Fester's suggestion, should anyone attempt to implement it, would almost immediately show up local government, the restrictor (read 'thief') of existing landowners' rights, as the frustrator of this approach to a solution of the housing affordability problem.

The first thing to note about this suggestion is that the subject shipping container, for practical reasons of handling and positioning, in the vast majority of cases, would have to go into the FRONT yard. The immediate result from this would be a whinge from some unidentified third party, not even necessarily a nearby landowner. "Its unsightly", "these containers will reduce property values", "there will be too much noise from the fitting out operation", "the container blocks my view", "why should x be able to make money from renting a container - this is a residential area", and so on and so forth. Whinge, whinge, whinge.

Of course there would be an element of truth in all these, and undoubtedly other, whinges. If there is one dictum upon which local government unfailingly seems to operate, it is that of 'the whinger must be granted satisfaction'. The idea is probably dead in the water right here, unfortunately, but just on the off-chance that there is no specific prohibition against fitting out and renting containerised accommodation, and a number of landownwers in this LGA were brave enough to face down the whingers and their supporters, how would this idea help make housing more affordable?

In many cases, both the labour, and much of the materials required for the fitting-out, are presently un-, or under-employed. In many cases it would be the intending occupant who would do much of the fitting-out. In many cases the front yard in which the container for the present sits would be that of a parent or relative of the intending occupant. No new land initially needs to be purchased. The job is within easy reach to put to good use spare time. The value of time put in is tax free, not nett remaining after tax.

And containers remain transportable in the future.

Getting the picture?

There's is no 'right' to home ownership. You can afford it, or you cannot.

Governments have always provided housing for people in need, and so they should. But, governments should never, never used taxpayers' money to provide assets for any individual.

Fester has thought laterally, as you asked, B_D.

In a few brief words Fester has thought inside the box, let alone outside the square. He has proposed at least a partial solution that would be within the reach of many individuals or families to implement almost immediately. One of the beauties of this approach is that a shipping container is not a building. It is consequently arguable that it is not a development, either. Should this be sustained, it would seem logical that all of the existing services available to the land on which the container sits would be easily able to be shared by private agreement.

The unproductive passengers in the form of building and development application fees, stamp duties, land transaction costs, loan establishment fees, and so forth would simply have been unloaded. The need to have outlayed money for the purchase of land will have at the least been substantially, maybe even indefinitely, deferred.

The only role of government in this would be that of staying out of the way.

This restored right of the existing homeowner to fit out and have somebody occupy shipping container based accommodation could have another effect: it could result in more, and more appropriate, rental housing becoming available for young families. Some existing homeowners may prefer, due to changed circumstances of life, to occupy the containerised accommodation themselves, and rent out their house. Where the landlord is in nearby residence both the incidence of, and need to guard against, abuse of the premises by tenants tends to be lessened. Greater availability of appropriate rented housing at a time in life when young families most need it will act to reduce upward pressure upon residential values.

The fact that container accommodation may be significantly less expensive than rental of a conventional house adds a presently entirely missing option to the accommodation mix. The availability of this option may amplify considerably downward pressure upon the rental of conventional housing. Competition introduced into an erstwhile captive market.

The bar against entry to both the rental, and the real estate, markets is lowered dramatically.

There is a housing problem, Fester has a very good, very useful idea, his suggestion is an easy good solution for the problem. Forrest Gumpp, agree with Fester's suggestion, (I agree too,) and he try to inject new, creative ideas into this solution. Mr. Right stuck on taxpayers money!! But Fester's idea has nothing to do with taxpayers money, it is an easy, costless, good solution.

Hi team...
well a few of us are uncovering some important dimensions of this..

example (Fester)

Who controls immigration? Who regulates development? Is the development process a transparent process? How many councils have been sacked because of corruption relating to dealings with developers?

Now..thats a negative (but valid) part of Forest's "mystery"

But on the shipping container line of thought.. I think there is value in exploring this. My own preferred approach is to return to 'village' life.. in some ways.. Larger land blocks.. but denser housing.. so extended families can dwell together and have shared ownership or equity.. and mutually support each other through lifes pitfalls and joys.

I fully realize the potential complications of this, and the negative side. But there are equally if not more problems with 'hyper isolationism' of our ultra individualist approach to the nuclear family.

I've seen all the 'bad' of 'village/tribal' life, but there is also so much 'good'...and no matter which way we go, I don't think we can escape this dichotomy of experience. On balance, I think 'togetherness' is better than isolation.

This would inevitably reduce pressure on many current government services.

Why not consider:

a) Larger block sizes
b) Denser housing permissions on such blocks.
c) Less restrictive planning codes which would allow more freedom to enlarge the 'Longhouse' of our families.

The real estate agents would hate it, but hey.. why should we be their slaves?

Banjo, Fester and Vanilla makes some good points.

Housing debt takes up a much higher proportion of our incomes than in previous years and top that off with HECS debts, growing fuel and grocery prices...well you don't have to be an Einstein.

However, I would also add that we have become a much more consumer driven society and our 'wants' sometimes take preference over our 'needs'. Families have on average got smaller but houses have got bigger. I grew up in a house without a family room or an ensuite and this was the norm. My mother (one of five children) grew up in a two bedroom house where the two girls slept in the other bedroom and the boys on a built-on off the back porch. By her account they did not feel underpriveleged.

We now want our plasmas, lounge suites and 'good' furniture NOW rather than wait until we can afford them. I don't think most people consciously think in terms of 'keeping up with the neighbours' but the drive to obtain more and more material possessions is ever growing.

Maybe we are using consumerism to fill another need. We have (for many reasons) lost track of the importance of family connections, our connections with community and while we are all out there working for the growth of the economy our community and 'spiritual' lives are suffering.

(I seem to have gone a bit off topic, but thought it was someway relevant to the total debate.