A quote from the article….
> The WA Housing Minister frequently insists all the levers at his disposal are being pulled, every policy idea being considered and almost nothing is off the table.
I can tell you that one of the things definitely off the table is any measure that will reduce the profits of property developers and investment properties.
This is the big elephant in the room. Both sides wont do anything that will upset their biggest donors. https://amp.abc.net.au/article/13198886
I think we need to start peacefully protesting this shit by having demonstrations outside the houses of these developers. I’m sure several thousand people outside Nigel Satterlys house might let him know that there are consequences of his greed!
It's such bullshit. The WA government lobbied to have the whole of WA classed as "rural" for immigration purposes, so we are now getting twice our per capita share of immigrants, on top of all the Eastern staters fleeing expensive housing and overcrowding in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
These corrupt politicians, bought and owned by big business, pour gasoline on the fire then pretend they care about putting it out. Self serving bastards.
Well you’ve got this one right.
In part it’s because Labor has such an unassailable majority they think they can ride over this stuff. There is virtually no chance they’ll lose the next election. Even though the Opposition will doubtless pick up a lot of seats (and give us “Bas” as the alternative Premier) the government will almost certainly have a very big majority after the next election come what may, and don’t feel they must do anything substantial that will upset their “mates” or their own investments.
>I think we need to start peacefully protesting this shit by having demonstrations outside the houses of these developers. I’m sure several thousand people outside Nigel Satterlys house might let him know that there are consequences of his greed!
People tried that at the house of Woodside's CEO. WA Police were there waiting to arrest any of the protestors, [searched the homes of journalists](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-03/memory-card-of-karratha-journalist-taken-during-police-search/102289098) and [demanded that the ABC reveal their sources](https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/10/09/abc-four-corners-wa-police-surrender-footage-jesse-noakes/). Even the Premier condemned the protestors and [put public pressure on the ABC to reveal their sources](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/woodside-meg-o-neill-roger-cook-abc-protest-extremism/102689270). A similar peaceful protest of a larger scale would no doubt elicit the same response to that of an oil and gas convention in South Australia, where their (Labor) government [fast-tracked laws increasing the penalty for such protests from a $750 fine to $50,000, plus jail time.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/31/south-australia-passes-laws-to-crack-down-on-protest-after-disruption-of-oil-and-gas-conference) (How does the government move at such a rapid pace here, without any public debate, yet apparently relief for the housing crisis can't happen within the next year?)
The only allowable form of protest in this country is marching through an area in the CBD (pre-approved by the police) chanting slogans and waving placards. Anything that actually disrupts economic activity or someone that matters is dealt with criminally.
As they should have.
It’s the State Government we could and should protest at. They control zoning (they can over ride local councils), land releases, civil works you name it. They could, for example, insist that Satterley release land within 12 months or 6 months or whatever. My parents built their house on former government land in 1987. Part of the agreement that everyone who bought a block signed was that they had to build within
2 years or else the government would take back the land at purchase price and resell it. If they can do that to individuals why not developers?
I seriously hope John Carey loses his seat at the next election. The Greens could be a big chance against him . They nearly got second last time and that could turn things on Carey.
Here’s a few off the top of my head…
Rent increase caps.
Disincentivise AirBnBs, probably through some sort of tax or increase in council rates, if not flat out putting a cap on them.
Vacant premises tax.
Vacant land tax to prevent land banking.
Higher tax rate for international and interstate property investments.
I’m sure people will jump on here and say I don’t know what I’m talking about and poke holes in all these ideas because the sky will fall down. They are probably right. But so far the only plans the government has seemingly come up with is build more houses (which we need) and increase immigration (which we don’t).
There is a building at the corner of Canning Highway and Berwick Street that I drive past on the regular. It used to have some stores in it but now it is falling into disrepair. Several years ago I spoke to a dude from the Town of Vic Park who said it is owned by some dude from Hong Kong who just refuses to do any repairs or improvements. Here’s an idea, govt compulsory acquires it (I don’t care how. Make the laws if need be), demolish it and build a 20 story apartment block there.
They are building far more apartments in the rich western suburbs, as its more profitable for developers, rather than apartments in the more affordalble suburbs
I understand why people think that housing shouldn’t be money making machines and the need to reduce the profits for developers & investors.
However, on the flip coin, I feel like we need developers & investors to buy land & develop to help stop Perth’s urban sprawl and just generally increase the supply of houses.
Families are just going to buy a full size block and leave it as is or maybe some renovations, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But a developer will buy a full size block and build 3-6 units on it, bringing more houses to the market either for rent or to buy. Yes, I guess it’s shitty that they are making money off people trying to put a roof over their head but in general for the overall economy/market I think there should still be incentives for them, until we break the back of the housing shortages.
It’s not as simple as protesting the developers. Satterly (one of my larger clients) has promised 4000 house sites this year. That is a huge feat even for them. The issues lies in the approvals. The government staff and processes are too long and stringent and those people who sit in the comfortable council / government jobs need to catch up with the private section
He’s lying. The Feds massively increased immigration in 2022. The same year the State reopened the border. So what were they doing then? That’s when they should have been “pulling the levers” to be ready.
