bigger house, designed for privacy for up to 3 families... Grandpa/Grandma, son and family, daughter and family.

It's just a thought.

Failing that, we could push for specific low cost housing models, built to a price. Change some of the standards which make homes prohibitively expensive and go from there?

I'm not sure how you see the answer here, but what are you hoping the government will do?

They can't just 'print money' without some kind of economic foundation.

Do you want them to 'build houses' which cost them(us the taxpayer) $180,000 on land which costs $200,000 (now in melbourne) and then sell it to 'you' or what you describe as 'poor' people for $29,999.99 ?

You won't find much of a voting block which will support that kind of economics.

What specific 'policies' do you blame for the high cost of houses?

I could suggest the following;

LAND is the key. Gov't could buy large tracts of land, (which they could compulsorily acquire at a specified compensation level, below market value..and create $100,000 priced blocks)
Then build houses which cost currently about $120,000 before you tack on the builders profit. We might scrape in with a house/land package of $220,000... if ur lucky.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 6:38:32 AM
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
Greed, and greed "only", is the reason property (meaning a house with land) is priced so high.

Property has been high priced since the "concept" of profit from property ownership was invented all those thousands of years ago, and especially since the concept has been adapted and fitted to the more modern versions of capitalism (and a few of the other various "isms").

Only the reasonably "well off" (probably about 60-70% of the population) gain anything whatsoever from rising property prices. Why? Because at "some" stage in their lives they arrive at the position where they can sell a property at a fantastic profit **AND** (this is important) have enough to buy their next property and "still" have money left over to finance "lifestyle choices" or to purchase investment property. It's not rocket science, it's simply a matter of waiting for one of the inevitable property booms, which happens every 10 to 15 years or so. You buy when values are lower, and sell when values are higher.

For the remaining 30% or so of the population, property ownership is totally and completely 100% IMPOSSIBLE (unless you're prepared to live out the back of Woop Woop, in an old house in need of renovation in an area with almost no services.......some alternative lifestylers actually find that attractive, and I'm one of them, but most people could not survive that way).

Yep, "greed" is the problem. Ordinary people want to make their FANTASTIC profits from property ownership.....this forces up prices. Then the developers see this, and don't merely price their "new" housing projects on these rising prices, but price their product at the **MAXIMUM** level the desperate buying public are prepared to tolerate (it's NOT based on mere "costs", but rather it's based on extracting the maximum profit that's legally, and even sometimes illegally, possible). It's TOTALLY about GREED.......getting the MAXIMUM price possible and **TO HELL** with the personal and social consequences for people who over-commit and for the people who'll NEVER be able to buy property because of the ridiculous prices.
Posted by philips, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 11:55:55 AM
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
Further to my above comments:

I think the only way to make property ownership affordable to virtually "all" the people who can't afford it is to purposely create some type of property market that "does not compete" with the "mainstream" property market, and a market that also does not take into account, upon re-sale, profit for profit's sake!

But this is unlikely to ever happen. Why? Because the "well off" 60-70% of our population will complain "bitterly". If they perceive that there's even a "hint" of a possibility that "their" property values will be affected (whether or not this is true in reality), then they will fight to the bitter end to keep the poor people "poor, and out of property ownership". And it's the "well off" who have the voting power, the political power and the legislative power.
Posted by philips, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 12:45:05 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
Philips... there is one flaw in your argument about selling your home at a profit..its called market forces.

1/ You buy for $80,000 in 1989
2/ You sell in 2001 for $155,000

big profit? hahah.. not a chance. OTHER houses now also cost $155,000

You have already paid huge interest costs, and in the end, you don't make much profit at all if any.
There is no investment property..no 'lifestyle choices'... nada.

UNLESS of course, you saved like crazy and had like 50% deposit in 1989

We didn't, we scraped and borrowed, and even had some gifts from friends... and managed to 'just' get in without having to pay mortgage insurance.. i.e. 10% deposit.

We sold, and all other houses cost either the same or more.. so we gained nothing.

The bloke near my place now, has a big sign on his fence
FOR SALE $1,000,000 plus. That is way over what people are willing to pay..and no surprise..no one has rushed forward with a wheel barrow full of money.

the 'non competitive housing' sector you refer to already exists. Used to be called 'Housing Commission'....

