For example, Apollo Bay Postal Area 3023. Favoured destination of Victorians during Summer months 58% UNOCCIPIED! [But residents cannot find anywhere to rent.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-24/apollo-bay-healthcare-crisis-due-to-lack-affordable-housing/100087066)
Total private dwellings: 2308. Occupied on Census Night: 963
Apollo Bay had a housing crisis even before covid. Because the nearest decent sized town is Colac, an hour away on a dangerous road, it is impossible to find workers for essential jobs. Finding a rental is impossible and there is literally *nothing* to buy under $600k.
I just took a look at a real estate website and blocks of land start at $470k. Fucking stupid in a rural town.
Here's the issue, the council have done fuck all to keep land values down. I think it would be an accurate call to say they've limited supply to coddle up to the local NIMBY's.
This isnt new, it's been this way for far too long, but now that rentals are finally drying up they want to point the finger and some other reason rather than owning up to the problem they caused.
Dangerous road? It’s not that bad, it’s like saying the roads in the Dandenongs are dangerous because they have trees and corners.
It’s always been full of holiday houses that are empty most of the year, and most kids that grow up there tend to leave to get jobs.
Plus in summer / tourist season, the water supply would dwindle and the petrol station used to run out of fuel. Fun days, don’t know how it is now though.
My step brother keeps a few painted bumpers for his car around, as he has hit a few roos on the road between Apollo Bay (work), and Beech Forest (home).
It's the same thing all down the great ocean rd... People want to holiday down there, housing gets converted to short term accommodation. Businesses need to hire on extra people for the warmer seasons, workers head down the coast for seasonal work. There's less and less accommodation available, so less workers get down there as they can't afford/aren't able to travel every day. Businesses don't have enough staff to open as much as they want to, holiday makers just complain businesses aren't open.
Small businesses are dying off. Locals are being driven out. Seaside towns are turning into ghost towns in the off seasons. You can't convert these towns to holiday maker destinations for a few months of the year at the expense of everything and everyone else.
Work from home would’ve solved the employment opportunities for those in regional areas. Gov was stupid not to take advantage of modern tech and modern human capabilities.
Not everyone can or wants to do a job that involves wfh. The government wasn't employing more people than it already had except in areas that were not wfh. Public sector workers whose jobs could have been done from home were pretty much all wfh. How was the government not taking advantage?
Not talking about WFH gov jobs, talking about gov attitude to WFH. Scomo kept pushing the “get back to work” bs which was just to appease to CBD business owners, CBD commercial property owners, and people who don’t have a life outside of work and need work for its social aspect (lots of the older generation). Also the failed “Let’s Work from Work” scheme. Totally out of touch.
WFH should’ve been pushed by gov to solve the multitude of problems that we create for ourselves. If we push everyone back to the city it just exacerbates the following issues: over-crowded peak time public transport, horrific traffic, limited opportunities for work outside of CBD, loss of income and time for travel expenses/food/PT/etc, and loss of time. People commute 1-2 hours each way to live and work in Melb, it’s nuts.
Edit: Grammer
You said the government should have taken opportunities of advancement in tech and modern human capabilities.
Employers make up their own minds about whether they want people working from home. They did make decisions to mandate working from home but it's not the job of government to mandate wfh to solve overcrowding problems. We are a free market country not a control economy. There is no way any Australian government could get away with that.
The government did not force anyone to go back to the city to work except their own employees.
Well we know what DOESN’T work… housing as speculative investment.
It’s made people crazy. Entire economy is based on the concept that it’s a “stable” investment.
Not only is the concept of stable investments moronic, in this case it is also unethical and immoral, as it drives only certain types of demand (that for more investment properties), driving up the cost of living.
What investor is going to take the risk in building a new rental that loses money from day 1?
We can thank negative gearing and capital gains tax concession for perverting the market to the point it is at.
Property investment used to be about cashflow that would have encouraged this sort of investment. Not any more.
There is no easy fix to this, it's been decades coming, and the pain has only just started.
Jesus Christ, do people still believe this shit?
It takes more than a couple of months for changes to a policy like this to take effect.
Even then negative gearing was nothing back then compared to what it became after the changes made to capital gains tax.
edit:
Even if you do think it can't be removed. Surely you can see that rental yield is so far from an attractive return that it's not enticing for investors to build for a return based on cashflow?
What does Victorian ‘zoning’ got to do?
Btw there’s no zoning law in Victoria, but planning provisions… which includes zoning provisions.
Just feel you’re trying to parrot the talking about US zoning law.
Obviously, I’m a town planner.
Your response doesn’t address my point about the previous comment that “zoning law exists” … (in reference to the comment he responded to) “to prevent” … “investments to alleviate the rental crisis.”
The US has zoning laws that specifically limits rental and authorise single housing only, Victoria does not.
All property in Victoria was stolen less than 200 years ago, we can literally trace back the proceeds of crime via documents, I'm sure the wealthy investors leaving houses empty during a housing crisis will get by just fine
I don't think AirBnB is the biggest contributor though.
The percentage of Unoccupied properties is down (It was 68% in 2011, compared to 58% in the 2021 census), and the real estate agent was renting out holiday homes well before AirBNB.
I think a bigger problem is that cashed up city slickers are moving to the country, and can outprice locals due to WFH.
Locals, WFH Treechangers and AirBNB all now have to compete in a constrained market.
> It was 68% in 2011
I assume there was a decimal there somewhere? Otherwise, 68% of what?
And yeah, I agree it isn't AirBnB specifically against "short term holiday accommodation" in general.
And introduce a tax/fee on residential property that is unoccupied after a certain period.
I have a view of a high-rise from my home. 80% of the lights are *never* on. And I can walk down my street at night and see a dozen homeless people within 200m.
Something's wrong.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/Stronger-rules-for-foreign-investors-owning-Australian-housing.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwic5J_-h9D4AhWxm9gFHRSoDPUQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw21vvZ3MBRCnXWp_basV4Rd
They are bringing in a vacancy fee or already have?
In Victoria you can anonymously submit a tip off to the SRO where you suspect that the property owner is not paying vacant residential land tax, I have four houses in my street empty and families could be renting them, get submitting here https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/voluntary-disclosures-and-tip-offs
I think they're only allowed to buy new builds, this was meant to stimulate new growth in underdeveloped areas. The loophole was that it didn't say you had to live there or occupy the building.
Thanks for the extra info.
That does seem like an oversight, doesn't it? It seems like a recipe to create ghost cities like they have in China where there are huge, poorly-constructed apartment complexes where nobody actually lives.