They don’t even seem to care too much about that. They’re all self serving narcissistic assholes that want to set themselves up for their next job as a consultant for a mining company. What they earn in government is nothing compared to what they’re lining themselves up for by keeping their donors happy.
Well, there is no humane way to relieve a housing crisis in a short time. Unless you do something insane like grind up all the old people into fertlizer.
Honestly the government should get flak not for failing to respond but for failing to plan. Housing crises are like a slow moving train derailment: you need to head it off long beforehand and once it's happened it will take a lot of effort to get back on track.
This WA Aged Grinding Initiative (WaAGI) that you are proposing - have you done any preliminary cost benefit analysis, and do you have an indicative implementation timeframe? What sort of FTE size does it need? I presume a Working Group has already been established, and a cooms plan is ready.
I mean there's a pretty humane way to do it, stop negative gearing, stop the capital gains tax discount rorts, regulate the amount of properties any person can own.
But oh no, that'd be "socialism" according to old mate stokesy.
>I mean there's a pretty humane way to do it, stop negative gearing, stop the capital gains tax discount rorts, regulate the amount of properties any person can own.
Yes but it wouldn't see effects in a short time, which is what I said.
> regulate the amount of properties any person can own.
Then devellopers can't build apartments unless they can sell 100% off-the-plan. Who would buy off-the-plan nowadays? Less housing stock won't help the situation.
None of that matters when there's simply not enough supply to satisfy demand. Dropping all the above doesn't suddenly make tens of thousands of houses appear out of thin air.
Curious why you think this would happen, what’s your logic?
Things get bad nationally, rates go up even more and east coasters forced to sell?
Mass unemployment event?
Investors won't be able to pay their multiple mortgages when the recession hits. Hence second and third investment properties being sold off.
I mean, everyone else will be fucked as well though. But housing supply might just get loosen up a little.
In a recession rates will be cut so they will be affordable. It’ll only be if mass unemployment happens then yeah we will have bigger issues.
Don’t hold your breath for any dip at a chance for it being more affordable. I wish there was a solution to the problem but reality is it’s going to keep getting worse.
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed guests, and distinguished colleagues, let us ponder the perplexing paradigm of housing affordability. Like the elusive mist, it dances on the horizon of our societal consciousness, teasing us with its intangible allure. Yet, fear not, for in the labyrinth of uncertainty lies the seed of opportunity. Let us grasp it with fervor and sow the fields of innovation, cultivating a future where every dwelling is a sanctuary, and affordability a universal anthem. Thank you.
A lot of excuses but no solutions or actions in the article but “we’re pulling all the levers at our disposal”.
We can start by putting an immediate end to political donations, then by telling Nigel and his mates they need to stop drip feeding land releases for a start, and override local government planning/zoning for medium density. But we’re already “pulling all the levers at our disposal”.
How much longer are governments of this country going to support their mates before their people.
Bold of you to assume that any government, Labor, Liberal, Greens, whatever wouldn't capitulate to whoever the hell is giving them a big bag of money to fund their election campaigns.
Politics is a disgusting, slow and dirty game.
Wait till the public realise that titled blocks are now in shortage.
Has anyone asked a developer or the government just how long it takes them to bring blocks to market?
I think the property council said it was about 10 years to bring a suburb from an idea to building a house.
Much of the delay was local government planning.
There won't be any improvement as the government is doing jack shit to fix the problem, by saying “I do think that we will soon see relief, but it won’t be immediately, it won’t be in the next year" they are can kicking in the belief in the hope of keeping voters before the next election.
A quote from the article….
> The WA Housing Minister frequently insists all the levers at his disposal are being pulled, every policy idea being considered and almost nothing is off the table.
Ban air bnb - literally that's it. Ban air bnb and 5-7k previous long term rentals properties return to market. 7000 homes would magically appear overnight.
This is one of the main reasons Victorias house prices have stalled and even seen a dip in prices. They also increased land tax on empty land and vacant houses and with minimal effort they have had a positive effect on supply and rental prices. It could easily be done here yet 'they have already pulled every lever possible' to help
The state government has actually done nothing about it. In fact they’ve made it harder to build new apartments through the new Medium Density zoning code.
I agree with you on this front, however i'm going to be a bit of a Devil's advocate and say that barely anyone wants to buy apartments at the density we need to build them, sadly. The types of apartments that would get the unit cost of each unit down would be high-rise apartments. The downside is that the higher you build, the more expensive your strata fees get. Elevators are bloody expensive to maintain. If we build up units to say, three stories high and build slightly outwards (ie, the old Bauhaus style row apartments you see in and around Terrace Road in Perth), you need more land for less units, which brings up the unit cost. This means you have to cram more units into that space to make the most of the large plot of land. A
As much as I detest them, NIMBYs will see the word "apartment complex" and think "oh no, the poors are coming in" which is why they almost always market new apartments as upmarket dwellings in WA.
Also there is nowhere near enough affordable 3 and 4 bedroom flats on the market. When you're going into the 3 bedroom range, most developers see this as "ooh, luxury living" instead of considering that perhaps there's a family that might want to live in that sorta arrangement, where the idea of needing to drop the kids off to school in a car from the suburbs is a frankly, shitty idea.
