Unsustainable pressure on the housing market follow Natural disasters:

Rising immigration pressure on housing, recent floods and cyclone event in Queensland and Victoria give way to rent gouging in Tully following cyclone.

Traditional running sores of exacerbation are:
Lack of government controls on rents and total lack of interest in the consequences to Australians of the housing crisis.
Lack of alternatives to expensive available housing as caravan parks join the rent gougers, offering inferior alternate housing at super inflated prices.

A market abandoned to a fundamental of self serving profiteers in the real estate industry. (The new age mafia).

No end in sight. The market system has failed Australians, and worsens by the day.
Housing is the new and emerging National catastrophe. Will the trail of this Engineered human cyclone be tracked and dealt with

diver dan maybe you are looking at it from the wrong angle.
Governments do not build as much public housing as they once did.
I think they should do more there.
But it is the only intervention I support, rentals would be hard to control using laws and such ,other than quality of building rented.
I doubt government intervention is an answer to every thing.
It is true we are bound for shortages of trades persons and every thing that comes with building.
And price increases for every thing follows.
The way to ease this pressure on rents is in My view more public housing, but it too should not be at a loss.
In fact honest rents could finance more public housing.

Belly:

“Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in society”..

If that is true then;

Do you agree that the Free enterprise housing market is forcing societies evolution in the wrong direction by creating deliberate shortages, or are the shortages of affordable housing accidental? If accidental, then how do Governments correct the trend in time to stall the inevitable crisis of homelessness the shortages will create

Your talking of a selective market. Supply and demand is the name of the game. On this occasion you want govt; control.
It's wrong to blame govt; You will have to think a bit deeper.
It's incredible how no one has mentioned Tony today.

Do not think I do not understand dan, I very much do.
I am from a large family dad worked on the railways and we rented and moved a lot.
Market forces are the driver, markets and investors owe us nothing.
We are not a socialist country, and if every one forced home their wishes we would have to be.
I went through the fire many times of looking for another house to rent.
Public housing is an answer but sorry not as it is used , well of people renting while the poor suffer.
I would target more of them if I wanted things to get better.
I purchased second hand home transported from Sydney and rebuilt.
If I ever won enough I would stay here still McMansions will bring great pain to many,we should build smaller.

Dan, you do go on.

Suggesting that landlords are self serving profiteers is not getting you anywhere. Why don't you say what you mean? What should rents be, do you think?

To put a floor in the rental market, look at alternatives.

Any bank will give me 6.0% on a 6 month term deposit. If I walk into any of them, with the $350,000 I would have to pay for any new or reasonable rental home, in an outer suburb, I would do much better than that. But lets use that for the moment.

6% on $350,000 gives me a little over $400 a week net. To equal that income from a house I would have to get in excess of $450 a week rent minimum, more likely over $500.

With house prices falling, I could have difficulty getting my money back, in the short to medium term. The prospect of capital gain, which is usually necessary to make any real estate investment viable, is very long term indeed.

So what do you think would be a reasonable rent?

Public housing is definitely immoral. Governments will usually manage to spend $500,000 on a $350,000 house, so the rent should be much higher than private.

Why anyone believes they have some right to have those paying high private rental, or mortgage repayments, subsidise their accommodation, with their taxes, I really can't imagine.

Hasbeen:

Three basic and primary responsibilities of a Government are, to ensure the necessary social structure is in place and working to achieve for its citizens;
1, Food
2,housing
3,employment.

I don’t suggest, I say outright, any Government failing on any of the three key points is ineffectual and must go.
So the main element to success is number three. Number three supports the success of points one and two.(food and housing).
Keep in mind, the demise of Howard was the reengineering of the remuneration from employment. He had a riot on his hands, and was correctly thrown out. Remember work choices?

Is Labor a success over Howards Liberals. No. They are worse I believe. Housing has continued its merciless ascent of the unaffordable. Rents have continued on the same course, upwards ever upwards. Utilities have undergone a meteoritic hike and wages have been suppressed in the usual tradition of Governments of all colours.

