Why do we have unaffordable housing and homelessness? Because population growth is too high and infrastructure is not keeping up. The temporary solutions lie in rent relief and releasing more land but the long term solution lies in stabilising population numbers. A little creative thinking too such as helping retirees move to regional centres and away from major centres would reduce housing pressure on those who have to earn their living in the city. To assume, however, that population growth is inevitable and good is basically to sabotage any other solutions you might come up with.

The promised return of affordable housing could even now, swing the election back to Labour!
They need to get cracking and nut out a policy now, even if that means a few of them lose out somewhat, on their personal housing investments!
They could afford to kick start more public housing by repealing negative gearing, and use the 5 billion PA or thereabouts, that they'd save, to provide low cost housing.
This money could be pooled and allowed to grow, to ultimately make more and more housing affordable for more and more!
Some of it could be invested in the construction of new high rise towers, with the top half reserved for the upmarket market, the bottom two floors reserved for commercial ventures, and the lower half able to be eventually bought via very low start rent arrangements?
[This would effectively remove any possibility of the construction of high rise ghettos.]
And or, brand new completely self contained new towns alongside, very rapid rail links.
Rapid rail could virtually pay for itself, with the subsequent sale of resumed and rezoned surplus land.
This would mean, the govt would be able to house many more, keep up with any new demand, and eventually have any and all outlays returned!
Its too easy!
It would however, put the skids under house prices, and not before time!
Come-on, we have the highest median house prices in the English speaking world, and Sydney is now the most expensive city in the world?
[We elect leaders to solve problems, not create a patent plethora of them, via criminal incompetence or inherent corruption!]
I mean, better a progressive and managed reduction now, via this or similar measures, rather than a disastrous economy crippling housing market bubble burst latter! Which is the direction we are currently heading?
Rhrosty.

Snake has point, people move out of their parents home with the expectation of been able to have the same lifestyle, or a better one that they enjoy there. Alot of the time they move from a family home where all the expensesand costs involved with running that how have been upkept by someone else without them really having any idea what costs are actually involved. I am a young stay at home mother with two children, my own home, 2 reliable cars and even some new peices of fruniture! I do not receive a welfare payment and our family income has never been above $50,000 p/a. Proof it can be done.
However, we don't have all the latest "must haves", an expensive holiday for us is $1000 for ALL expenses. We dont drink much, dont smoke or have any other expensive habits and yet think ourselves as pretty well off.
I agree that one of the problems seem to be that everyone flocks to the CBD, and that yes, more could be done to create jobs else where. But for those who are homeless and do have skills have they looked further then the outer suberbs? Rural australia has plenty of jobs going, alot of the time with accomidation offered as well, yes it may mean moving and yes it may mean rolling up the sleeves and getting dirty but surely its better then living on the streets?
I am of the opinion that sometimes to often people expect someone else to solve their problems for them instead of trying to help themselves. But I will also agree that housing affordabilty in the city is just crasy.

It is probably not worth the paper trying to argue with those who believe the spin that investors cause high prices through 'negative gearing'.

However, residential housing is a very poor investment for anyone wanting extra money to live on and for a stake in superannuation. Simply put, the risks are high (that IS right, isn't it tenants?) and the returns if any are poor.

Property management is costly, adds another dimension of risk and it is all care and no responsibility. For starters, for some reason known only to REAs, young women 'who present well' are put into the position of managing rentals. Most have yet to manage their own house and many have had mum waiting on them and dad 'taking care of things'.

It is all "Call out a tradesman" for the most minor household events that any mum or dad could have solved in a trice. Such as a blocked drain from hair or "Hot water that never gets hot", but is actually the system running dry from lack of top-up. Anyone ever wondered why rentals have so many 'urgent' trades call-outs when such visits are rare to a privately owned and occupied home? Or why paint, floor coverings and now even kitchens have such short life spans in rentals?

Anyone who believes that 'investors' in rental property do well should go to a meeting of one of the very amateurish property owners' groups. There it will be obvious that the Ferraris promised by the white shoe brigade are in fact secondhand Korean wheels, and the people attending wear wearing fashion from Target, with sandals. All are mums and dads 'investors' frightened of the stockmarket (with good cause where they have previously dealt with financial 'advisers'!) and all hope for a return one day. They are presently sacrificing their quality of life and recreation time for dreams of returns 'one day', in the future.

tbc..

contd..

Contrary to what the media says to make stories, homes in reasonable locations were always expensive. Intending buyers sacrificed for many years, taking out a personal loan to assist the deposit. That was when there were no computers, communication gear and other lifestyle consumables to spend $$ on.

The high demand for housing comes from immigration that requires the equivalent of several large coastal cities be built annually. As well, buyers (and tenants!) demand new and with multiple bathrooms, separate lounge/dining, built-in robes, airconditioning, close proximity to facilities and so on as a BARE MINIMUM. Ever costed all of those add-ons? What about the cost of maintaining them while trying to pay the mortgage?

landrights4all - Which part do you want supported?

I hope it is not the basic economic part.