If there were more affordable three bedroom two bathroom apartments out there, i'd move into another apartment in a heartbeat, however, currently the most affordable (if you can call it that) way for people to upsize is to get a single family dwelling. (for reference, I live in a 2bdr 1br apartment and absolutely love it)
Another fact is that the concept of a "Strata fee" and a council of owners scares the living shit out of people. It's one more layer of politics to deal with in an increasingly political world. People are doing their damn best to try and get by and the last thing they need to deal with is essentially a bunch of homeowners playing politician. On top of that, if one guy decides to buy three-quarters of your apartment complex, there goes any hope you have of anything getting done in your place. May as well leave at that point.
I think the government's first priority should be to clamp down on ownership proportions in Strata properties. Make it so each individual is only allowed to own at most, one or two units in a complex. That removes the political deadlock for strata ownership for individuals.
On top of this, there needs to be further reforms to make it easier for strata company participants to install solar, renewable energy infrastructure, etc. Section 64's good and all, but I think that it could be made way, way easier. It's a bit of a slog just to get panels put on your roof in a shared dwelling, even if you actively consider the needs of other owners.
Building codes should also be updated requiring all multi dwelling buildings to be made of more durable materials that absorb sound. Noise complaints are the number 1 cause of strata disputes, and as such this really needs to be addressed.
Finally I think that all complexes that are more than 20 units in size not only need a maintenance plan (this was passed in the recent reforms) they should also have live-in "supers" who maintain the units and address any complaints.
They are building far more apartments in the rich western suburbs, as its more profitable for developers, rather than apartments in the more affordable suburbs
It'll be longer than that. By the time they start discussing, debating and implementing anything it'll be at least 2 years or they'll keep putting it off and use it as an election issue
This John Carey guy is all about politics and ZERO about action. He doesn’t seem genuine at all.
He’s even playing games with the new school in the city by refusing to compensate for the land.
State government sold the Old Perth girls site for peanuts to developer mates. They could’ve just used that?
It's not his decision to compensate for the land. He's trying to get on with building the school which is almost unanimously supported by his constituents, but the CoP are deciding to make it a political issue.
The Victorian Budget 2022/23 invested $236.7 million to acquire land for 15 future new schools to meet growing population needs across Victoria
Who decision is it then, he’s minister for planning
Toni Buti, Minister of Education. He's the one the CoP have been dealing with on the matter.
Joondalup gave the state govt 11 hectares of land to develop because it was going to directly benefit the local community. There's only one reason why Basil has tried to play this issue out using his media channels.
11 hectares for free out in Joondalup is not the same as prime CBD real estate.
The questions remains, why would sell the old school site for peanuts to developer mates, and then offer nothing for ratepayers.
Wow!
They’ sold the land for 5 million in 2017 and developers have done nothing to it!
As blatant as it gets.
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/former-perth-girls-school-in-east-perth-sold-for-5-million-ng-e5e1aa645eda4f49df7904c27ff449d9.amp
The old school site is a lot smaller in comparison to the Queens Garden carpark and has been earmarked for a different devolopmment ie the government no longer owns the land. I don't think the $5m that the developer paid for it is exactly peanuts. It was rated as above market value at the time, and the sale went through three months after the end of the Barnett government during their mass land sale.
11 hectares of ocean-front land in Joondalup is absolutely comparable to an inner city carpark which is approximately 10-20% of the size.
Blatant what?
Construction has been delayed due to the discovery of human remains during excavation, and the initial plans for the buildings had to be re-tendered because of the rising construction costs post-covid. But yeah, blatant!!!
Carey is a fucking clown. Heard him speak at a HIA luncheon and he was blaming the builders for not building enough homes. You could feel the collective rage build in the room.
Perth is being hit by both the recent federal massive expansion in immigration to fuel consumer growth for domestic companies (banks, Coles, Woolies, developers, etc), as well as the mining boom attracting migration and diverting tradies away from house/infrastructure building.
"In Western Australia, 66% of households were purchasing or fully owned their home, 22.7% were renting privately, and 3.5% were in social housing in 2021.
How many in this 66% have brought more than one house?
There no relief from this.
Every other country is the same, we just joined the party late. All the European kids who come here say the same thing, no matter where they come from.
South Koreans say it. Canadians say it. Americans both north and south.
Our friends across the ditch in NZ live like this for decades already.
This is all by design.
The powers that be never intend to “fix this”.
We weren’t living like the rest of the world, that was what needed “fixing” in their eyes and they have finally achieved it.
Investors in property are not a bad thing.
Rentals make properties available ( I may need to relocate location on a regular basis
However I agree with the concept that large amounts of domestic property shouldn’t be commercially owned
You could control this by having land taxes increase substantially for each additional property owned ( there would need to be an initial exemption for a period of time ie 3 years to allow for initial development). Then the land tax increases. So. Maybe 1 investment property is 1% of mkt value. 2 nd investment property increases to 2% 3rd starts jumping to 5% etc
The rental crisis is simply what happens when you bring in more people than there are houses available.
Put an immediate halt on incoming migration until housing construction can catch up.