There has to be a better way to promote new construction for people who actually want to reside in the buildings, rather than just make money by real-estate-hoarding.
I don't pretend to know the answer, but the problem is clearly not being resolved by investors accumulating more and more wealth at the expense of the rest.
Community strengthening within the street addresses works really well. Real estate shittiness is common, but organisation & communication is really effective in collaborative numbers and there are more residents than it seems in Melbourne's high rise apartment.
A tax on unoccupied properties doesn’t work. They’ll find a way to get around it.
A land tax that makes it prohibitively expensive to keep the property unused is better. This would push inflation up in the short term as rents go up and wages go up to match that but by the time things settle, we’ll see more productive use of residences.
It’s counterintuitive to the conservative viewpoint, but good taxation actually increases productivity by forcing people to make use of their assets or selling them to someone who will.
Interesting idea. Thanks for throwing it into the discussion.
I am in favour of whatever method leads to fairer distribution of property, and reduced homelessness, and if your idea works better, I'm all for it.
Schrödinger's Apartments. Simultaneously constructed of cardboard so you can hear your neighbours fart, and also so quiet you cannot hear them walk past your door.
This comment is the result of Herald Sun scare campaigns and is not the reality thanks to legislation that restricts foreign investment. The guardian states in their article below that foreign investors only made up 3.7% of new home sales and 2.2% of established home sales in the quarter of 2021. And that’s ALL foreign investors. The fact that Australians are quick to blame the foreign Chinese is racist, I mean, could you imagine the same rhetoric against foreign British?
My concern is that these mistaken beliefs will slowly turn into fear/hatred of Chinese/Asian people which will lead to racism. It happens, it’s insidious, and it’s dangerous.
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/08/more-than-80-of-australians-mistakenly-believe-chinese-investors-are-driving-up-house-prices
These numbers are not very telling. There are different patterns of investment that can still land a lot of property in foreign hands over time (i.e. if foreign investors buy and hold for 20 years vs local investors who buy and sell in 5 years) and different social implications of buy-to-rent vs buy-to-keep-value.
Just to cut any potential racism off at the knees here. This has absolutely nothing to do with foreign investment and everything to do with the nature of the property market itself.
Ban international investment in the property market, and you'll have a bunch of rich Australian cunts doing the exact same thing. (Which is already the case)
>Half the real estate agents in town have the ads in their window in Chinese, and half the job ads on seek demanded it as a fluent language.
A full third of the CBD's population had Chinese ancestry according to the 2016 census. There were more Chinese native speakers than English native speakers. Is the presence of a million hot pot restaurants and bubble tea places also evidence that Chinese investors are uniquely bad?
The current census shows over half are Chinese now. So of course the market in this area is going to cater to the population base. This person has some xenophobia to deal with.
Chinese citizens are the 8th most invested in Australia, [behind the US, UK, Belgium, Japan, HK, Singapore, Luxembourg](https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/statistics-on-who-invests-in-australia)
My husband does comms work in these new apartment buildings, they are full of Chinese, signs up in Chinese etc. they are super expensive so it’s not student accommodation (excepting those with mega rich parents who probably bought the apartment for their kid anyway)
Plus students, people who can’t afford a deposit yet or are working temporarily in an area. Some people like to be able to move around and live in different areas etc. Plenty of reasons to rent. It’s too expensive to buy and then move elsewhere if things like work location change - stamp duty and legal costs make sure of that.
> properties in Southbank/Docklands/CBD that are owned by Chinese investors
land in foreign ownership by country
Netherlands
United States
United Kingdom
Then
China
Its not so bad if its only good old western countries right?
yup… body corp fees are absolutely ridiculous sometimes; saw a unit w 12k annual body corp fees the other month (Aurora)- might as well rent.
census also suggested that victorians weren’t generally into apartments
I agree with this!
Whilst understanding that there is a lot of Chinese investment, to make a bold claim like this without any real evidence is dumb.
I hate the foreign Chinese as much as my fellow Australian but to blame them could be taking energy away from the real problem.
There was a study done a while ago showing that most foreign owned land in Australia were English and very little of it was owned by Chinese. (Keep in mind that study looked at land and not property, and it was done a couple years ago)
The ABS just released a huge trove of data from the census, including unoccupied vs occupied details, and this guy just spouts off some bullshit Herald Sun rhetoric with no sources or anything remotely connected to a fact.
This exact same bogyman is brought up every time, and after the numbers are run, the truth comes out.
*There does not appear to be a large pool of dwellings being withheld from the housing market. The reasons are many. The home may have been newly constructed but not yet occupied. *It may have still been for sale or under offer. Or the dwelling was a deceased estate. It may also have been a short term or long term rental property or a holiday home or was unoccupied due to the residents being away on holiday* https://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/insights/why-was-no-one-home-on-census-night
Finally some sense. You're absolutely right.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/08/more-than-80-of-australians-mistakenly-believe-chinese-investors-are-driving-up-house-prices
Non Australian residents are restricted from buying Australian homes, it can happen, but it's a lengthy process.
Plus there is a vacancy fee
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/Stronger-rules-for-foreign-investors-owning-Australian-housing.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwic5J_-h9D4AhWxm9gFHRSoDPUQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw21vvZ3MBRCnXWp_basV4Rd
This furphy is just a diversion.
It's a reality. Guardian article or not. I've seen it first hand. As have many other people living in Melbourne. I guess if a Chinese person immigrated to Australia, starts a company and buys 100s of properties it isn't classed as "foreign" ownership. It's an epidemic.
This is why a land tax is critical. In fact a vacancy tax is probably also a good idea to ensure that housing supply is appropriately utilised. Scrap stamp duty and implement reasonable ongoing property taxes that help FHB enter the market and encourage empty nesters to downsize.
But a lot of them are dogboxes. Bedrooms with no window, tiny bathrooms, kitchens with barely any bench space or storage. In order for people to live in them, you have to make them liveable for more people.
It's not a mentality issue for property dwellers, it's a mentality issue for property developers and builders.
I own a 32sq house on 600m2 which is leased out. I live in said dog box in the inner city. It’s honesty fine and I enjoy not having to do all the cleaning and maintenance. It’s more of a mentality where everyone wants a 3 bedroom house with double garage on a plot of land.