Back to housing. If we in Australia want another riot on our hands similar to the one Howard presided over with work choices, then the current situation with the housing market will surly assist greatly.

People will continue to pay unaffordable prices for housing in the short term, provided they are prepared to eat less and turn off the power to compensate, for example.
Yes, I can hear the bleating of the well off, forego holidays. Dress the kids in flour bags and walk them to school six miles away. Well there is a limit to the ability of people to save. But should the bad old days return, when unemployment reaches double digit (as in many parts of America, and Australia), the reality is high rents and high mortgages on overpriced housing cannot be maintained on the pittance of the dole. Consequently, evictions and bank foreclosures become the feature of many lives.

The conditions as described have of course been exacerbated by the recent string of natural disasters, which I also believe will add pressure on the existing undersupply of housing in Australia.

Belly:

And you should be proud of your innovative efforts to house yourself. And many people across the country do the same. But it is not possible for all to overcome the same hurdles and achieve a home of their own your way.

Governments can assist new housing hugely with subsidised loans, as an example. Housing could be well classed as a national infrastructure.
The greatest problem is overpricing of real estate. We could follow the American way, and wait till foreclosures force the Banks to go broke, as did happen. The effect was to drive down the price of housing. That crude result in price reduction created unprecedented homelessness and abandonment of foreclosed housing: Was wasteful of the resources of both people and housing.

A better way is for Governments to bite the bullet and deflate real estate prices artificially by applying realistic valuations on dwellings and compensating for losses of capital gains. It could tax heavily any capital gain from the sale of housing. It could tax landlords on excessive rent receipts and regulate rents proportionally to incomes of tenants. That move would force landlords from the market, and replace them with owner tenants. And on and on …

Danny boy, stop crying for yourself, & get out & have a go.

The government's job is to set conditions for people to advance themselves, not provide all their wish list for them. Perhaps you should ask yourself, why, if others can do it, you can't.

25 years ago my wife, baby & I were living in a 3m by 6m shack, with walls made of shade cloth, old carpet, & roll down blinds made from old sails.

Like Belly, we moved a house, ours from the sight of a new shopping complex to a cheep block out in the sticks.

After a few more projects my assets are over a million, all earned.

My daughter, only 4 years out of uni, & her tradesman husband have almost $300,000 equity in their second house, all earned.

Perhaps a bit less time bitching about being hardly done by, & a bit more effort would get you into a similar position.

I have always found that those making something of their lives are too busy to have time to whinge.

Hasbeen:

So you lived in Reo de Janeiro on the side of a mud hill in a rag hut with 30% of the population of desperados in Brazil? (your suggestion). See, that is the point here. Try living like they do in this country and you can find yourself on the wrong side of the law. Alternatives to escape the web of rorting and rent gouging are limited.

I maintain that the system as it is, that captures a large element of the population as milking cows for profit in order to house them; all the while cordoning off alternatives, is a recipe for poverty. The Australian housing (debacle), aligned as it is, so closely to the failed American system, is unsustainable and is proving to be a social catastrophe. Not of course for “Jack Hasbeen” but for many who can’t marry their daughters off to a builder, out in the broader community.

To much hate can make you blind, & stupid.

I would say that everybody lost the plot fifty years ago. Harold Holt showed that increasing the top tax to 66.6% slowed the excessive incomes such as salaries, and this decreased the costs of everything, goods and services. The only thing he failed to do was to increase the level of income where no tax was paid, this should be about $30,000 today. These politicians - surprisingly, the Prime Ministers and treasurers have, except for Paul Keating and Kevin Rudd, been lawyers, and have managed to plonk our economy into a recession four or five times and driven our wage earners into desperation, only able to get two or three days work a week as permanent employment, making it impossible to feed their families, rent or buy a home and provide any of the necessities of reasonable living, yet still publish the unemployment as being only about 5.5%. Our members of parliament are a despicable group who have not got one iota of brain and are even quibbling about the repairing the damage done to this country during the flood and the cyclone. I would think that any intelligence, would insist in maintaining a big enough surplus to make it possible to hop right in and start repairing the essential industries. It is unfortunately that there are too many people who do not realise that a high top tax, will make goods and services cheaper.

