2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (3 Viewers)

[Enteebee]

The only long term solution is better infrastructure, more land released on the outskirts and more approvals for high density housing near existing infrastructure.

If this policy is bad enough, it could be the last straw for me. I'll change my vote to liberal.

Yea, tbh the only REAL solutions that I can think of are all somewhat authoritarian/socialist. I.e. the government buys up some of the property around sydney, forces developers to build large highrise appartments.

Perhaps even forcing people to move out of the city.

A longer term solution is to create more 'medium' sized cities so people aren't quite as attracted to sydney... I.e. a huge commercial/residential development plan for wollongong or newcastle, probably ruining some of the tourist areas around there, but allowing people to live the city lifestyle without putting extra pressure on Sydney.

 

[katie_tully]

So many issues with the housing crisis.
One one front, the problem is everybody wanting to buy these massive McMansion style homes in the burbs, the ones they cannot afford.
On the second issue, we don't want to revert back to the Housing Commission crisis of the 80s where everybody who couldn't afford a house/didn't want to work was lumped into these massively, densly populated slums which just = more problems.

Then you have the issue of where to put affordable housing. They tried doing this in subiaco and the people in their $1mill houses went off their nuts.

 

[Triangulum]

Labor's new ad on cost of living issues.

 

[Enteebee]

True, well then that's what I support.

Basically anything to get a shitload of ugly, highrise buildings full of people all around Sydney so we no longer have a housing crisis. People need to get over the idea of owning their own home, just rent, that's what people do in most countries.

 

[Tulipa]

WRONG. Its the authoritarian policies that are causing the problem. The government places horrible restrictions on development and releases government land in small amounts to keep the price high for themselves. It is also exacerbated by council regulations that prevent high density developments.

Developers hardly need to be coersed to build more housing. Take away the restrictions and it will happen. The only government "intervention" we need is far better roads and public transport.

Personally, I dont want to see Sydney become a decentralised city like Los Angeles. The state government needs to take away power from councils like Leichardt and Waverly that block alot of new developments and protect old terrace houses and cottages. Thousands more people could live in the inner city if many more high rise developments were permitted. A denser population also means public transport can be provided much more cheaply and efficiently.

That's what is currently happening in Kur-Ring-Gai where I live. [sarcasm]It's really great[/sarcasm].

Frank Sartor is currently overriding every council decision to allow shoddily built apartment complexes pop up wherever without worrying about infrastructure like better roads, public transport, etc. Not only that but these aren't affordable housing. You say more people can live in them sure but these complexes are built on the grounds of say a $1 million home and each of them will sell for $800 000 to $1.5 million (depending on the size of the apartment). How is that going to fix anything? Developers are only looking for a profit and people can't afford these new housing developments.

High density might be a good idea in theory but in practice it's looking pretty crap at the moment.

 

[katie_tully]

They're doing it here with our population boom. Who the fuck wants to spend $350,000+ on some dodgy carbon copy house in Parkes. Yet people are. :s

 

[Enteebee]

$1 million home and each of them will sell for $800 000 to $1.5 million (depending on the size of the apartment).

Really? So people would spend $1million for the apartment when they can get the house down the road? Meh it doesn't matter, if you build enough of these eventually there are so many that the price naturally drops down. I don't see why a developer wouldn't still come along, buy a $1mil block, build a complex then fill it with say... 50 $300,000 appartments, once the market is flooded enough that it can't sell them for more.

I agree with the need for more infrastructure to support higher density of course.

 

[Tulipa]

Where is your evidence they are shoddily built?

It doesnt instantly fix the problem. Each new development only adds slightly to the stock of available housing. But if enough is built it will bring prices down. Prices are all high in Kur-Ring-Gai area. If new apartments were not being built all along the North Shore prices in the area would be even higher.

I've been in them... They have a lot of open houses and the quality is not great especially since they build them in a micro second.

There's also nothing being done to help infrastructure in the area. Which is currently making traffic issues a lot worse.

Really? So people would spend $1million for the apartment when they can get the house down the road? Meh it doesn't matter, if you build enough of these eventually there are so many that the price naturally drops down. I don't see why a developer wouldn't still come along, buy a $1mil block, build a complex then fill it with say... 50 $300,000 appartments, once the market is flooded enough that it can't sell them for more.

I don't think that's going to happen... if anything prices have actually gone up since the building of these blocks has happened. They used to all be below the mil mark and now every single one has at least a few apartments above it.

Again, you think in theory it'll happen but it's really not.

 

[Enteebee]

I don't think that's going to happen... if anything prices have actually gone up since the building of these blocks has happened. They used to all be below the mil mark and now every single one has at least a few apartments above it.

Again, you think in theory it'll happen but it's really not.

Are you saying that if I build 1 million appartments in ku-ring-gai I'll be able to keep getting a million each? If not, then you've at least got to accept that there will be a point where supply will start eating into demand.

 

[jb_nc]

Death to Frank Sartor.