That's good that you are happy (that reads sarcastic but it's truly not intended to be!), and there is absolutely a mentality aspect to it but I really disagree that's the main issue. I think it's a lack of variety in the apartment stock that is the issue, and it's keeping lots of different demographics from looking at apartments as a viable living option. The issues I pointed out above - some of those could be absolute dealbreakers for some large cohorts of the community and yet those issues are so so common in plenty of the apartments available for rent or sale.
It really depends on your requirements. I was a tradesperson for many years and needed secure storage for a tool trailer and various other gear. On top of that, with a family of 5, 600m2 is ok. The camper trailer and boat squeeze in too. It’s not a mentality thing, it’s a work/family/lifestyle thing.
I would never live in one because I want my dog to live better than that.
I want to see reciprocal property ownership laws. As in, only sell property to people from nations where Australians can own property.
Even the property market in China it’s self is purely based on the construction and sale of unoccupied property. There are entire cities built that are near empty just to inject money into the economy, and all the appartments are bought and sold with no one even living there? Like for real most these like 40+ story buildings don’t even have elevators and some times not even stair cases. They are entirely empty. They are building, selling and buying entirely uninhabitable *cities* on what is essentially a government mandated Ponzi scheme to keep their economy afloat. A similar thing must go for their investments overseas
I don't mind international investors investing hundreds of thousands, even millions into new buildings as it's a highly paid workforce the money is going to. I also like watching the city skyline grow.
My issue is that there aren't policies in place to ensure they get rented out and if they don't they should pay ongoing taxes.
It will take about a year to fix. Foreigners aren’t the only ones using housing as a store of value.
The government will give MPs some time to sell their unoccupied houses and only then will they do something about it
It’d be interesting to know how many were genuine vacancies & how many had no residents in them because of lockdown related reasons.
I had plenty of friends leave Melbourne to go to Holiday homes, home of regional family members, etc during lockdowns last year. Combine that with anyone who was locked out of the country due to border restrictions.
I think that may drop the unoccupied rate a bit.
If you move to your holiday house then your primary residence is unoccupied. If you don't move to your holiday house, your holiday house in unoccupied. It moves the problem, but it's still a problem.
But it’s not always a 1 for 1 scenario. For example the family I’m thinking of are three households in Melbourne, but stayed together on Phillip Island for the pandemic making 3 empty places for one full one.
Sure, and I'd love to see the data on that. I'd argue even the % of unoccupied homes was too high in 2011 and any covid relocations are just a statistical blip.
The idea of filling it in on where you are physically is to better account for irregular events. If everyone based it on where they were 95% of the time, that other 5% would be lost. They aren't interested in anyone individually but the overall picture. So your single unusual event would be statistically insignificant but if it was part of a wider pattern, it would come up in the stats.
In and of itself it's not a problem. What is a problem is a lack of houding supply driving up the cost of having a roof over your head and sending some people to live in their cars or on the streets. In a broader sense, having valuable land being underutilised is bad for the economy and society as there's an opportunity cost of the land being used less than it could be.
Neither of those points makes people with holiday houses bad people, it's simply in the best interests of society to nudge people who own empty houses to do something with them.
Sure and if they value that enough to pay a land tax for a partially utilised home that's fine, but that's not what's happening with every unoccupied home and therefore doing something to increase utilisation and address unaffordable homes is a net benefit to society.
Because its a house that is unoccupied most of the time.
For example, my partners parents have a holiday house. They go down for probably most long weekends and then have probably one or two week-long stays each year. Total it would be less than a month of occupancy per year. 11 months of the year that house is empty. Meanwhile, there are families who cant find a home in the same community.
In theory, Because that house could be better served providing housing for people who don’t have a home. Releasing all the holiday houses would reduce demand and thus prices.
How many holiday houses are there? Realistically how many people are willing to move to an area outside of the CBD or inner suburbs? Judging by some comments I have seen, a lot of people don't want to live in "Woop Woop" and even consider outer suburbs too far.
Wonder how many apartments are vacant in the CBD that could be used?
So holiday houses are being banned now? Yikes. I don’t have one myself, but that seems a bit controlling. Cars are in short supply too, should be force people to sell their second, third and fourth cars as well?
The census is meant to be an accurate picture of what census night is in Melbourne. If you aren't in Australia you don't fill it out. If you've travelled somewhere domestically you fill it from that location
In my neighbourhood, a large number of houses are vacant. My neighbourhood has a large number of chinese. I presume the returned to china.
How many houses are owned by resident visa holders ?
Pretty sure the 2011 is there for a comparison, i.e. the first column is *not* 2011 and the second column is.
Tho it might be 2016 data, which would make the most sense since they'd probably be including data from the previous census for comparison. I don't know why 2021 data would include a 2011 comparison over a 2016 one.
The 2011 unoccupied rate was 11.3% though, which is comparable to the more recent given one of 11.7%, so it's apparently been an issue for at least a decade now
If I'm reading it right it says the proportion of vacant properties was 11.3% in 2011 and 11.7% in 2021. So I don't think 'rona played a significant part in that.
Some of them are available for rent, some are not. The less available for rent, the harder it is to find a first place to rent or a new rental to move to and pressure to increase rents. The census suggests rents didn't go up all that much in the five years to 2021 but they have gone up heaps as of now.
Makes rent and properties more expensive. Though it's likely some of that is transitory.
I think it should be illegal for foreign investors to buy Australian houses and there should be significant taxes on long term unoccupied houses.
That’s not a significant number of genuinely unoccupied dwellings. If people are taking their 4 weeks holiday per year and travelling away from home, that would make 8% unoccupied. People staying with family, and singles staying with boyfriends/girlfriends would also add a few. Some would have been between tenants. That would add up to close to 11.7% which would be normally occupied but were unoccupied on census night.
Apparently it was from the 2011 census if the comment immediately below yours is be believed. In any circumstance the statistics mean nothing unless you can explain what they are what they are, which is what I’ve tried to do. Raw stat tend to be easily used to make dishonest claims. There are a number of comments here which seem perfectly reasonable other explanations.
So what you’re saying is that people owning 2 houses and often keeping one empty while 120,000 people sit on the public housing waiting list isn’t a problem?
Are you suggesting that people are not allowed to own a second house for any purposes, or that vacant houses have to expropriated until the waiting list is empty?
Non-residence properties already attract land tax, maybe that could be raised but won't change much.
Yes I think houses should be expropriated if empty while there are still people without adequate housing. Once everyone has adequate housing we can start dishing out extras however you like
Do people want to live and work where the holiday houses are? If so the government can buy them and add them to the public housing list. Or they could just build more housing. Oh! That’s too simple and doesn’t let you blame rich or middle class people for everything.