There's cheap housing alternatives, but if people want the best of lifestyles, good positions, money rolling in and all the latest cars and toys then the choice is limited to the big cities (that's where the larger salaries are) with all the huge costs associated with city living.

I know 2 couples, friends of mine, who decided it wasn't worth trying to live like most of those around them. One couple bought a beautiful caravan and annex in a lovely over 50s caravan park south of Brisbane. It's in a beautiful location with lots of space and trees. They were able to afford to purchase it outright, and their site fee is tiny. These people are happy, while some of my other friends are miserable trying to pay off huge mortgages and other mountains of debt. The other couple did their homework, and were able to buy a house in a large, but off the beaten track, country town. They now have no mortgage and no stress. Is their income less? Yep, lots less. But they don't need the money as they already own their home. And guess what? They're now happy.

There's lots of alternatives, but most people are not prepared to sacrifice income and potential lifestyle. So they live a worrying, stressful life.

It is a bit of a stretch to claim that the Australian housing market is a free market. Government jacks up demand with a massive immigration program. At the same time it severely restricts supply with a hugely restrictive and obscured development process. While the restriction is often attributed to things like preserving the character of an area or reflecting the wishes of residents, the grotesque developments which often get approval in secrecy would suggest other motives.

Then there are those who suggest that the problem relates to people wanting to build mansions. This is spurious as there is severe restriction over what people can build. For example, you cannot buy a serviced block of land and stick a donga on it. Why not? I would suggest that the absence of these structures is the result of development restriction, not extravagance.

I can remember an elderly couple forced out of their home after they were firebombed. They had no insurance, and as there was no legal provision to be compensated as victims of crime, they were stuffed. What would have helped them greatly was the right to bulldoze their block and place a prefabricated dwelling or caravan on the block. Provided the structure meets health and safety standards, what is the problem?

The current situation in the housing market is entirely the result of restriction, not of freedom.

The trouble with all that Fester is that if people were allowed to build their dongas and caravans in any street in any town and any city, the neighbours would loudly complain about the resulting drop in property values. People who had a $500,000 city property would find it would then be worth $300,00, and people who had a $100,000 outback town property would find it would then be worth $60,000. Because there's currently millions and millions of property owners, hardly any of them will be happy with the upcoming donga to be built next door. If your idea was allowed, and building restrictions sufficiently relaxed to make a difference, then there would be massive public demonstrations all over Australia. Homeowners of Australia will definitely NOT accept any law that will reduce their property values.

If there is to be any new solution, it needs to be a solution that maintains current property values. Otherwise it's doomed, because any government who tries will simply be voted out.

That is spurious and alarmist, courageous. What would happen is that you would very quickly get a balance of supply and demand. You might see a few going up on new housing estates, as this would be an alternative to people having to borrow heavily to build. It happened a lot in the 1950s without any protest. New Aussies would live in their shipping containers, saving until they could afford to build. The shipping containers didn't go up all over the place as you would speculate, only where the land was cheaper. The only difference I would like to see today is the enforcement of health and safety standards.

What you would not see is the rampant construction of utterly hideous multiplex shoe boxes which gain approval via secret processes. I'd much rather see a few dongas dotted about (they can be made to look very aesthetic) than these vomitorious monstrosities. And the bonus for the donga is that it can be quickly relocated when the occupants have saved enough to build, which adds to the supply side.

http://www.fabprefab.com/fabfiles/containerbayhome.htm

Housing should be a legally enshrined right. It shouldn't be seconded to personal taste. It definitely shouldn't be seconded to supporting the construction of hideous multiplexes via secret approvals.

Hmmm, Fester wrote "It happened a lot in the 1950s without any protest, new Aussies would live in their shipping containers"

They did? And "a lot"? Maybe Fester you should check the history. I was 18 years old in 1950, I remember the the 50s well. I don't recall new Australians ever living in shipping containers then. There's one thing I do remember though and it's the introduction of containerisation in Australia when Australia had it's first regular visit from a container ship, the Encounter Bay, in 1969.

