Arhh!, release more land. Already Sydney sprawls from Patterson to Nowra. The residents at the urban fringe have no public transport, long commutes to work.

So where would Sydney spread to? I know there's all that empty land around Sydney Harbour and those National Parks on prime coastal real estate at Kuringai and Royal National Park. Only used by the diminishing middle class - flog 'em orf!

Surely we should increase urban density. Good idea! become like St Kilda with apartment blocks side by side with family homes - watch the sewers overflow when it rains, watch water pool in the middle of the road as the storm water drains fail to cope from the additional runoff from the concreted over yards.

NB the demographia website was set up by a New Zealand property developer. Its report recommends removing land controls.

Is the problem with house affordability the number of investment properties? I thought that Sydney had a high rental vacancy rate. Perhaps the high house prices are the result of housing being the best performing asset class for the last 30 years due to tax breaks and capital gains and poorer performance of other assets. Plus property provides a visible income stream called rent and self funded retirees may build up their portfolio of property over 40 years through familial concerns and pass the portfolio through the generations.

Those truly interested in this issue might want to read the following 2 opposing sets of development principles:

a) The socialist, big-government, centrally-planned vision (which most Australian state governments are trying to impose on us, with the help of regular brainwashing via the broadcast media):
http://www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/principles.html;

b) A charter that respects individual freedom and choice, and which oddly we never get to hear about: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2001-veritas-2-1-LMC.pdf

You know which one I advocate.

This is another one of those "easy beat-up" topics that is all gas and no substance.

As Rob88 points out, the Economist relies upon a single source the OECD calculation that uses the ratio of prices to rents. Although it makes sense at a broad level – if the ratio is high, the theory goes, potential buyers will hold off, and rent instead – this is simplistic, and can be only indicative rather than absolute. There are so many other social and economic factors that differ from country to country.

Not only is it a pointless statistic on its own, it may equally be interpreted to demonstrate categorically that housing rents are artificially low. Given the overall comparative affordability of housing here compared with other OECD countries, this would be a very justifiable conclusion.

Price is established by the simple application of the law of supply and demand. To pretend otherwise leads to ridiculous statements such as:

>>The resulting prices unfairly disadvantage the current generation of Australians trying to afford what we should aim to have as a basic right.<<

In another forum, the discussion is about whether our water supply is better managed by private enterprise, subject to the normal laws of supply and demand, or as a public utility. In neither point of view is the argument offered that water should be considered “a basic right”.

In what universe can housing be considered “a basic right”, when we can readily accept the concept, and the consequences, of water being a tradeable commodity?

Ok..here I go again :)

Winston... r u a real estate agent ? or someone high up the food chain in that field ? Your 2fold call for 'more land' and 'more immigration suggests maybe ur in there somewhere..

I have a very unpalatable solution to high house prices.

But first, the reason for them. "MARKET" forces.. they will rise to our capability to pay for them. When we can't pay, and can't rent, there will be a slump, and serious downturn.

SOLUTION. Large numbers of females leave the 'out of the home' workforce :) see.. told you it was unpalatable !

Females who are going to share in the life of 'family+chldren' should withdraw from the encessant stressful competitive political draining life of commuting, rediscover the home as a business opportunity, (with work from home jobs on THEIR terms rather than the bosses.)
Income splitting/equalization for married couples with children is allowed:

-Labor demand would skyrocket.
-Wages would go UP. (but 'household' incomes will probably drop)
-House prices would go DOWN (market forces again)
-People would be HAPPIER
-Fewer screaming matches
-The Lion will lie down with the Lamb... oops.. hang on.. that's the millenium.

Anyway.. my observation is that people seem to be promoting that which they perceive to be in their interests. I think my solution is in everyone's interest.

DB,
I agree with your post, seems like a sensible idea to me, or we could go for a combination of Taffy/Winston Smith ideas and build a one room family shack on the edge of a creek somewhere, claim squatters rights, grow a vegetable garden, and become self suffient. yes these two giants of industry could be correct.

In the lucky country, why should young couples expect to live the way Australian families have lived for 100 years, a bedroom for each child, outrageous, a room for the TV lunacy, we should go back to the 1960's & 70's living in communes, squatting on the land, preferably Taffy's or Winston's land.

It never ceases to amaze me how the well heeled lack any compassion for their fellow Australians, every subject revolves around the mighty dollar, as a former close friend [deceased] with ample money used to say "when money becomes your God, you know you have lost your soul" I think we can all take something from that.

Shonga chill out. Their party is in, ours is out, be like me get over it. It is their time in the sun, so they can justify any of their little inane comments, cause their man, is the man. You know I love to read the waffle on O.L.O. from the flat earthers, but just be thankful even Johny aint as right wing as some of the cretins that get on here. At least John will give you enough money for luxuries like food and clothes. I mean [deleted for swearing. Note to posters if we can work out what it means, then it represents that word no matter how many asterisks you put in it and is against the forum rules] he might even let you see a Dr if you pay your medi care levy, and if you pay your $150 a week rent you gets to live in a shoe box of your choice.

Have you noticed like me, that most of the righty's are all self made men? All captains of industry? Not a bricky's labourer amongst the lot of them. If they're not in a jungle in Brazil studying some new plant life in a hope of a cancer cure, they're a consultant for some huge international company. Of course when you see the time a lot of them spend on here, some of them must be on speed to stay awake. Most of them must weigh about 20 kilos cause they aint got time to eat. They all must be celibate? Well some of them are to be sure.

What ever you do don't lose hope, the Nationals are leaving their own party, like rats from a sinking ship, and the liberals are slowly imploding. The A.W.B. scandel is just the start of the goodies they are going to dish up on these left overs of medievil bully boys.

Now I must confess we aint gonna do it with Kimbo. I mean he's a nice bloke but no matter what he does, he is still going to look like a bag of [see above] tied in the middle. Interesting times ahead. [Poster suspended]