Should we revive the Housing Trust?

[Aidan]

The value of vacant land is what ever we want it to be. Thousand of acres of vacant land could be compulsory acquired if government had the will.

Compulsory acquisition is likely to be more expensive than conventional acquisition. Compulsory acquisition at anything less than the market rate would be unconstitutional.

Adelaide has huge tracts of unused land, in the south housing really only follows the main arterial roads, lots of infill still to do

Most of the vacant land in the South is Hills Face Zone, and there's also quite a lot of national park. When you factor in the presence of two large quarries (not suitable for building near because of blasting) and the agreement not to develop Glenthorne, there's really not much infill potential left.

and in the North between Muno Para and Gawler to the coast. Then there are the old Yatla and Strathmont sites. This land along with higher density housing can serve Adelaide for many years to come. There was a time when the Government had a land bank it just needs the will to acquire another. Like I have said it’s not the houses that are unaffordable it is the land.

As I understand it the government still does have a land bank, and already is gradually releasing land for development and buying more. Maybe they should do so faster, but as has been pointed out in other threads, the cost of service provision is quite high, and it's likely that a lot of land would need to be released to have much effect on the cost.

[Jim]

The value of vacant land is what ever we want it to be. Thousand of acres of vacant land could be compulsory acquired if government had the will.

Compulsory acquisition is likely to be more expensive than conventional acquisition. Compulsory acquisition at anything less than the market rate would be unconstitutional.

The fact is at the moment this is not residential land and as such would be purchased by the government as rural.

[Will Derwent]

Everyone here is presuming that the government can do something much cheaper than the public sector.

This isn't the case (as much as everyone might wish that it is.)

Honestly - in what experience that anyone has ever had with government would they presume that the government can do anything at all cheaper than the private sector? Governments have a hard earned reputation for making things more expensive than the private sector, particularly when it comes to building things. Housing is no different.

The only reason that the housing trust stayed afloat in the old days (and even today) is that creative accounting methods are used to disguise the fact that they are building things and then selling them at below cost. They are subsidised by taxpayers to the hilt.

Secondly - people don't like housing trust homes. They didn't like them back in the fifties, and they still don't like them. People would far rather buy their own home, according to the things they like in a home (which may well mean building a mcmansion).

[Jim]

Everyone here is presuming that the government can do something much cheaper than the public sector.

This isn't the case (as much as everyone might wish that it is.)

Honestly - in what experience that anyone has ever had with government would they presume that the government can do anything at all cheaper than the private sector? Governments have a hard earned reputation for making things more expensive than the private sector, particularly when it comes to building things. Housing is no different.

The only reason that the housing trust stayed afloat in the old days (and even today) is that creative accounting methods are used to disguise the fact that they are building things and then selling them at below cost. They are subsidised by taxpayers to the hilt.

Secondly - people don't like housing trust homes. They didn't like them back in the fifties, and they still don't like them. People would far rather buy their own home, according to the things they like in a home (which may well mean building a mcmansion).

Have to agree the private sector can build an affordable house for under $100,000 so we don’t need a housing trust but government can keep a bank of land as a hedge against speculation.

[Aidan]

The fact is at the moment this is not residential land and as such would be purchased by the government as rural.

Yes, and it's something the government already does. There's just no need to make it compulsory.

[Will]

Everyone here is presuming that the government can do something much cheaper than the public sector.

This isn't the case (as much as everyone might wish that it is.)

Honestly - in what experience that anyone has ever had with government would they presume that the government can do anything at all cheaper than the private sector? Governments have a hard earned reputation for making things more expensive than the private sector, particularly when it comes to building things. Housing is no different.

The only reason that the housing trust stayed afloat in the old days (and even today) is that creative accounting methods are used to disguise the fact that they are building things and then selling them at below cost. They are subsidised by taxpayers to the hilt.

Secondly - people don't like housing trust homes. They didn't like them back in the fifties, and they still don't like them. People would far rather buy their own home, according to the things they like in a home (which may well mean building a mcmansion).

The problem is that the private sector does not care about the welfare of the Australian population. Business couldn't care less if people my age are never able to buy our own homes...

[AtD]

The problem is that the private sector does not care about the welfare of the Australian population. Business couldn't care less if people my age are never able to buy our own homes...

And neither should the government. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to 'save' you from renting.