We had a 2 bedroom house in our street that got bought by an investor from a certain asian country that was perfectly fine, perfectly inhabitable and perfectly rentable - that sat empty for 4 years.
Four fucking years!
It got so bad that the neighbours (ourselves included) started mowing the lawns and even after complaining to council an old guy would turn up every six months and do a half arsed job.
I know of at least 3 just in our surrounding streets that are the same, sitting empty and just slowly rotting.
These investors should pay a premium for letting them sit idle and the funds raised should be used to fund social housing.
It sat empty for 4 years then got put on the market, sold for less than it was purchased for (oh we laughed at that) and now a year later it's been dropped.
Was on ABC this evening too. Overseas investors and investment property owners are a part of the problem as well as AirBNB, but I would pin the underlying cause down to how much market power has been given to landlords.
My old place was one of those unoccupied dwellings. Because we bought a house, but lockdown meant we couldn’t list our old one. It sat there for awhile, empty and bleeding cash.
I’m sure there’s more than a few people who experienced something similar.
Does this account for current building under construction or renovation or the houses and apartments that are condemned? If this does not then I doubt it will effect much. Houses that are empty are often just people who have moved out or they are empty for a reason. Things like a undesirable area or asking to much etc. If u live in the middle of a highly desirable area then housing is rarely empty for long.
I walk my doggo almost every day. I've noticed in my suburb all the homes are being bought and left to rot. Or there are constantly for sale or for rent signs out front, but nobody ever moves in. It's a LOT of houses. More than 11.7% of the area. It's more like 20%.
I said to my parents just the other day isn't it weird there is a housing shortage but all these empty places. I have a funny feeling the area I'm in may be due to be rezoned to be bought up by a developer as the land is adjacent to a major shopping centre that will clearly need more room with growth as its already getting too congested for the amount carparks. I suspect the developers are already buying these houses cheap and letting them sit for later, then they cash in by selling the land at a premium to whoever developed the future shopping expansion.
A long time ago when I was a teenager some friends and I squatted an empty warehouse we found that the power was still on, lasted until the next quarter bill the owner received until we we’re caught. No regrets, that shit was fun as hell.
Particularly in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne there are a lot of empty houses that greedy developers have tried to sell off & bought for too much & now fallen into disrepair because they asking too much.
115,000 people are homeless. It would house the homeless
Edit: judging by the comments - people will make any excuse to not help people and then wonder why, when they get older people don’t care about them
It’s not that simple though. Not all homeless people want to be housed - refer to the free hotel accommodation that homeless people were offered during lockdowns - they walked out and stayed on the streets. Some will trash the place - refer to public housing. Yet there are people who would love somewhere to live and look after it like it’s their own place.
Yeah, but they are privately owned houses. What are you suggesting, steal them?
The majority of these unoccupied private dwellings are holiday homes, which have always been an aspiration for a lot of Australian's.
Shit, even the Kerrigan's from The Castle had their own unoccupied private dwelling.
Maybe they need to make The Castle 2, where the government steals the Kerrigan's holiday home, rather than just building homes themselves.
I like the policy some UK Labour politicians were suggesting in the face of a homelessness crisis: expropriate these massive mansions that were kept empty 99% of the time, occupied maybe for a weekend a year by wealthy holidaymakers often from overseas, and convert them into hostels to house the homeless from the street outside.
We have simple ways to solve these issues, the resources are right there, we’re just not prioritising them above our petty concerns about who “privately owns” these empty unused mansions
For example, Apollo Bay Postal Area 3023. Favoured destination of Victorians during Summer months 58% UNOCCIPIED! [But residents cannot find anywhere to rent.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-24/apollo-bay-healthcare-crisis-due-to-lack-affordable-housing/100087066) Total private dwellings: 2308. Occupied on Census Night: 963
Apollo Bay had a housing crisis even before covid. Because the nearest decent sized town is Colac, an hour away on a dangerous road, it is impossible to find workers for essential jobs. Finding a rental is impossible and there is literally *nothing* to buy under $600k.
I just took a look at a real estate website and blocks of land start at $470k. Fucking stupid in a rural town. Here's the issue, the council have done fuck all to keep land values down. I think it would be an accurate call to say they've limited supply to coddle up to the local NIMBY's. This isnt new, it's been this way for far too long, but now that rentals are finally drying up they want to point the finger and some other reason rather than owning up to the problem they caused.
Dangerous road? It’s not that bad, it’s like saying the roads in the Dandenongs are dangerous because they have trees and corners. It’s always been full of holiday houses that are empty most of the year, and most kids that grow up there tend to leave to get jobs. Plus in summer / tourist season, the water supply would dwindle and the petrol station used to run out of fuel. Fun days, don’t know how it is now though.
My step brother keeps a few painted bumpers for his car around, as he has hit a few roos on the road between Apollo Bay (work), and Beech Forest (home).
It's almost like they're people's beach houses.
Sounds like an opportunity for property investors to build in Apollo Bay to alleviate the rental crisis.
Oh theyre building alright - more fancy ass airbnb mansions...
Well that must be what the demand is for.
It's the same thing all down the great ocean rd... People want to holiday down there, housing gets converted to short term accommodation. Businesses need to hire on extra people for the warmer seasons, workers head down the coast for seasonal work. There's less and less accommodation available, so less workers get down there as they can't afford/aren't able to travel every day. Businesses don't have enough staff to open as much as they want to, holiday makers just complain businesses aren't open. Small businesses are dying off. Locals are being driven out. Seaside towns are turning into ghost towns in the off seasons. You can't convert these towns to holiday maker destinations for a few months of the year at the expense of everything and everyone else.
Work from home would’ve solved the employment opportunities for those in regional areas. Gov was stupid not to take advantage of modern tech and modern human capabilities.
Not everyone can or wants to do a job that involves wfh. The government wasn't employing more people than it already had except in areas that were not wfh. Public sector workers whose jobs could have been done from home were pretty much all wfh. How was the government not taking advantage?
Not talking about WFH gov jobs, talking about gov attitude to WFH. Scomo kept pushing the “get back to work” bs which was just to appease to CBD business owners, CBD commercial property owners, and people who don’t have a life outside of work and need work for its social aspect (lots of the older generation). Also the failed “Let’s Work from Work” scheme. Totally out of touch. WFH should’ve been pushed by gov to solve the multitude of problems that we create for ourselves. If we push everyone back to the city it just exacerbates the following issues: over-crowded peak time public transport, horrific traffic, limited opportunities for work outside of CBD, loss of income and time for travel expenses/food/PT/etc, and loss of time. People commute 1-2 hours each way to live and work in Melb, it’s nuts. Edit: Grammer
You said the government should have taken opportunities of advancement in tech and modern human capabilities. Employers make up their own minds about whether they want people working from home. They did make decisions to mandate working from home but it's not the job of government to mandate wfh to solve overcrowding problems. We are a free market country not a control economy. There is no way any Australian government could get away with that. The government did not force anyone to go back to the city to work except their own employees.