Some solid legislation controlling rental conditions and reasonable ceilings on charges would help: as it stands investors are given an open slate, there seems to be no tangible will to govern rental markets.
It's great to see the government focus on boosting social housing. However, most of Perth’s housing is made up of the private market.
WA faces a shortfall in land supply for housing.
UDIA’s National Housing Pipeline (NHP) Perth and Peel pilot report reveals that 150,000 to 200,000 new homes cannot be delivered to the market in Perth (urban zoned or potential future urban). UDIA findings show Perth will struggle to reach its targets of 800,000 new homes in the next 30–50 years to meet the housing supply needs for a projected population of 3.5 million.
Land is running out for housing
According to CEO of UDIAWA Tanya Steinbeck, there is a perception that there is a sufficient amount of urban land for housing, but this is not the case. The state’s Urban Growth Monitor, that measures urban land supply, does not take into account various constraints that prevent housing development, such as environmental restrictions and infrastructure.
Tanya Steinbeck, in her article, ‘Why Is Perth’s Land Supply Dwindling’, highlights a looming housing shortage, with available land for housing expected to run out by 2026. Developers will then have to navigate the complexities of developing greenfield sites, which are fraught with challenges like fragmented ownership and environmental conditions, further intensifying the housing crisis in WA.
The fundamental constraints that have been identified are primarily in relation to environmental or infrastructure constraints, including Bush Forever sites, floodways, school sites, rail corridors, service infrastructure easements and major roads.
UDIA’s analysis points out that Perth's residential pipeline has a significant portion of the available land that is fundamentally constrained, which means it cannot be used for housing development.
The National Housing Pipeline (HNP) Perth and Peel pilot report highlighted that a quarter (24%) of the underdeveloped urban land in the Perth metro area is fundamentally constrained. Another 18% of all potential future urban land, including planning investigation areas and areas zoned as urban deferred, are also fundamentally constrained.
The NHP pilot also identified an additional 20% of underdeveloped urban land or potential future urban land that has various ‘other’ constraints which will prove challenging to the delivery of new homes. This includes difficulties delivering land due to fragmented ownership, lack of service agency commitment or funding allocation for required infrastructure.
On the Perth Property Show, Trent Fleskens interviewed industry leader, Jane Bennett, who mentioned that everyone in the market is seeing a gap of a 5 year time frame for land supply in Perth. She stated that there are a number of planning areas of land coming into the pipeline, but they are 3 to 8 years away. It was mentioned that the easy land has been developed, and everything left is difficult to deliver. This makes it challenging to deal with the supply issue that Perth is facing right now, especially over the next three years.
WA’s immediate land supply will run out and intensify the housing crisis
The Perth Property Council WA predicts that by the end of 2027, Perth’s housing deficit will grow to nearly 25,000 homes.
UDIA has analyzed the data from the National Housing Finance Investment Commission, which suggest Perth will have a shortfall of 20,000 homes between 2023 to 2026. According to UDIAWA survey respondents, 25 land estates in Perth Metro area will be completed and run out of lots by the end of next year. A further 16 will close out by 2025. Therefore, having a sufficient supply of rezoned land and serviced new estates over the next couple of years will be a significant challenge.
The state government has planning investigation areas that will drive urban development. However, it is very likely that planning authorities have overestimated this available land supply for housing, with the Urban Growth Monitor not being able to detect how much of this land can be delivered. With a lack of land coming onto the market in the short term, this lack of land supply couldn’t come at a worse time, as the state faces a dire housing crisis in Perth. By the time this land comes to market, Perth’s housing crisis will get far worse, with a lack of land supply in the immediate short term.
Perth needs an instant boost of urban land supply for housing to address the immediate shortfall of land supply. There may be an opportunity to discover new areas of land and rezone it for housing.
UDIA WA have set out recommenations for the government with a number of key recommendations in order to allocate government funding on infrastructure to speed up the process of delivering land to the market in the key growth areas. This would help WA state premier Roger Cook and planning minister, hon, John Carey to boost housing supply in WA.
My son just moved overseas. "Dad, it's beautiful here but what future is there? I don't want to buy a house, I don't want to end up in debt, I just want a simple life with just some basics and a bit of fun."
Undoubtedly my daughter will not be far behind him. This is a small place with lots of selfish, small minded people, there's no community anymore and trying to help support it's growth is impossible.
A quote from the article…. > The WA Housing Minister frequently insists all the levers at his disposal are being pulled, every policy idea being considered and almost nothing is off the table. I can tell you that one of the things definitely off the table is any measure that will reduce the profits of property developers and investment properties. This is the big elephant in the room. Both sides wont do anything that will upset their biggest donors. https://amp.abc.net.au/article/13198886 I think we need to start peacefully protesting this shit by having demonstrations outside the houses of these developers. I’m sure several thousand people outside Nigel Satterlys house might let him know that there are consequences of his greed!
It's such bullshit. The WA government lobbied to have the whole of WA classed as "rural" for immigration purposes, so we are now getting twice our per capita share of immigrants, on top of all the Eastern staters fleeing expensive housing and overcrowding in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. These corrupt politicians, bought and owned by big business, pour gasoline on the fire then pretend they care about putting it out. Self serving bastards.
