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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.