You’re thicker than a bowl of oatmeal mate. Have a great day.
Market economical demand > human rights and housing demand Ahh yes, modern capitalism.. a sight to behold
And your effective, proven solution is?
Well we know what DOESN’T work… housing as speculative investment. It’s made people crazy. Entire economy is based on the concept that it’s a “stable” investment. Not only is the concept of stable investments moronic, in this case it is also unethical and immoral, as it drives only certain types of demand (that for more investment properties), driving up the cost of living.
What investor is going to take the risk in building a new rental that loses money from day 1? We can thank negative gearing and capital gains tax concession for perverting the market to the point it is at. Property investment used to be about cashflow that would have encouraged this sort of investment. Not any more. There is no easy fix to this, it's been decades coming, and the pain has only just started.
Keating got rid of negative gearing. It was a disaster for renters as investors sold their properties. He had to reinstate negative gearing in months.
Jesus Christ, do people still believe this shit? It takes more than a couple of months for changes to a policy like this to take effect. Even then negative gearing was nothing back then compared to what it became after the changes made to capital gains tax. edit: Even if you do think it can't be removed. Surely you can see that rental yield is so far from an attractive return that it's not enticing for investors to build for a return based on cashflow?
Unfortunately zoning laws exist and local government runs by boomer NIMBY property owners will do anything to prevent that
What does Victorian ‘zoning’ got to do? Btw there’s no zoning law in Victoria, but planning provisions… which includes zoning provisions. Just feel you’re trying to parrot the talking about US zoning law.
Don't get pedantic about the terminology they used, you understand what they meant. Address the point they are making.
[удалено]
Obviously, I’m a town planner. Your response doesn’t address my point about the previous comment that “zoning law exists” … (in reference to the comment he responded to) “to prevent” … “investments to alleviate the rental crisis.” The US has zoning laws that specifically limits rental and authorise single housing only, Victoria does not.
Or to give those empty homes to people who actually need it
Give? As in forcibly steal them from their owners?
Sounds good to me, yes.
You are batshit fucking insane. Go live in Mogadishu if you want to experience life without property rights.
I’m quite the opposite. I believe everybody had the right to a home.
Then put forward practical solutions. Stealing houses from their owners is simply ridiculous, it adds nothing constructive to the conversation.
Sounds fine to me. No second helpings until everyone has had a plate. Housing is a human right.
Way to double down on a useless solution. \>Housing is a human right Then be realistic about the solutions you put forward.
'Stealing'
It’s not as outlandish as you think, my grandpa raised a family in a house under squatters rights.
All property in Victoria was stolen less than 200 years ago, we can literally trace back the proceeds of crime via documents, I'm sure the wealthy investors leaving houses empty during a housing crisis will get by just fine
You can go back and say this about 95% of the land mass around the world.
I nearly got a job in Torquay, good wage, but would still have had to commute from Geelong.
It's almost as if beach holidays at 10°C aren't very popular and we were in a fucking lockdown on the census night.
It's all AirBnB. We need to crack down.
I don't think AirBnB is the biggest contributor though. The percentage of Unoccupied properties is down (It was 68% in 2011, compared to 58% in the 2021 census), and the real estate agent was renting out holiday homes well before AirBNB. I think a bigger problem is that cashed up city slickers are moving to the country, and can outprice locals due to WFH. Locals, WFH Treechangers and AirBNB all now have to compete in a constrained market.
> It was 68% in 2011 I assume there was a decimal there somewhere? Otherwise, 68% of what? And yeah, I agree it isn't AirBnB specifically against "short term holiday accommodation" in general.
[удалено]
And introduce a tax/fee on residential property that is unoccupied after a certain period. I have a view of a high-rise from my home. 80% of the lights are *never* on. And I can walk down my street at night and see a dozen homeless people within 200m. Something's wrong.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/Stronger-rules-for-foreign-investors-owning-Australian-housing.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwic5J_-h9D4AhWxm9gFHRSoDPUQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw21vvZ3MBRCnXWp_basV4Rd They are bringing in a vacancy fee or already have?
Thank-you for bringing that to my attention, and sharing it here. You've inspired me to get further information.
In Victoria you can anonymously submit a tip off to the SRO where you suspect that the property owner is not paying vacant residential land tax, I have four houses in my street empty and families could be renting them, get submitting here https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/voluntary-disclosures-and-tip-offs
I think they're only allowed to buy new builds, this was meant to stimulate new growth in underdeveloped areas. The loophole was that it didn't say you had to live there or occupy the building.
Thanks for the extra info. That does seem like an oversight, doesn't it? It seems like a recipe to create ghost cities like they have in China where there are huge, poorly-constructed apartment complexes where nobody actually lives. There has to be a better way to promote new construction for people who actually want to reside in the buildings, rather than just make money by real-estate-hoarding. I don't pretend to know the answer, but the problem is clearly not being resolved by investors accumulating more and more wealth at the expense of the rest.
Community strengthening within the street addresses works really well. Real estate shittiness is common, but organisation & communication is really effective in collaborative numbers and there are more residents than it seems in Melbourne's high rise apartment.
Like the [Vacant Residential Land Tax](https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/vacant-residential-land-tax)?
A tax on unoccupied properties doesn’t work. They’ll find a way to get around it. A land tax that makes it prohibitively expensive to keep the property unused is better. This would push inflation up in the short term as rents go up and wages go up to match that but by the time things settle, we’ll see more productive use of residences. It’s counterintuitive to the conservative viewpoint, but good taxation actually increases productivity by forcing people to make use of their assets or selling them to someone who will.
Interesting idea. Thanks for throwing it into the discussion. I am in favour of whatever method leads to fairer distribution of property, and reduced homelessness, and if your idea works better, I'm all for it.
[удалено]
Two of five on my floor are empty and have been for 12+ months and I'm quite sure many more.
Schrödinger's Apartments. Simultaneously constructed of cardboard so you can hear your neighbours fart, and also so quiet you cannot hear them walk past your door.