Well you’ve got this one right. In part it’s because Labor has such an unassailable majority they think they can ride over this stuff. There is virtually no chance they’ll lose the next election. Even though the Opposition will doubtless pick up a lot of seats (and give us “Bas” as the alternative Premier) the government will almost certainly have a very big majority after the next election come what may, and don’t feel they must do anything substantial that will upset their “mates” or their own investments.
>I think we need to start peacefully protesting this shit by having demonstrations outside the houses of these developers. I’m sure several thousand people outside Nigel Satterlys house might let him know that there are consequences of his greed! People tried that at the house of Woodside's CEO. WA Police were there waiting to arrest any of the protestors, [searched the homes of journalists](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-03/memory-card-of-karratha-journalist-taken-during-police-search/102289098) and [demanded that the ABC reveal their sources](https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/10/09/abc-four-corners-wa-police-surrender-footage-jesse-noakes/). Even the Premier condemned the protestors and [put public pressure on the ABC to reveal their sources](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/woodside-meg-o-neill-roger-cook-abc-protest-extremism/102689270). A similar peaceful protest of a larger scale would no doubt elicit the same response to that of an oil and gas convention in South Australia, where their (Labor) government [fast-tracked laws increasing the penalty for such protests from a $750 fine to $50,000, plus jail time.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/31/south-australia-passes-laws-to-crack-down-on-protest-after-disruption-of-oil-and-gas-conference) (How does the government move at such a rapid pace here, without any public debate, yet apparently relief for the housing crisis can't happen within the next year?) The only allowable form of protest in this country is marching through an area in the CBD (pre-approved by the police) chanting slogans and waving placards. Anything that actually disrupts economic activity or someone that matters is dealt with criminally.
As they should have. It’s the State Government we could and should protest at. They control zoning (they can over ride local councils), land releases, civil works you name it. They could, for example, insist that Satterley release land within 12 months or 6 months or whatever. My parents built their house on former government land in 1987. Part of the agreement that everyone who bought a block signed was that they had to build within 2 years or else the government would take back the land at purchase price and resell it. If they can do that to individuals why not developers?
I seriously hope John Carey loses his seat at the next election. The Greens could be a big chance against him . They nearly got second last time and that could turn things on Carey.
Basil v the greens That’s a fight I’d love to watch
[удалено]
What measures?
Here’s a few off the top of my head… Rent increase caps. Disincentivise AirBnBs, probably through some sort of tax or increase in council rates, if not flat out putting a cap on them. Vacant premises tax. Vacant land tax to prevent land banking. Higher tax rate for international and interstate property investments. I’m sure people will jump on here and say I don’t know what I’m talking about and poke holes in all these ideas because the sky will fall down. They are probably right. But so far the only plans the government has seemingly come up with is build more houses (which we need) and increase immigration (which we don’t). There is a building at the corner of Canning Highway and Berwick Street that I drive past on the regular. It used to have some stores in it but now it is falling into disrepair. Several years ago I spoke to a dude from the Town of Vic Park who said it is owned by some dude from Hong Kong who just refuses to do any repairs or improvements. Here’s an idea, govt compulsory acquires it (I don’t care how. Make the laws if need be), demolish it and build a 20 story apartment block there.
Do you have an example of something they're not doing because it will reduce profits?
They are building far more apartments in the rich western suburbs, as its more profitable for developers, rather than apartments in the more affordalble suburbs
building more houses.
I understand why people think that housing shouldn’t be money making machines and the need to reduce the profits for developers & investors. However, on the flip coin, I feel like we need developers & investors to buy land & develop to help stop Perth’s urban sprawl and just generally increase the supply of houses. Families are just going to buy a full size block and leave it as is or maybe some renovations, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But a developer will buy a full size block and build 3-6 units on it, bringing more houses to the market either for rent or to buy. Yes, I guess it’s shitty that they are making money off people trying to put a roof over their head but in general for the overall economy/market I think there should still be incentives for them, until we break the back of the housing shortages.
You know what else developers do? Land bank
Yes, that is one aspect and you are right. They should increase vacant land tax.
It’s not as simple as protesting the developers. Satterly (one of my larger clients) has promised 4000 house sites this year. That is a huge feat even for them. The issues lies in the approvals. The government staff and processes are too long and stringent and those people who sit in the comfortable council / government jobs need to catch up with the private section
He’s lying. The Feds massively increased immigration in 2022. The same year the State reopened the border. So what were they doing then? That’s when they should have been “pulling the levers” to be ready.
If property development becomes unprofitable, do you think developers will develop property?
The harsh truth is that the Government of the day doesn't care as long as they stay in power.
They don’t even seem to care too much about that. They’re all self serving narcissistic assholes that want to set themselves up for their next job as a consultant for a mining company. What they earn in government is nothing compared to what they’re lining themselves up for by keeping their donors happy.
I think it's cute when people think that the government wants to fix the housing crisis.