Hmm.. you might like to move to Nimbin :) a communal lifestyle might suit you.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 5:14:39 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
David

You suggest a solution. It is a good solution, but why should there be a "best" solution? With a little more freedom, the spirit of human invention can be set free, and people can find their own answers. I think the current situation a result of people having their freedom limited. Suggesting a "best" solution seems to be constricting human freedom further.
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 5:47:52 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
Many Labor and Trade Union Branches are favouring motions that want to relieve property speculators of their Government Subsidies and transfer that money towards home Owners with mortgages such as Many Young Couples Are Saying The Fault Is With Property Specula new
GOVERNMENT TAX SUBSIDY TO PROPERTY SPECULATORS

Young Married Couples who cannot afford a home condemns the obscene tax subsidy to
landlords and property speculators. Young Married Couples who cannot afford a home recommends that the payment to those wealthy speculators be ceased. That the money be used to subsidise
true home owners by subsidising percentage % of the interest that is paid into their
mortgage. This would benefit those who need it most and help with their
housing affordability. Many young couples who go to view a block of land or a vacant house find that they are beaten to the winning post by very wealthy investors who already have 5 to 20 houses as collateral and are being subsidised by the Federal Government this is obscene. It has been the Howard Governments policies that have created this situation. People need to join the Labor Party to change the thinking within the Labor Party at the moment. It is the wealthy Labor Politicians who are carrying on with the same ideology only a strong commitment from young voters who are still in rent can change these policies.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 5:58:15 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
Bronco

Your solution seems to involve restricting peoples rights. Do you think this a good thing? Have you considered that property investors aren't afforded any special advantages over people conducting other commercial enterprises?

Now what would happen if landholders were accorded more rights over their land? For example, what would happen if more landholders were able to divide their blocks in two? Wouldn't this open the market up to competition and so reduce prices?
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 6:50:31 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
Dear Fester Your solution seems to involve restricting peoples rights.
What are you talking about Fester ?
I will still have my blocks of land and five properties and I am means tested for having them. I do not consider that Government will be rstricting my rights thay are not compulsory purchasing them I still own them and will be able to leave it for my children.Do you think this a good thing? Have you considered that property investors aren't afforded any special advantages over people conducting other commercial enterprises?

Now what would happen if landholders were accorded more rights over their land? For example, what would happen if more landholders were able to divide their blocks in two? Wouldn't this open the market up to competition and so reduce prices? Fester why not let us have more sub dividing in condensed built up and rural areas.
It is all about fairness in our day it was three times the amount of anannual wage now it is ten times please give the kids a chance Howards Capitalism has hit them extremely hard.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 7:01:24 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
I don't think there is any easy way out of the housing crisis in cities that have a constant population increase. Houston, Texas, pop 6,000,000, is a growing city and may have the best system to provide affordable houses but it would not be an easy one for governments to introduce.

First, they have an annual property tax of around 3% of the value of the property. Second, they allow developers to buy up surrounding farmland or forest and establish estates in whichever style they deem attractive to buyers, some grand, others more modest. Houston constantly spreads ever further out and so far the poor folk stay in cheap houses nearer downtown and are ringed by three concentric beltways they can't access easily.

People buy into the estates or areas then after 30 years they can vote to change their zoning and let in light industry or whatever they think commercially attractive.

Third, there are plenty of trailer homes either in parks or on private blocks of land out on the perimeter where tornadoes love to go!

Fourth, there are collections of little shacks here and there, someone rents these very poor folk an odd bit of land and they can stay there for a time.

Good houses are less than half the price of our not-so-good houses. All developments have schools, shops and soon other amenities develop within reach. Multilane roads, some the equivalent of the one that the Victorian government has taken 8 years to do, are built out toward all new developments within years. The authorities require developments of cheaper housing alongside more expensive estates.

The downside is that houses are not good investments. The property tax keeps the prices down. Position is everything but a good block of land is worth usually worth more if the house is demolished. A 30 year old house is is "old" and a liability. Also zoning can change.

It is not perfect, public transport barely exists except for school buses. It is not particularly "environmental", but it is a constantly growing city with many good, affordable houses.
Posted by d'Helm, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 10:41:05 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
Avfah

Your comment “Housings costs are too high and caused by government policies” summaries the situation in a nutshell.

Policy problem 1 – negative gearing given to only investors in residential property

If the government throws away our taxes for purchase of residential property should not home-owners also receive the tax break?

Why is the wealthier of the two groups receiving a hand-out?

Why does the government expect the rest of the community to pick up the tab for running the country and at the same time fall all over themselves in supporting investors with tax breaks?

Useful link that explains NG in a page

http://www.prosper.org.au/2007/11/01/negative-gearing-incompetence-or-conspiracy/

Policy problem 2 – invite into Australia 200,000+ immigrants per year and make sure there is not enough housing/accommodation to go around. This encourages rental bidding wars for one of life’s most basic needs – shelter.

I noticed on your website there is a FAQ link.

I do not know if you are interested but here is an idea. Add a link called Parody or Parodies. I believe humor could be effective in highlighting the regressive feudal mentality driving those in power and their puppeteers – the vested interests and mainstream media.

As it happens, here is one (parody) I prepared earlier. Feel free to use.

http://zzalanz.googlepages.com/investorsruleok
Posted by mr nobody, Thursday, 24 April 2008 3:52:53 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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