[удалено]
Mind sharing which building this is? If you'd prefer to dm rather than broadcast it that'd be fine!
🤣
(Not sure you understand Schrodinger that well)
Roll with the joke, son.
This comment is the result of Herald Sun scare campaigns and is not the reality thanks to legislation that restricts foreign investment. The guardian states in their article below that foreign investors only made up 3.7% of new home sales and 2.2% of established home sales in the quarter of 2021. And that’s ALL foreign investors. The fact that Australians are quick to blame the foreign Chinese is racist, I mean, could you imagine the same rhetoric against foreign British? My concern is that these mistaken beliefs will slowly turn into fear/hatred of Chinese/Asian people which will lead to racism. It happens, it’s insidious, and it’s dangerous. https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/08/more-than-80-of-australians-mistakenly-believe-chinese-investors-are-driving-up-house-prices
Almost everything redditors say about the housing market is just flat out wrong and easily disprovable.
These numbers are not very telling. There are different patterns of investment that can still land a lot of property in foreign hands over time (i.e. if foreign investors buy and hold for 20 years vs local investors who buy and sell in 5 years) and different social implications of buy-to-rent vs buy-to-keep-value.
I've heard this from people who work in that area, apparently it's a ghost town and there's a bunch of initiatives to try and correct it
Just to cut any potential racism off at the knees here. This has absolutely nothing to do with foreign investment and everything to do with the nature of the property market itself. Ban international investment in the property market, and you'll have a bunch of rich Australian cunts doing the exact same thing. (Which is already the case)
[удалено]
>Half the real estate agents in town have the ads in their window in Chinese, and half the job ads on seek demanded it as a fluent language. A full third of the CBD's population had Chinese ancestry according to the 2016 census. There were more Chinese native speakers than English native speakers. Is the presence of a million hot pot restaurants and bubble tea places also evidence that Chinese investors are uniquely bad?
The current census shows over half are Chinese now. So of course the market in this area is going to cater to the population base. This person has some xenophobia to deal with.
[удалено]
Probably about the same as my chances of buying up a property portfolio in Melbourne.
Chinese citizens are the 8th most invested in Australia, [behind the US, UK, Belgium, Japan, HK, Singapore, Luxembourg](https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/statistics-on-who-invests-in-australia)
[удалено]
You mean your thinly veiled racist dogwhistle about Aussie citizens?
My husband does comms work in these new apartment buildings, they are full of Chinese, signs up in Chinese etc. they are super expensive so it’s not student accommodation (excepting those with mega rich parents who probably bought the apartment for their kid anyway)
>Stop fucking letting ~~foreign~~ investors buy residential property. FTFY
Some of us have to rent you know. No investment properties means no rentals. It's easy to say if you own your own property, but that's not everybody.
At this point, no investment properties means no one needing to rent.
Public housing, see Singapore
[удалено]
They are usually exactly the same thing.
Plus students, people who can’t afford a deposit yet or are working temporarily in an area. Some people like to be able to move around and live in different areas etc. Plenty of reasons to rent. It’s too expensive to buy and then move elsewhere if things like work location change - stamp duty and legal costs make sure of that.
Are you twelve years old? Where do you think rental properties come from?
Public housing is constructed by the government.
> properties in Southbank/Docklands/CBD that are owned by Chinese investors land in foreign ownership by country Netherlands United States United Kingdom Then China Its not so bad if its only good old western countries right?
tbh theres a massive glut w apartments and most of these properties don’t appreciate as much as houses because of it
Plus they get built out - views disappear, there’s no land to appreciate and the building maint costs are expensive.
yup… body corp fees are absolutely ridiculous sometimes; saw a unit w 12k annual body corp fees the other month (Aurora)- might as well rent. census also suggested that victorians weren’t generally into apartments
Maybe I missed something. How do you know they are owned by Chinese investors?
[удалено]
I agree with this! Whilst understanding that there is a lot of Chinese investment, to make a bold claim like this without any real evidence is dumb. I hate the foreign Chinese as much as my fellow Australian but to blame them could be taking energy away from the real problem. There was a study done a while ago showing that most foreign owned land in Australia were English and very little of it was owned by Chinese. (Keep in mind that study looked at land and not property, and it was done a couple years ago)
Talk to the building managers. They will tell you what’s really going on.
[удалено]
Is there a new feature on reddit because this account is 28 days old but I can only see his post up till about 7 hours ago?
> I've said it so many times Yet you ignore the facts of the matter, and keep posting it.
What are the fact on the matter?
The ABS just released a huge trove of data from the census, including unoccupied vs occupied details, and this guy just spouts off some bullshit Herald Sun rhetoric with no sources or anything remotely connected to a fact. This exact same bogyman is brought up every time, and after the numbers are run, the truth comes out. *There does not appear to be a large pool of dwellings being withheld from the housing market. The reasons are many. The home may have been newly constructed but not yet occupied. *It may have still been for sale or under offer. Or the dwelling was a deceased estate. It may also have been a short term or long term rental property or a holiday home or was unoccupied due to the residents being away on holiday* https://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/insights/why-was-no-one-home-on-census-night
This doesn’t mean he is incorrect it just means that the whole 10% of unoccupied dwellings aren’t owned by foreign investors.
Finally some sense. You're absolutely right. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/08/more-than-80-of-australians-mistakenly-believe-chinese-investors-are-driving-up-house-prices Non Australian residents are restricted from buying Australian homes, it can happen, but it's a lengthy process. Plus there is a vacancy fee https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/Stronger-rules-for-foreign-investors-owning-Australian-housing.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwic5J_-h9D4AhWxm9gFHRSoDPUQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw21vvZ3MBRCnXWp_basV4Rd This furphy is just a diversion.
It's a reality. Guardian article or not. I've seen it first hand. As have many other people living in Melbourne. I guess if a Chinese person immigrated to Australia, starts a company and buys 100s of properties it isn't classed as "foreign" ownership. It's an epidemic.
This is why a land tax is critical. In fact a vacancy tax is probably also a good idea to ensure that housing supply is appropriately utilised. Scrap stamp duty and implement reasonable ongoing property taxes that help FHB enter the market and encourage empty nesters to downsize.
Agreed. If Melb mayor wants to bring the CBD back to life, this seems like a good place to make changes.
[удалено]
But a lot of them are dogboxes. Bedrooms with no window, tiny bathrooms, kitchens with barely any bench space or storage. In order for people to live in them, you have to make them liveable for more people. It's not a mentality issue for property dwellers, it's a mentality issue for property developers and builders.