 

[Tulipa]

Tulipa's perochial view is starting to annoy me. "OMG, prices didnt suddenly fall when they built sum new buildingz in my area. Economics is a conspiracy theories by developers lah."

Did I say that? No. Just that currently the push for high density housing in my area isn't working as well as you had hoped. You pushed forward a theory, I said how it was working in my area.

Ta dah.

Are you saying that if I build 1 million appartments in ku-ring-gai I'll be able to keep getting a million each? If not, then you've at least got to accept that there will be a point where supply will start eating into demand.

Sure, in that instance that will happen but that won't be for quite awhile yet and a lot of improvement in infrastructure will need to happen.

Also, the North Shore line isn't the best. It's not the worst but it's also not the best. Not only that but Pacific Highway, which is not a highway and is pretty much the only other option for getting up north, has not been improved on in years. And yet they insist on putting more cars on it.

 

[Enteebee]

Sure, in that instance that will happen but that won't be for quite awhile yet and a lot of improvement in infrastructure will need to happen.

Yea but... Can't you see how if it has an effect with big implimentation, it would have a smaller (but still existant) effect with a smaller implimentation?

 

[Tulipa]

Yea but... Can't you see how if it has an effect with big implimentation, it would have a smaller (but still existant) effect with a smaller implimentation?

Okay, misread your post, reposting now.

*implementation

It's not though. Larger scale would work but right now it's not. Theoretically yes, in practice no. Also, it needs to be on a larger scale than is being done now.

I don't get why zimmerman is like ... lets leave it all for developers and not worry about regulations. Developers aren't saints and nor are they trying to do something for the community. It is about profit, like any business.

 

[Enteebee]

*implementation. Sorry that was bugging me

I can see how it would work on a large scale and with an improvement in infrastructure. Those two things are key and that would be the goal but that's not how they're rolling it out at the moment. I don't see it working at the moment with smaller implementation. I'm not talking a million apartments and nor do I have exact figures at the moment but it needs to be bigger than it is now to work. Smaller implementation leads to higher prices.

So I have issues with supporting it when it's not working now because I don't see how they would really manage to do it on such a large scale. That make sense?

Yea I thought I had it wrong but I cbf spellchecking

How? I mean, are you sure you're not just conflating correlation and causation? Like Dom said... it's quite possible that it's having an effect but is merely being trumped by rising house prices (i.e. without it you would see even bigger increases). When theory doesn't correspond to practice it just means you have an incomplete theory or perhaps are missing some elements... so we should try to understand why it could be having no effect to update the theory.

 

[Tulipa]

it's quite possible that it's having an effect but is merely being trumped by rising house prices (i.e. without it you would see even bigger increases).

That's possible. I just don't see how it's going to fix housing woes right now. Nor do I understand why it's necessary.

I'd much prefer that they put more money into coastal towns like Newcastle or Wollongong, built them up to be mid-size cities and then ta dah you don't have so many people moving to the larger cities.

 

[Enteebee]

I think that's a longer-term thing tbh, but yea that'd be good.

Pretty much all of this is state government shit anyway, perhaps the libs should make an issue of it?

 

[Tulipa]

I think that's a longer-term thing tbh, but yea that'd be good.

Pretty much all of this is state government shit anyway, perhaps the libs should make an issue of it?

That would be the best idea they've had in ages.

It's just shitty because there's the potential for a few towns, all around Australia, to be built up into larger cities but state governments are so city-centric that they just keep fucking it up.

I hate all government at the moment, both of the major parties are just so shockingly bad.

 

[Tulipa]

Sounds good. But would you be willing to move to Newcastle? You can't force people to live in certain places. Centralisation also makes it easier and cheaper to provide goods and services, especially efficient public transport.

Plus all the great cities of the world are large high density metropolisis. New York wouldn't be very impressive if instead of Manhattan there were a bunch of little satellite cities.

Yes but New York is also bordered by Newark and all along the East Coast there are a large number of smaller cities that help keep Manhattan from sinking under too many people

Also, I would move to Wollongong in a second if there was better public transport and more job opportunities. Instead of Joe Hockey telling people from Wollongong to move to Sydney to find work, they should be creating jobs to help bolster the situation down there.

You can't force people to move but you can entice them.

 

[Tulipa]

last post for today. i can see we're not going to agree. but did Hockey actually say that?

he's such a fat fuck.

Yup. Got front page of the Illawarra Mercury awhile back.

 

[jb_nc]

Also, I would move to Wollongong in a second if there was better public transport and more job opportunities. Instead of Joe Hockey telling people from Wollongong to move to Sydney to find work, they should be creating jobs to help bolster the situation down there.

How do you directly "create" jobs as the government? Start up massive labour projects building railway lines? Employ more bureaucrats?

Market forces will determine whether jobs are created or not and most people would have a better chance finding work in Sydney. The Coalition has done a lot in terms of labour market deregulation and made it easier and quicker to start up businesses, however, it shouldn't be up to government to make sure people are employed, only policies which promote employment.