I Googled "shipping containers new Australians" and I got just 113 hits, none of them being a link to anything about new Australians living in containers in the 1950s.

Now Fester, it's not "spurious and alarmist" for me to suggest that property values would be lowered if governments relax building restrictions to allow dongas to be erected next door to established or new housing. In the real world, people complain when a neighbour does anything that reduces one's property value, and when governments do the same thing people SCREAM. If a very high standard house is built next to your house, the value of your property will be enhanced. If a low standard house is built next to your house, the value of your property will be lesser than it would otherwise be. That's the real world Fester. Like it or loathe it, that's how the market operates.

As I previously said, for any new solution to work, truly work in the "real" world, then it must not reduce the value of homes that are already built: There's no other way. People will not tolerate the lowering of their property values in order to have cheap property available so others can get "their" living space. Fester, that's the real world, and the real world is harsh.

Fester, do you have a cheap housing solution, available to all, that will not affect in any way the value of the current properties? If you have, then THAT'S the type of thing that would work. If you haven't, then you'd better get working on it.

courageous

In the 1950s Australia had a similar or worse housing shortage on a per capita basis as the present. In New South Wales it was estimated that up to half the housing built by owner occupants, and there were quite a few rough constructions. Some photographs of examples are on display at the National Museum.

http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/nation/suburbia/

Now despite you being about in the 1950s while all this building of a much lower standard than I am advocating was taking place, you state no recollection of this construction, let alone any recollection of mass protests about it. Yet you insist that there will be ugly dongas popping up everywhere and massive protests should people be restored their right to build housing of a better quality today. Thus I think you are doing nothing more than scaremongering.

<There's one thing I do remember though and it's the introduction of containerisation in Australia when Australia had it's first regular visit from a container ship, the Encounter Bay, in 1969.>

Before this many new Australians used shipping crates to make temporary housing while they saved. Again, you have no recollection of it, nor of any massive protest about it.

The huge restriction of the right of people to develop their land for reasons of protecting residents is in reality a means of transferring the right of development to government. When you see little old ladies surrounded on three sides by high rise and moves by government to allow the compulsory acquisition of private land to sell to developers, you will see that the real world is somewhat different to your description. No masses of screaming residents protesting, and any that do appear are quickly moved along.

Shipping containers are a very effective means of relieving the housing crisis, and would be very unlikely to cause any mass protest.

In contrast, your suggestion of living in a caravan park can be quite precarious. These two hundred oldies are about to be evicted from their permanent caravan sites which some purchased about thirty years ago, as a result of a secret planning decision. No one, government or the public, seems to give a stuff. Perhaps there would be a mass of protest and uproar were someone to bring a donga into a caravan park?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/caravan-park-homes-seized-to-squeeze-in-more-tourists/story-e6freoof-1226005038239

This is what happens when peoples rights are administered by others in secret.

Oh dearie me Fester; nice fact twisting there.

You've attempted to imply that around half of all new houses built during the 1950s were physically built by the owners themselves, while living in shipping containers. "OBVIOUSLY" you weren't there, I was. Your claim is NOT true.

Fester also states that I don't have "any recollection of mass protests" regarding this. I'll tell you why. It's because massive building of substandard houses, meaning standards below the industry standards of the time, DID NOT HAPPEN. Bad luck Fester.

Of course "some" houses were built by owner occupiers in the 1950s, as indeed they were during any era since.

Get you facts right Fester, I have never said "there will be ugly dongas popping up everywhere" nor have I "insisted" that this is so. The facts are some dongas are quite pleasant. For the purpose of accuracy, I say again what I previously said, "if a dwelling of much lower standards is built next to a dwelling of higher standards then the value of the original property will be reduced". THAT'S A FACT, it's what happens in the real world. And if governments legislate, via greatly reduced building standards, for this to happen then current home owners will complain bitterly. In fact it will never reach that stage.Why? Because governments know they'll be voted out if they try it.

Caravan parks are a completely unsuitable housing solution for most people, though a perfectly suitable solution for some people who have their financial bases covered and who wish to live that lifestyle.