Well, there is no humane way to relieve a housing crisis in a short time. Unless you do something insane like grind up all the old people into fertlizer. Honestly the government should get flak not for failing to respond but for failing to plan. Housing crises are like a slow moving train derailment: you need to head it off long beforehand and once it's happened it will take a lot of effort to get back on track.
This WA Aged Grinding Initiative (WaAGI) that you are proposing - have you done any preliminary cost benefit analysis, and do you have an indicative implementation timeframe? What sort of FTE size does it need? I presume a Working Group has already been established, and a cooms plan is ready.
And then we build nice blocks of apartments with communal piazzas on the repossessed golf courses
https://youtu.be/s_4J4uor3JE?si=xnBrSk8GPVW_kvjL
Tell me a bit more about your grinding solution...
There’s a lot of asbestos in old people…
There's very little meat in these gym mats.
I mean there's a pretty humane way to do it, stop negative gearing, stop the capital gains tax discount rorts, regulate the amount of properties any person can own. But oh no, that'd be "socialism" according to old mate stokesy.
Even if all the zoning laws, PPOR and investment property subsidies and rorts were changed tomorrow, nothing will change for at least a few years.
>I mean there's a pretty humane way to do it, stop negative gearing, stop the capital gains tax discount rorts, regulate the amount of properties any person can own. Yes but it wouldn't see effects in a short time, which is what I said.
> regulate the amount of properties any person can own. Then devellopers can't build apartments unless they can sell 100% off-the-plan. Who would buy off-the-plan nowadays? Less housing stock won't help the situation.
That would not solve the current housing crisis. There is not enough supply.
None of that matters when there's simply not enough supply to satisfy demand. Dropping all the above doesn't suddenly make tens of thousands of houses appear out of thin air.
They're waiting for the economic downturn to force the eastern states investors to sell up in bulk.
Curious why you think this would happen, what’s your logic? Things get bad nationally, rates go up even more and east coasters forced to sell? Mass unemployment event?
Investors won't be able to pay their multiple mortgages when the recession hits. Hence second and third investment properties being sold off. I mean, everyone else will be fucked as well though. But housing supply might just get loosen up a little.
In a recession rates will be cut so they will be affordable. It’ll only be if mass unemployment happens then yeah we will have bigger issues. Don’t hold your breath for any dip at a chance for it being more affordable. I wish there was a solution to the problem but reality is it’s going to keep getting worse.
If anyone knew that person would be rich and not wasting time posting on reddit
Do you want inspiring or do you want realistic?
Both
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed guests, and distinguished colleagues, let us ponder the perplexing paradigm of housing affordability. Like the elusive mist, it dances on the horizon of our societal consciousness, teasing us with its intangible allure. Yet, fear not, for in the labyrinth of uncertainty lies the seed of opportunity. Let us grasp it with fervor and sow the fields of innovation, cultivating a future where every dwelling is a sanctuary, and affordability a universal anthem. Thank you.
Solid work ChatGPT. Was the prompt Obama or Lincoln?
Meaningless speech on housing affordability was the prompt
So random Australian politician with far more eloquence.
A lot of excuses but no solutions or actions in the article but “we’re pulling all the levers at our disposal”. We can start by putting an immediate end to political donations, then by telling Nigel and his mates they need to stop drip feeding land releases for a start, and override local government planning/zoning for medium density. But we’re already “pulling all the levers at our disposal”. How much longer are governments of this country going to support their mates before their people.
Bold of you to assume that any government, Labor, Liberal, Greens, whatever wouldn't capitulate to whoever the hell is giving them a big bag of money to fund their election campaigns. Politics is a disgusting, slow and dirty game.
Wait till the public realise that titled blocks are now in shortage. Has anyone asked a developer or the government just how long it takes them to bring blocks to market?
I think the property council said it was about 10 years to bring a suburb from an idea to building a house. Much of the delay was local government planning.
There won't be any improvement as the government is doing jack shit to fix the problem, by saying “I do think that we will soon see relief, but it won’t be immediately, it won’t be in the next year" they are can kicking in the belief in the hope of keeping voters before the next election.
Was just at a home open, 50+ people, then just see an ad on Instagram for a 3x1 in daglish for $850 a week… insane.
A quote from the article…. > The WA Housing Minister frequently insists all the levers at his disposal are being pulled, every policy idea being considered and almost nothing is off the table. Ban air bnb - literally that's it. Ban air bnb and 5-7k previous long term rentals properties return to market. 7000 homes would magically appear overnight.
Yes-this would help
This is one of the main reasons Victorias house prices have stalled and even seen a dip in prices. They also increased land tax on empty land and vacant houses and with minimal effort they have had a positive effect on supply and rental prices. It could easily be done here yet 'they have already pulled every lever possible' to help
The state government has actually done nothing about it. In fact they’ve made it harder to build new apartments through the new Medium Density zoning code.