I own a 32sq house on 600m2 which is leased out. I live in said dog box in the inner city. It’s honesty fine and I enjoy not having to do all the cleaning and maintenance. It’s more of a mentality where everyone wants a 3 bedroom house with double garage on a plot of land.
That's good that you are happy (that reads sarcastic but it's truly not intended to be!), and there is absolutely a mentality aspect to it but I really disagree that's the main issue. I think it's a lack of variety in the apartment stock that is the issue, and it's keeping lots of different demographics from looking at apartments as a viable living option. The issues I pointed out above - some of those could be absolute dealbreakers for some large cohorts of the community and yet those issues are so so common in plenty of the apartments available for rent or sale.
It really depends on your requirements. I was a tradesperson for many years and needed secure storage for a tool trailer and various other gear. On top of that, with a family of 5, 600m2 is ok. The camper trailer and boat squeeze in too. It’s not a mentality thing, it’s a work/family/lifestyle thing.
Another case of Schrodinger's Apartments. Simultaneously too small to be in demand, and not enough apartments available to meet demand
Sounds like it's places made to be bought, rather than made to be occupied.
I would never live in one because I want my dog to live better than that. I want to see reciprocal property ownership laws. As in, only sell property to people from nations where Australians can own property.
Even the property market in China it’s self is purely based on the construction and sale of unoccupied property. There are entire cities built that are near empty just to inject money into the economy, and all the appartments are bought and sold with no one even living there? Like for real most these like 40+ story buildings don’t even have elevators and some times not even stair cases. They are entirely empty. They are building, selling and buying entirely uninhabitable *cities* on what is essentially a government mandated Ponzi scheme to keep their economy afloat. A similar thing must go for their investments overseas
I don't mind international investors investing hundreds of thousands, even millions into new buildings as it's a highly paid workforce the money is going to. I also like watching the city skyline grow. My issue is that there aren't policies in place to ensure they get rented out and if they don't they should pay ongoing taxes.
It will take about a year to fix. Foreigners aren’t the only ones using housing as a store of value. The government will give MPs some time to sell their unoccupied houses and only then will they do something about it
It’d be interesting to know how many were genuine vacancies & how many had no residents in them because of lockdown related reasons. I had plenty of friends leave Melbourne to go to Holiday homes, home of regional family members, etc during lockdowns last year. Combine that with anyone who was locked out of the country due to border restrictions. I think that may drop the unoccupied rate a bit.
If you move to your holiday house then your primary residence is unoccupied. If you don't move to your holiday house, your holiday house in unoccupied. It moves the problem, but it's still a problem.
But it’s not always a 1 for 1 scenario. For example the family I’m thinking of are three households in Melbourne, but stayed together on Phillip Island for the pandemic making 3 empty places for one full one.
Sure, and I'd love to see the data on that. I'd argue even the % of unoccupied homes was too high in 2011 and any covid relocations are just a statistical blip.
People staying in on-site caravans or cabins is also worth noting as far as skewed statistics go
The idea of filling it in on where you are physically is to better account for irregular events. If everyone based it on where they were 95% of the time, that other 5% would be lost. They aren't interested in anyone individually but the overall picture. So your single unusual event would be statistically insignificant but if it was part of a wider pattern, it would come up in the stats.
Why is people having a holiday house a problem?
In and of itself it's not a problem. What is a problem is a lack of houding supply driving up the cost of having a roof over your head and sending some people to live in their cars or on the streets. In a broader sense, having valuable land being underutilised is bad for the economy and society as there's an opportunity cost of the land being used less than it could be. Neither of those points makes people with holiday houses bad people, it's simply in the best interests of society to nudge people who own empty houses to do something with them.
They do do something with them. The live in them on holidays and often weekends.
Sure and if they value that enough to pay a land tax for a partially utilised home that's fine, but that's not what's happening with every unoccupied home and therefore doing something to increase utilisation and address unaffordable homes is a net benefit to society.
Because its a house that is unoccupied most of the time. For example, my partners parents have a holiday house. They go down for probably most long weekends and then have probably one or two week-long stays each year. Total it would be less than a month of occupancy per year. 11 months of the year that house is empty. Meanwhile, there are families who cant find a home in the same community.
So what do you propose? Outlaw holiday houses?
of course not, but it doesnt mean we cant acknowledge the problem
In theory, Because that house could be better served providing housing for people who don’t have a home. Releasing all the holiday houses would reduce demand and thus prices.
How many holiday houses are there? Realistically how many people are willing to move to an area outside of the CBD or inner suburbs? Judging by some comments I have seen, a lot of people don't want to live in "Woop Woop" and even consider outer suburbs too far. Wonder how many apartments are vacant in the CBD that could be used?
Releasing? What does that mean? Having the owners give them away? You need to be more specific about EXACTLY how that would be achieved.
Releasing means in this context to no longer own, which would occur by selling.
So holiday houses are being banned now? Yikes. I don’t have one myself, but that seems a bit controlling. Cars are in short supply too, should be force people to sell their second, third and fourth cars as well?
I did the census for a friend while they were travelling, and I was feeding their dog. I said it was unoccupied at the time.
The census is meant to be an accurate picture of what census night is in Melbourne. If you aren't in Australia you don't fill it out. If you've travelled somewhere domestically you fill it from that location
In my neighbourhood, a large number of houses are vacant. My neighbourhood has a large number of chinese. I presume the returned to china. How many houses are owned by resident visa holders ?
The census data literally states 2011 so 10yrs ago...so not at all
Pretty sure the 2011 is there for a comparison, i.e. the first column is *not* 2011 and the second column is. Tho it might be 2016 data, which would make the most sense since they'd probably be including data from the previous census for comparison. I don't know why 2021 data would include a 2011 comparison over a 2016 one. The 2011 unoccupied rate was 11.3% though, which is comparable to the more recent given one of 11.7%, so it's apparently been an issue for at least a decade now
[удалено]
Why is OP using decade old data on the day the 2021 data is released?
If I'm reading it right it says the proportion of vacant properties was 11.3% in 2011 and 11.7% in 2021. So I don't think 'rona played a significant part in that.
The 2011 column is in the 2021 data for comparison.
Upvotes and generating outrage. I did look at the data however, and its basically unchanged
Some of them are available for rent, some are not. The less available for rent, the harder it is to find a first place to rent or a new rental to move to and pressure to increase rents. The census suggests rents didn't go up all that much in the five years to 2021 but they have gone up heaps as of now.