Yet again I ask you Fester. Can you devise suitable property ownership solutions for all Aussies who desire a cheap property, solutions that won't devalue current properties? I've asked you again and again, yet you've been unable to answer.

As I said before, the way to "effectively" provide cheap housing to all Aussies, is to do it in such a way that won't devalue current properties. The ball's in your court fester.

<massive building of substandard houses, meaning standards below the industry standards of the time, DID NOT HAPPEN.>

That is priceless, Courageous. The housing or the time was absolutely wonderful, like this stuff:

http://www.beforeourtime.com/2009/03/in-our-time-grateful-for-indoor.html

I'm sure that occupants of those mansions would have thought themselves very unfortunate to live in one of these instead.

http://containerist.com/?p=443

And where did I advocate the building of substandard housing? I advocated no such thing. In fact, here is what a shipping container dwelling (cost $16,000) looked like after Cyclone Larry. Notice that it does not look like confetti, as would many 1950s constructions after enduring a similar ordeal.

http://inhabitat.com/shipping-container-rainforest-home-survives-category-5-cyclone/

About a third of houses in Australia in the 1950s were built by their owners. They were hardly times of opulence:

http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/publications/commission/books/ourhouse/vic04.html

But all this took place under your nose and you were unaware of any of it. No big protests. No ugly houses devaluing the neighborhood. Yet you think it would happen today if people had similar rights to develop land as people did in the 1950s? Shame on you.

Fester, you posted a link to "standard" pre 1970s style housing and services, then tried to use that as proof that "massive building of substandard homes, meaning standards below the industry standards of the time" DID occur. Note the word "MASSIVE". Fester my boy, you clearly need to advance your debating skills.

Fester then posts a link to a pic of a "current" beautiful multiple container house nestled within mother nature, and then implies that those folks from the past would have loved to live in it instead of their homes in the 50s. And what does that prove Fester?

Poor Fester then asks "Where did I advocate the building of substandard housing". Nice "strawman" question there Fester (a strawman argument is when someone argues against something that was never said in the first place). I said you advocate lowering building standards, and you have precisely said that. Therefore I was 100% accurate in my description of your approach. Nice try Fester.

So in his above post Fester posted a link that showed pre 1970s housing and services standards, another link that showed a modern, beautiful 2011 container home, a damaged but still standing container home that survived a recent cyclone and finally a story of a family who had their home built by a builder in the 50s...

THEN....

Fester finishes his post with "all this took place under your nose and you were unaware of any of it". On the contrary Fester, you posted nothing that I'm not totally aware of. Keep trying though.

Fester seems to have it in his head that I think container housing and dongas are awful dwellings. Well, they can be fantastic dwellings. But Fester doesn't realise they usually don't meet current building standards for most locations and that this fact does not make them undesirable or uninhabitable, but rather means they are simply below accepted, legal industry standards.

Fester continually ignores my invitation to state how he'd provide cheap new housing for all, without reducing current market values of existing properties. He hasn't answered because he can't. He's had his chance.

...I have just returned to this thread after leaving it in disgust at the low level of response, and was buoyed by reading the magic debate between Courageous and Fester in particular. (Not to discount the input of merv09).

...Courageous covered the impasse of Australia’s cemented attachment to property values; Fester supported innovation and referenced historical solutions as acceptable alternatives to engineered shortages of housing, which currently ignore negative social realities; being a lack of housing stock and local Government restrictions on alternative methods of contruction, which force many people into substandard and rent gouged hovels; or worse, offering no way of escape.

...In the Sunday Telegraph this weekend I noticed an article identifying Mullumbimby in northern NSW as considering approval for a shanty town of dwellings on a 2hct block on the fringes of the town. That innovation is unprecedented in modern times, and certainly highlights the point I made here. Sadly, its back to shanty towns of the 50’s with all the social negatives, now to be encouraged by Local Government.

...What a sad indictment of glaring irresponsibility and neglect, and lack of concern towards Australians housing needs and simple and basic welfare of its citizens, is the condoning of the "shanty town" as an alternative to the housing crises!

