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 > An holistic approach to tackling housing affordability > Comments

An holistic approach to tackling housing affordability : Comments

By Andrew Bartlett, published 23/8/2007

Quick fix, one-off solutions to housing affordability are usually designed more to deal with a political problem than a policy one.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Divergence , population growth is not the problem.Supply,discipline,Govt waste and no planning is the problem.We are the most sparcely populated country on the planet,yet we have some of the highest house prices..

Let's lighten the load and rid ourselves of our self serving,useless wasteful State Govts.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 24 August 2007 7:52:52 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
Housing affordability comes down to a staes problem.

At the moment we have a greater number of people trying to buy than the market has, thus people will go past their limit on affordability.

The reason is hasnt anybody noticed how the state run the housing commision rentals.

How much does the states get each fortnight. I sort off figured roughly say we have a 100.00 in state housing, given fortnightly rents are 150 dollars. I will let you do the math but where is the states putting this money. My reference is for one state only but refering to all regarding monies.

Now wages dont cost that much and to what i have seen maitainance is somewhat when they get there.

Where is this money.
This should be reinvested back with more housing.
Another issue is immigration, i can accept refugees through the front door but otherwise immigration should be stopped until such time when we become more sustainable.

It comes down to states government lacking and as Kevin Rudd once said about the Joe government is queensland it is the states responsibility and if the states where not labor he would say this again.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate For Charlton
Posted by tapp, Friday, 24 August 2007 9:00:44 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
Alan Moran's OLO article "No Opportunities on the Property Ladder" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4811 , and its 61 comments, would repay study in this context of taking an holistic approach to tackling housing affordability.

I had shrunk, as I all so frequently do, from putting into words the obvious key to the solution to this problem. Then I stumbled across Alan's article of 23 August 2006. He had taken the words right out of my mouth almost exactly a year before I had thought about not saying them!

Alan said, toward the end of his article: "One of the secrets of low German house prices is a constitutional right German landowners have that means they can do with their land as they wish. The onus is reversed in modern Australia - the landowner may do nothing with his or her land unless the government gives regulatory approval."

Its as simple as that. Repeal, and don't replace, all land use planning legislation. Then just watch a free market sort the problem in double-quick time.

I look forward more with relish than with trepidation to the wholesale sacking out of the bludgocracy that has run this regulatory imposition upon Australian society. Think also of the paradigm shift for the financial sector! It will have to actually learn about lending: real lending, not the making of mere riskless advances against the security of ever-appreciating first mortgage residential owner-occupied real estate. Political slush-funding would dry up almost overnight. What pure joy!

BTW (and off-topic), Pericles,

The captain of HMS Gloworm apparently was recommended for the award of the VC by the German captain of the Hipper. See: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=46837 - post by Alf well down the thread. I thank you for your passing remark that led to the eliciting of this information. I had, prior to your mention of a medal, only had in mind the imagery of that famous photo from the war at sea of the Gloworm emerging from its smokescreen to ram the Hipper.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 25 August 2007 11:44:51 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
Arjay,

Australia does look big on the map, but most of it is effectively uninhabitable desert. From CIA World Factbook figures 6.15% of Australia is arable, and even then only if you include 27 million hectares of cultivated grassland. 33.46% of France is arable, and the average quality of the land is much better. We have some very serious environmental problems, according to the Factbook:

"soil erosion from overgrazing, industrial development, urbanization, and poor farming practices; soil salinity rising due to the use of poor quality water; desertification; clearing for agricultural purposes threatens the natural habitat of many unique animal and plant species; the Great Barrier Reef off the northeast coast, the largest coral reef in the world, is threatened by increased shipping and its popularity as a tourist site; limited natural fresh water resources"

The CSIRO 2002 Future Dilemmas report recommended stabilisation of the population at 20 million. Dr. Barney Foran, one of the lead authors, said at a conference that year that even this would require a 60% per capita reduction in pressure on the environment to achieve sustainability.

Even if you were correct and Australia could support a much larger population, there is only so much land within commuting distance of a capital city, and much of that is being withheld from the market by government policies. Do you really think they are too incompetent to know what they are doing?

Pericles,

Speaking just for myself, I would like to see a population that is big enough to maintain our civilisation, but not so big that ordinary people cannot enjoy good, free lives without trashing the environment or exploiting people in other countries. Who are the real fanatics? People like me, or those who want to turn Australia and, indeed, the whole world into a factory farm for people, and to do this at any environmental or human cost?
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 27 August 2007 12:29:41 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
Divergence,

I don’t accept that sustainable population is anything like as closely linked to agricultural productivity as you infer, but let’s assume you’re right.

Australia covers an area of 7,741,220 km2, and France an area of 551,500 km2.

So assuming your data are right, the 6.15% of Australia that is arable covers an area of 476,085 km2, some 86% of the whole of France, and 2.6 times larger than France’s arable area of 184,532 km2 (again using your 33.46% estimate).

Taking France’s population per km2 of arable land as a benchmark, that would mean Australia would accommodate a population of 2.6 times that of France’s. France’s current population is just over 60 million and Australia’s is just over 20 million, so one could infer that Australia’s sustainable population is about 156 million, or nearly 8 times its current level.

Even if we assume that Australia’s agricultural productivity is only half of France’s – and I’d guess it’s more than that – we could still support a population of 80 million at French benchmark levels. Incidentally, that’s not too far from estimates of the number of people we do feed from our agricultural industries, given that a large proportion of agricultural output is exported.

I don’t think we will, should or even can have a population of 80 million, but I don’t see arable land as a meaningful consideration in our population debate.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 30 August 2007 9:10:38 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
It is interesting to read the great variety of suggestions on this subject.I was unaware that Germany has no regulation on use of land. Who pays for head works, roads, electricity etc.? I don't criticise developers and investors entering the market.It's a free country, but the Government should be free to enter the industry and then produce land in competition and build city apartments and make them available on long terms to the disadvantaged in our society.Where councils and states have done this in Queensland it was overall successful.The public servants to do the work can be recruited from industry and be as competent as anyone.We don't want the "STATE CONTROL" of Communism but the loss of the Comonwealth Bank,the State governmentr Insurance Office, Telstra etc has been a retrograde step in my opinion.They could still be Government owned and able to influence the market place like "free enterprise" corporations.Houseing Commissions, State owned, could and should be as efficient in this computer age.The old idea of location of a Commission Area in a suburb is obselete.Did you know the Qld.Housing Commission owns houses in NOOSA!They did, anyway!
Posted by TINMAN, Friday, 31 August 2007 1:24:32 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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