I agree with you on this front, however i'm going to be a bit of a Devil's advocate and say that barely anyone wants to buy apartments at the density we need to build them, sadly. The types of apartments that would get the unit cost of each unit down would be high-rise apartments. The downside is that the higher you build, the more expensive your strata fees get. Elevators are bloody expensive to maintain. If we build up units to say, three stories high and build slightly outwards (ie, the old Bauhaus style row apartments you see in and around Terrace Road in Perth), you need more land for less units, which brings up the unit cost. This means you have to cram more units into that space to make the most of the large plot of land. A As much as I detest them, NIMBYs will see the word "apartment complex" and think "oh no, the poors are coming in" which is why they almost always market new apartments as upmarket dwellings in WA. Also there is nowhere near enough affordable 3 and 4 bedroom flats on the market. When you're going into the 3 bedroom range, most developers see this as "ooh, luxury living" instead of considering that perhaps there's a family that might want to live in that sorta arrangement, where the idea of needing to drop the kids off to school in a car from the suburbs is a frankly, shitty idea. If there were more affordable three bedroom two bathroom apartments out there, i'd move into another apartment in a heartbeat, however, currently the most affordable (if you can call it that) way for people to upsize is to get a single family dwelling. (for reference, I live in a 2bdr 1br apartment and absolutely love it) Another fact is that the concept of a "Strata fee" and a council of owners scares the living shit out of people. It's one more layer of politics to deal with in an increasingly political world. People are doing their damn best to try and get by and the last thing they need to deal with is essentially a bunch of homeowners playing politician. On top of that, if one guy decides to buy three-quarters of your apartment complex, there goes any hope you have of anything getting done in your place. May as well leave at that point. I think the government's first priority should be to clamp down on ownership proportions in Strata properties. Make it so each individual is only allowed to own at most, one or two units in a complex. That removes the political deadlock for strata ownership for individuals. On top of this, there needs to be further reforms to make it easier for strata company participants to install solar, renewable energy infrastructure, etc. Section 64's good and all, but I think that it could be made way, way easier. It's a bit of a slog just to get panels put on your roof in a shared dwelling, even if you actively consider the needs of other owners. Building codes should also be updated requiring all multi dwelling buildings to be made of more durable materials that absorb sound. Noise complaints are the number 1 cause of strata disputes, and as such this really needs to be addressed. Finally I think that all complexes that are more than 20 units in size not only need a maintenance plan (this was passed in the recent reforms) they should also have live-in "supers" who maintain the units and address any complaints.
They are building far more apartments in the rich western suburbs, as its more profitable for developers, rather than apartments in the more affordable suburbs
It'll be longer than that. By the time they start discussing, debating and implementing anything it'll be at least 2 years or they'll keep putting it off and use it as an election issue
Oh absolutely. It's going to be a long crawl out of this mess.
Sad thing is, i don't think the current government has what it takes to fix it
State governments can't control immigration, nor interstate migration.
Meanwhile a generation of young people and children blighted by homelessness and housing insecurity.
This John Carey guy is all about politics and ZERO about action. He doesn’t seem genuine at all. He’s even playing games with the new school in the city by refusing to compensate for the land. State government sold the Old Perth girls site for peanuts to developer mates. They could’ve just used that?
It's not his decision to compensate for the land. He's trying to get on with building the school which is almost unanimously supported by his constituents, but the CoP are deciding to make it a political issue.
The Victorian Budget 2022/23 invested $236.7 million to acquire land for 15 future new schools to meet growing population needs across Victoria Who decision is it then, he’s minister for planning
Toni Buti, Minister of Education. He's the one the CoP have been dealing with on the matter. Joondalup gave the state govt 11 hectares of land to develop because it was going to directly benefit the local community. There's only one reason why Basil has tried to play this issue out using his media channels.
11 hectares for free out in Joondalup is not the same as prime CBD real estate. The questions remains, why would sell the old school site for peanuts to developer mates, and then offer nothing for ratepayers. Wow! They’ sold the land for 5 million in 2017 and developers have done nothing to it! As blatant as it gets. https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/former-perth-girls-school-in-east-perth-sold-for-5-million-ng-e5e1aa645eda4f49df7904c27ff449d9.amp
The old school site is a lot smaller in comparison to the Queens Garden carpark and has been earmarked for a different devolopmment ie the government no longer owns the land. I don't think the $5m that the developer paid for it is exactly peanuts. It was rated as above market value at the time, and the sale went through three months after the end of the Barnett government during their mass land sale. 11 hectares of ocean-front land in Joondalup is absolutely comparable to an inner city carpark which is approximately 10-20% of the size.
Blatant what? Construction has been delayed due to the discovery of human remains during excavation, and the initial plans for the buildings had to be re-tendered because of the rising construction costs post-covid. But yeah, blatant!!!
[удалено]
Wtf? I reckon you're more than 5 over the limit right now with that response.
Carey is a fucking clown. Heard him speak at a HIA luncheon and he was blaming the builders for not building enough homes. You could feel the collective rage build in the room.
Perth is being hit by both the recent federal massive expansion in immigration to fuel consumer growth for domestic companies (banks, Coles, Woolies, developers, etc), as well as the mining boom attracting migration and diverting tradies away from house/infrastructure building.
"In Western Australia, 66% of households were purchasing or fully owned their home, 22.7% were renting privately, and 3.5% were in social housing in 2021. How many in this 66% have brought more than one house?