[Will]

The problem is that the private sector does not care about the welfare of the Australian population. Business couldn't care less if people my age are never able to buy our own homes...

And neither should the government. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to 'save' you from renting.

Yes it is. Every Australian citizen has the right to dignified accomodation.

[Aidan]

Everyone here is presuming that the government can do something much cheaper than the public sector.

Only where the private sector is not behaving efficiently.

This isn't the case (as much as everyone might wish that it is.)

I suggest you check out the link I provided. If there's a flaw in its logic I'd like to know, but I haven't found one yet.

Honestly - in what experience that anyone has ever had with government would they presume that the government can do anything at all cheaper than the private sector? Governments have a hard earned reputation for making things more expensive than the private sector,

The reputation is often undeserved, as cost overruns are also common in the private sector. And though the private sector can typically do things cheaper than the public sector, by the time their profits are taken into account it tends to work out even. The British Labour Party are likely to be decimated at the next election because Gordon Brown wasted billions of pounds based on the false assumption that the private sector would always do things cheaper.

particularly when it comes to building things. Housing is no different.

The actual building part would be done by private sector builders - there's really no advantage in getting the public sector directly involved in that.

There would be some (small) efficiency gains from economies of scale (and energy efficiency gains from building only energy efficient designs). But the main way of reducing costs would be to initially rent the houses out, with long term tenants later given the opportunity to buy. Currently there's a shortage of rental property, and that is likely to continue to be the case if we just leave things to the market. And tenants do not normally get the opportunity to buy in a private rental situation.

The only reason that the housing trust stayed afloat in the old days (and even today) is that creative accounting methods are used to disguise the fact that they are building things and then selling them at below cost. They are subsidised by taxpayers to the hilt.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Secondly - people don't like housing trust homes. They didn't like them back in the fifties, and they still don't like them.

I understand why they don't like them now, but why didn't they like them in the fifties? Is it a problem that could be avoided?

People would far rather buy their own home, according to the things they like in a home (which may well mean building a mcmansion).

Nobody is suggesting denying them the opportunity to build a McMansion. Indeed I expect the number of McMansions built in the future to exceed the number we already have! But not everyone can afford McMansions, and those who can deserve more options.

[AtD]

The problem is that the private sector does not care about the welfare of the Australian population. Business couldn't care less if people my age are never able to buy our own homes...

And neither should the government. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to 'save' you from renting.

Yes it is. Every Australian citizen has the right to dignified accomodation.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing there's no 'right' to a patch of land to own, and the taxpayer shouldn't be obligated to provide home ownership to everyone. While having food, health and shelter is a fundeamental right, renting is a viable choice.

[Will]

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing there's no 'right' to a patch of land to own, and the taxpayer shouldn't be obligated to provide home ownership to everyone. While having food, health and shelter is a fundeamental right, renting is a viable choice.

I feel that renting should be an alternative for a few years. However I do not think there is dignity in renting all your life. I say this from experience.

This is why I feel that the government should provide subsidised homes for people on low to moderate incomes to buy.

[Cruise]

Right, So the government should just do everything for you?
If so, Then what advantage is there of furthering your education or changing jobs to acquire more wealth?

So why should i get out of bed in the morning if i'm going to get looked after anyway?

[AtD]

I do not think there is dignity in renting all your life.

And this is where we disagree.

[Will]

Right, So the government should just do everything for you?
If so, Then what advantage is there of furthering your education or changing jobs to acquire more wealth?

So why should i get out of bed in the morning if i'm going to get looked after anyway?

I am not referring to my situation. I am somewhat of a dying breed of people in that I am worried about my fellow citizens and their welfare.

Every person is different. Not everyone is capable of becoming a businessperson or go to university. people from low-socioeconomic areas may not have the money to further their education, but additionally their social environments may not be condusive for them to further their education.

Furthermore, if everyone became a businessperson, doctor or lawyer who would pick up the garbage? clean the office buildings? look after the old people in nursing homes?...Like it or not, our society needs such workers, and I find it unnaceptable that such people will never be able to buy their own homes.

[Cruise]

Will, I am one of those workers you speak of, i never finished high school yet i have been able to buy my own home. No, it is not in burnside but it is a start.

I was brought up to believe if you want to get further in life you must work for it, not expect someone else (re: the taxpayer) to pay for it