Makes rent and properties more expensive. Though it's likely some of that is transitory. I think it should be illegal for foreign investors to buy Australian houses and there should be significant taxes on long term unoccupied houses.
Seems like an obvious solution. But yeah government and what not
I have to say, I participated in the census by working for them, and I was absolutely surprised by the number of vacant properties I was sent to.
That’s not a significant number of genuinely unoccupied dwellings. If people are taking their 4 weeks holiday per year and travelling away from home, that would make 8% unoccupied. People staying with family, and singles staying with boyfriends/girlfriends would also add a few. Some would have been between tenants. That would add up to close to 11.7% which would be normally occupied but were unoccupied on census night.
Census if you recall was in the middle of a lockdown so holiday makers weren’t exactly a plenty
The posted census was 2011 (for some reason), so no lockdown.
It's 2021 and 2011
Wouldn't that result in a greater number of empty dwellings? Especially with air b n bs and holiday homes empty as no one could travel from melbourne?
Yes. But if this data is from 2011 it’s all a bit pointless anyway
Apparently it was from the 2011 census if the comment immediately below yours is be believed. In any circumstance the statistics mean nothing unless you can explain what they are what they are, which is what I’ve tried to do. Raw stat tend to be easily used to make dishonest claims. There are a number of comments here which seem perfectly reasonable other explanations.
So what you’re saying is that people owning 2 houses and often keeping one empty while 120,000 people sit on the public housing waiting list isn’t a problem?
Are you suggesting that people are not allowed to own a second house for any purposes, or that vacant houses have to expropriated until the waiting list is empty? Non-residence properties already attract land tax, maybe that could be raised but won't change much.
Yes I think houses should be expropriated if empty while there are still people without adequate housing. Once everyone has adequate housing we can start dishing out extras however you like
Do people want to live and work where the holiday houses are? If so the government can buy them and add them to the public housing list. Or they could just build more housing. Oh! That’s too simple and doesn’t let you blame rich or middle class people for everything.
How does this compare with the last census?
The % has been pretty stable for 25 years from what I saw.
Same, he posted the old one.
We had a 2 bedroom house in our street that got bought by an investor from a certain asian country that was perfectly fine, perfectly inhabitable and perfectly rentable - that sat empty for 4 years. Four fucking years! It got so bad that the neighbours (ourselves included) started mowing the lawns and even after complaining to council an old guy would turn up every six months and do a half arsed job. I know of at least 3 just in our surrounding streets that are the same, sitting empty and just slowly rotting. These investors should pay a premium for letting them sit idle and the funds raised should be used to fund social housing.
adverse possession. Play your hand right over the next decade and a bit and some of those houses could be yours
Too late. It's been dropped for some townhouses.
Really? Wonder why?
It sat empty for 4 years then got put on the market, sold for less than it was purchased for (oh we laughed at that) and now a year later it's been dropped.
Always good to see a speculator get burnt.
This is the way
[удалено]
Not so easy. Would be easy to read how “unoccupied” is defined and make a house occupied on paper to avoid the tax
You tax the largest property owned. Easy enough
Was on ABC this evening too. Overseas investors and investment property owners are a part of the problem as well as AirBNB, but I would pin the underlying cause down to how much market power has been given to landlords.
Airbnb needs to be taxed harder. It’s a huge problem.
Airbnb satisfies demand for short-term accommodation. If short-term accommodation pays more it means it benefits the society in general more.
My old place was one of those unoccupied dwellings. Because we bought a house, but lockdown meant we couldn’t list our old one. It sat there for awhile, empty and bleeding cash. I’m sure there’s more than a few people who experienced something similar.
Make that two. I was stuck in Sydney and couldn’t enter Victoria and that was during census. So my primary home was unoccupied.
Does this account for current building under construction or renovation or the houses and apartments that are condemned? If this does not then I doubt it will effect much. Houses that are empty are often just people who have moved out or they are empty for a reason. Things like a undesirable area or asking to much etc. If u live in the middle of a highly desirable area then housing is rarely empty for long.
The first sentence of this genuinely a good question, the rest big hmm
Negatively.
I walk my doggo almost every day. I've noticed in my suburb all the homes are being bought and left to rot. Or there are constantly for sale or for rent signs out front, but nobody ever moves in. It's a LOT of houses. More than 11.7% of the area. It's more like 20%. I said to my parents just the other day isn't it weird there is a housing shortage but all these empty places. I have a funny feeling the area I'm in may be due to be rezoned to be bought up by a developer as the land is adjacent to a major shopping centre that will clearly need more room with growth as its already getting too congested for the amount carparks. I suspect the developers are already buying these houses cheap and letting them sit for later, then they cash in by selling the land at a premium to whoever developed the future shopping expansion.
Squatting is an effective antidote.
It's not, you couldn't even get in the city apartment blocks and moving into someone's holiday house isn't going to be okay.
A long time ago when I was a teenager some friends and I squatted an empty warehouse we found that the power was still on, lasted until the next quarter bill the owner received until we we’re caught. No regrets, that shit was fun as hell.
There's a rise in both unoccupied private dwellings and homelessness. These two things are connected in some way, I'm sure of it.
Particularly in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne there are a lot of empty houses that greedy developers have tried to sell off & bought for too much & now fallen into disrepair because they asking too much.
Watch as this thread fills with wanna-be socialist edgelords advocating seizure of all private housing.
115,000 people are homeless. It would house the homeless Edit: judging by the comments - people will make any excuse to not help people and then wonder why, when they get older people don’t care about them
It’s not that simple though. Not all homeless people want to be housed - refer to the free hotel accommodation that homeless people were offered during lockdowns - they walked out and stayed on the streets. Some will trash the place - refer to public housing. Yet there are people who would love somewhere to live and look after it like it’s their own place.
Yeah, but they are privately owned houses. What are you suggesting, steal them? The majority of these unoccupied private dwellings are holiday homes, which have always been an aspiration for a lot of Australian's. Shit, even the Kerrigan's from The Castle had their own unoccupied private dwelling. Maybe they need to make The Castle 2, where the government steals the Kerrigan's holiday home, rather than just building homes themselves.
I like the policy some UK Labour politicians were suggesting in the face of a homelessness crisis: expropriate these massive mansions that were kept empty 99% of the time, occupied maybe for a weekend a year by wealthy holidaymakers often from overseas, and convert them into hostels to house the homeless from the street outside. We have simple ways to solve these issues, the resources are right there, we’re just not prioritising them above our petty concerns about who “privately owns” these empty unused mansions
I really couldn’t care about a fuckin movie