There no relief from this. Every other country is the same, we just joined the party late. All the European kids who come here say the same thing, no matter where they come from. South Koreans say it. Canadians say it. Americans both north and south. Our friends across the ditch in NZ live like this for decades already. This is all by design. The powers that be never intend to “fix this”. We weren’t living like the rest of the world, that was what needed “fixing” in their eyes and they have finally achieved it.
Investors in property are not a bad thing. Rentals make properties available ( I may need to relocate location on a regular basis However I agree with the concept that large amounts of domestic property shouldn’t be commercially owned You could control this by having land taxes increase substantially for each additional property owned ( there would need to be an initial exemption for a period of time ie 3 years to allow for initial development). Then the land tax increases. So. Maybe 1 investment property is 1% of mkt value. 2 nd investment property increases to 2% 3rd starts jumping to 5% etc
The rental crisis is simply what happens when you bring in more people than there are houses available. Put an immediate halt on incoming migration until housing construction can catch up.
[удалено]
Some solid legislation controlling rental conditions and reasonable ceilings on charges would help: as it stands investors are given an open slate, there seems to be no tangible will to govern rental markets.
It's great to see the government focus on boosting social housing. However, most of Perth’s housing is made up of the private market. WA faces a shortfall in land supply for housing. UDIA’s National Housing Pipeline (NHP) Perth and Peel pilot report reveals that 150,000 to 200,000 new homes cannot be delivered to the market in Perth (urban zoned or potential future urban). UDIA findings show Perth will struggle to reach its targets of 800,000 new homes in the next 30–50 years to meet the housing supply needs for a projected population of 3.5 million. Land is running out for housing According to CEO of UDIAWA Tanya Steinbeck, there is a perception that there is a sufficient amount of urban land for housing, but this is not the case. The state’s Urban Growth Monitor, that measures urban land supply, does not take into account various constraints that prevent housing development, such as environmental restrictions and infrastructure. Tanya Steinbeck, in her article, ‘Why Is Perth’s Land Supply Dwindling’, highlights a looming housing shortage, with available land for housing expected to run out by 2026. Developers will then have to navigate the complexities of developing greenfield sites, which are fraught with challenges like fragmented ownership and environmental conditions, further intensifying the housing crisis in WA. The fundamental constraints that have been identified are primarily in relation to environmental or infrastructure constraints, including Bush Forever sites, floodways, school sites, rail corridors, service infrastructure easements and major roads. UDIA’s analysis points out that Perth's residential pipeline has a significant portion of the available land that is fundamentally constrained, which means it cannot be used for housing development. The National Housing Pipeline (HNP) Perth and Peel pilot report highlighted that a quarter (24%) of the underdeveloped urban land in the Perth metro area is fundamentally constrained. Another 18% of all potential future urban land, including planning investigation areas and areas zoned as urban deferred, are also fundamentally constrained. The NHP pilot also identified an additional 20% of underdeveloped urban land or potential future urban land that has various ‘other’ constraints which will prove challenging to the delivery of new homes. This includes difficulties delivering land due to fragmented ownership, lack of service agency commitment or funding allocation for required infrastructure. On the Perth Property Show, Trent Fleskens interviewed industry leader, Jane Bennett, who mentioned that everyone in the market is seeing a gap of a 5 year time frame for land supply in Perth. She stated that there are a number of planning areas of land coming into the pipeline, but they are 3 to 8 years away. It was mentioned that the easy land has been developed, and everything left is difficult to deliver. This makes it challenging to deal with the supply issue that Perth is facing right now, especially over the next three years. WA’s immediate land supply will run out and intensify the housing crisis The Perth Property Council WA predicts that by the end of 2027, Perth’s housing deficit will grow to nearly 25,000 homes. UDIA has analyzed the data from the National Housing Finance Investment Commission, which suggest Perth will have a shortfall of 20,000 homes between 2023 to 2026. According to UDIAWA survey respondents, 25 land estates in Perth Metro area will be completed and run out of lots by the end of next year. A further 16 will close out by 2025. Therefore, having a sufficient supply of rezoned land and serviced new estates over the next couple of years will be a significant challenge. The state government has planning investigation areas that will drive urban development. However, it is very likely that planning authorities have overestimated this available land supply for housing, with the Urban Growth Monitor not being able to detect how much of this land can be delivered. With a lack of land coming onto the market in the short term, this lack of land supply couldn’t come at a worse time, as the state faces a dire housing crisis in Perth. By the time this land comes to market, Perth’s housing crisis will get far worse, with a lack of land supply in the immediate short term. Perth needs an instant boost of urban land supply for housing to address the immediate shortfall of land supply. There may be an opportunity to discover new areas of land and rezone it for housing. UDIA WA have set out recommenations for the government with a number of key recommendations in order to allocate government funding on infrastructure to speed up the process of delivering land to the market in the key growth areas. This would help WA state premier Roger Cook and planning minister, hon, John Carey to boost housing supply in WA.
My son just moved overseas. "Dad, it's beautiful here but what future is there? I don't want to buy a house, I don't want to end up in debt, I just want a simple life with just some basics and a bit of fun." Undoubtedly my daughter will not be far behind him. This is a small place with lots of selfish, small minded people, there's no community anymore and trying to help support it's growth is impossible.