Recognizing that international co-operation, based on the principles of the United Nations Charter. has to be developed and strengthened in order to provide solutions for world problems and to create an international community based on equity, justice and solidarity....

With Global warming and climate change rushing ever closer, with injustice and inequality destroying the quality of life, and with affordable housing become beyond the reach of all but the possessors of inherited wealth, the issue of human settlements must be addressed with great urgency.

Anecdotal approaches to this challenge are occurring in various places.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2908682.htm

They are usually called "Community land trusts" where a Trust owns the land, but people can purchase/lease/re-sell a home on that land, without paying for the land itself.

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1011_Community-Land-Trusts--Leasing-Land-for-Affordable-Housing

Over time, Governments should increasingly take part in this approach, with the eventual aim of holding all land in public hands.

Discuss.

The Government retains ownership of the land in many cases already. It has been like that in Canberra since about 1930, with 99 year renewable leases. It seems to work alright, despite the place being seen as a bit boring and characterless by everybody else in Australia. Must affect land values and stuff, but if you live in Canberra you trust whatever the government says automatically.

Medium to high density sustainable environmentally-friendly urban transit developments with integrated transport nodes is the go, with passive surveillance and intermingled low cost social housing measures.

Problem is, in practice, nobody wants to live with the houso's. Busses and trains are a great idea, for other people so the roads arent too busy for me when I drive. People want a patch of lawn to ceaselessly mow and water on alternate days, and a little white fence around the edge. Using a composting toilet is fine, until you have to use a composting toilet. We build these pies in the sky, much like the orange people, where we condemn land ownership and then demand all land be signed over to us.

And so I reckon let market forces decide the outcome. Leasehold, freehold, rented, cult or sect ashram etc., crown land or reserve.. we all have to decide what works for us. Another issue, is that the Government retains any minerals underground as a separate thing and that if they sell this from under you it can be complicated.

Another thing, working against good development policy is cost. The cheapest developments are things like massive concrete towers in Carlton or Surrey Hills, but they have a dubious social record of causing despair and hopelessness. For councils, tiny little hankerchief-sized blocks are great money spinners for cramming in the ratepayers, and not wasting too much sewerage pipe etc.
Things like public transport, the magic figure is 90 000 people to financially justify it. In reality, places like Cairns dont have it yet despite having a higher population than that. Entertainment for young people, sounds like an irrelevant issue but poor development is often characterised by aimless kids roaming about and high property crime rates.
There are a few excellent examples of where these progressive transit oriented urban housing developments work really well, mostly places like Holland where there is little choice and you can walk everywhere anyway.

HI Pat.. nice_2_hear from u.

We haven't really dialogued before, so..consider your hand vigorously shaken- "g'day mate" :)

In terms of social policy, your point about urban centers linked by public transport is a great idea.
As for Canberra and the Government "owning" everything.. fair enough, but you can pretty much buy in, and buy out.. not much diff from freedhold in practice.

MY CONCERN... is much deeper than this. Ok..put on the tin foil hat :) and start to look sideways for...'THEM'.....

MARX.. "abolish private property"

"Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property – at first as universal private property."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm (end of Para 2)

"From him who has, according to his abilty, to him who has not, according to his need" Classic Communist doctrine. (forced)Redistribution of wealth.

UNITED NATIONS. Vancouver Conference on Human Settlements 1976

ACTION PLAN

http://www.un-documents.net/vp-d.htm

Preamble.
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.

Recommendation D.1

(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.

(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements....

REALLY? hmmmmmm sounds just like the Marxist State to me... (*adjusts his tin foil hat*)

"Collectivism" - the divine right of government

would be no different to the divine right of Kings

especially when some minister of state decides to annoint himself "Ceasar" (or Napoleon or Stalin)

devolution might produce inequalities but better overall outcomes will always be the product of 'reward for effort' than 'the equality of poverty'.

Smack on Stern.. exactly.

But it appears the UN and it's Communist/Green/Socialist supporters have not yet received that message.

If you look at the CLAUSE 61 discussion you will observe just how Communists such as Jack Straw (UK) wish to limit even conversation of a critical nature..

Just like the quote from the Vancouver Action Plan are neatly tucked away from widespread public view... so are little 'clauses' which erode and undermine our freedom and sovereignty.