A fringe shanty town solution solves the problem of property values in established parts of a town going downhill. But such solutions never work, even if it's not a real "shanty" town; extremely nice cheap hosing designs are readily available so it would unlikely be a "real" shanty town. But, there's a HUGE problem associated with clustering low income people together, a problem that manifests itself in all the well known social/crime/drug/behavioural/employment/transport/infrastructure problems. This solution has been tried in both Australia and the world over and it repeatedly fails miserably.

Solutions work better when different groups are mixed in together rather than living in separate enclaves, with some exceptions.

The "trick" is to find ways to integrate the reasonably well off and the poor, by having property available to all WITHOUT affecting current property values. This is crucial to success. To my knowledge it has never been successfully done, mainly because of the enormous complexities involved.

Courageous:

As reported;

Byron Shire Council(NSW) is considering letting homeless people set up an official shanty town.
In what would be a first for local Government; the council is preparing a report into whether it should zone a piece of land next to Mullumbimby sports field for “primitive camping”…etc.

Sunday Telegraph 13/2/2011.

<then tried to use that as proof that "massive building of substandard homes, meaning standards below the industry standards of the time" DID occur.>

Nonsense, courageous. I just thought that readers might like to see an example of what met the standard in the 1950s. And plenty of the housing was far worse than that.

Now you acknowledge that shipping container homes can be fantastic, but that they do not meet the standard. I agree with you that container housing can be aesthetic, meet health and safety standards, and can be very strong. So why is their use so restricted?

I can think of many areas where container housing would be a vast improvement on the existing standard. It could be quickly installed and would rapidly resolve the housing shortage. It would cause property values to decrease, but only because of its ability to be rapidly constructed and increase supply, not because of poor quality. And I dare say that most people would find such dwellings vastly superior to the many hideous shoe box condominiums that gain approval by local government in secret.

The only thing preventing a container home revolution taking off is government restriction.

Fester:

...Construction materials are but one problem in housing shortages. I have been employed in the building industry for many years. Conventional construction methods and materials are not the prohibitive factor in the cost of housing at all. Moderate and conventional construction, as depicted in one of your links back to 50’s commission housing , all in a row, with outside dunnies, was robust, economical and adequate.

...It becomes more obvious by the day though, that conventional free standing housing is not a remedy to shortages. A corporate fix will be the solution: More high-rise unit construction as the alternative, will work.

...Governments must take the responsibility to finance totally, infrastructure enabling the private sector to get on and build housing that is affordable to all sectors of society. All have the human need for shelter, not just the group resourced with wealth.
Entry levels for home ownership need to be at the rock bottom of cost, and freely available to all across society. Private enterprise and the market will deal with housing after that opening is presented.

...With the existing Government regulations giving environmental priorities precedence over the needs of people to be housed, the crises will not only continue but worsen, obviously.

...Unfortunately, owner building is not encouraged as a solution to the housing shortage. Local Government approvals for “Shanty Towns” re; my post above, highlight the absurdity and debacle housing for Australians has become

There's absolutely no doubt that the cost of a house itself is not the reason why poorer people can't afford housing.

Providing row after row after row of containers or dongas will not make housing affordable.

There's a MYRIAD of rules and regulations that spike final property costs to 10 times what they would otherwise be. The facts of life are, if people demand solid support infrastructure then they have to PAY FOR IT (either directly themselves or via taxes). If people demand certain property safety and health standards then they have to pay for it.

There is no viable solution to housing the poor, unless a way can be found to do it that doesn't devalue current properties. That's a fact of life. if that can be solved, then we can go on the all the HUNDREDS of rules and regulation impediments that spike the costs ten fold. It's an incredibly complex subject. There's no one quick easy answer.

Diver Dan

My thoughts were along the lines of allowing numerous suburbs with poor quality housing to be subdivided into smaller blocks. The purpose of prefab housing is to add to supply quickly, as it was in the 1950.

High rise as you mention is a great idea, especially if it takes advantage of existing infrastructure. But I think that with more options tried there is likely to be a quicker resolution to the housing shortfall. The building industry would stand to benefit substantially from a reduction in costs, but I feel that this is unlikely to happen unless some pretty radical decisions are made.