Society/Culture Landlords - What is the point?

[kickazz]

Yeah air bnb is ****ed.

Too pissed to go into detail but multiple issues.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I would challenge your view re: rich/greedy developer concept. That is the perception

While I don't have evidence, it's fair speculation.

What I can't accept is the minimum caveats in just about any new estate you can think of is out of reach for the lower to middle income class. Most of those caveats I fairly assume are decided by the developers, not helped with semantic type council caveats

There's a huge market there, not every estate has to be a minimum mansion on a tiny block.

Sure, creating 'lesser than' estates may create class divide suburbs, like social housing does, but at least it's housing more accessible to more people.

 

[ShanDog]

Squating isn't illegal. It is only illegal if the owner asks them to leave and refuse; or if they "break in" the house (not sure if breaking in means actually opening an unlocked door or if actually breaking the lock or window to get in).

That means even if someone leaves on a weekend vacation and accidentally leave their door open you can enter the house and sit on their couch, sleep in their bed, play their PlayStation (don't forget to delete all their saved files before leaving lol) etc and it will be fine by law to do so until the owners come back home and tell you to leave.

I never said squatting was illegal. It's also definitely illegal to break into a place that is locked and otherwise signed as private.

 

[Frank Grimes]

I never said squatting was illegal. It's also definitely illegal to break into a place that is locked and otherwise signed as private.

Your original post was saying that "there should be a law to allow people to squat in properties". It gave the impression that you didn't know it legal.

The law is already similar to as you suggested. People can legally squat and they are legally liable to any damage caused while squating. They just only need to leave once the owner asks them to leave.

 

[ShanDog]

Your original post was saying that "there should be a law to allow people to squat in properties". It gave the impression that you didn't know it legal.

The law is already similar to as you suggested. People can legally squat and they are legally liable to any damage caused while squating. They just only need to leave once the owner asks them to leave.

Yeah ok, I can see how it might come across that way if you didn't take the whole sentence in.

I didn't realise it was similar to what I already said. In that case, play on.

 

[leon123]

While I don't have evidence, it's fair speculation.

What I can't accept is the minimum caveats in just about any new estate you can think of is out of reach for the lower to middle income class. Most of those caveats I fairly assume are decided by the developers, not helped with semantic type council caveats

There's a huge market there, not every estate has to be a minimum mansion on a tiny block.

Sure, creating 'lesser than' estates may create class divide suburbs, like social housing does, but at least it's housing more accessible to more people.

There are a number of greenfield estates across Greater Melbourne at differing price points that are technically affordable for lower middle income households.
Bit tougher for the lower income groups, I would totally agree. This is when we could provide subsidies or get developers to provide subsidised land and housing. The former is paid for by general taxation the later paid for by other consumers on the estate

 

[Carringbush2010]

There are a number of greenfield estates across Greater Melbourne at differing price points that are technically affordable for lower middle income households.
Bit tougher for the lower income groups, I would totally agree. This is when we could provide subsidies or get developers to provide subsidised land and housing. The former is paid for by general taxation the later paid for by other consumers on the estate

What's your thoughts on the lower income market for the micro housing / granny flat perspective?

 

[leon123]

What's your thoughts on the lower income market for the micro housing / granny flat perspective?

Great potential. I think mentioned previously in victoria no planning permit required, no subdivision allowed.. the later stops land devt speculation available to essentially renters. Queensland done similar thing few years ago, take up hasn't been great, I don't understand why

 

[Gralin]

I think people need to remember that lower income is often families and tiny houses aren't big enough

 

[faible]

I think people need to remember that lower income is often families and tiny houses aren't big enough

Unfortunately there probably isn't a viable private-market solution for low income family housing. They're just not going to be able to afford to buy land and build a home given the costs even if they come down to a 'realistic' level. Building costs are pretty high these days just for material and labour.

This also isn't a problem this is going to go away so long as the population continues to increase and we continue to have the vast majority of the population living in a handful of metro centres.

IMO we need to be looking at a proper, long-term public housing solution that provides a reasonable standard of accommodation and security of tenure in addition to other measures to decrease the appeal (and incentives) of housing as an investment category.

 

[Gralin]

Unfortunately there probably isn't a viable private-market solution for low income family housing. They're just not going to be able to afford to buy land and build a home given the costs even if they come down to a 'realistic' level. Building costs are pretty high these days just for material and labour.

This also isn't a problem this is going to go away so long as the population continues to increase and we continue to have the vast majority of the population living in a handful of metro centres.

IMO we need to be looking at a proper, long-term public housing solution that provides a reasonable standard of accommodation and security of tenure in addition to other measures to decrease the appeal (and incentives) of housing as an investment category.

Yes public housing is necessary
Most of what is being announced unfortunately is not public housing and won't help low income people at all

We've got a long way to go to see governments actually make meaningful changes to housing policy

 

[faible]

Yes public housing is necessary
Most of what is being announced unfortunately is not public housing and won't help low income people at all

We've got a long way to go to see governments actually make meaningful changes to housing policy

I hate when we agree.

 

[leon123]

Yes public housing is necessary
Most of what is being announced unfortunately is not public housing and won't help low income people at all

We've got a long way to go to see governments actually make meaningful changes to housing policy

The tide is changing though re the provision of 'community housing', its a start and a good one (Victoria) - but a long road to even get close to our needs

 

[spinynorman]

As bad as Australia is, a story out of Canada shows how things could be worse (and utterly insane).

A court has ruled a tenant can be held liable for taxes that a non-resident landlord fails to pay.

 

[Gralin]

The tide is changing though re the provision of 'community housing', its a start and a good one (Victoria) - but a long road to even get close to our needs

What Victoria is doing is extremely s**t unless there's a big change in the plan from what was published

So s**t that rank and file members have been trying to get it changed

 

[leon123]

What Victoria is doing is extremely s**t unless there's a big change in the plan from what was published

So s**t that rank and file members have been trying to get it changed

can you explain why its so s**t? Of course, there are implementation issues (always is) and of course there will be disagreements in composition/approach - I cant see a fundamental issue with the policy direction, can you?

 

[faible]

As bad as Australia is, a story out of Canada shows how things could be worse (and utterly insane).

A court has ruled a tenant can be held liable for taxes that a non-resident landlord fails to pay.

Jesus, that's.... stupid.

A Montreal tenant was audited and ordered to pay the tax he had failed to withhold on the monthly rent to his non-resident landlord, as required by law. As a result, he was ordered to pay six years’ worth of tax as well as the compounded interest and penalties.

Not knowing a landlord is a non-resident is not considered a valid excuse.

“In the context of a housing crisis, making them also investigate the residency status of their landlords?,” said Mr. Drouillard. “I’m not saying that that’s not the law, and the tenant has to be careful of that. The question is, is this the right thing for the CRA as a matter of policy to be doing?”

 

[Gralin]

can you explain why its so s**t? Of course, there are implementation issues (always is) and of course there will be disagreements in composition/approach - I cant see a fundamental issue with the policy direction, can you?

Yeah
It's not a public housing big build

It's mostly leasing or selling off public land so developers can make a profit for no net increase in public housing stock

It's s**t

 

[leon123]

Yeah
It's not a public housing big build

It's mostly leasing or selling off public land so developers can make a profit for no net increase in public housing stock

It's s**t

Well, not sure how your coming up with this, target is 12,000 new social housing dwellings, inclusive of 1000 (apprx) replacements, so a net increase of 11,000 dwellings (social housing).

Of course development industry involved - it involves development.

The only other mechanism to fund such a build is via taxation - that I agree is debateable or sell assets to fund the social housing build

Not to s**t 11000 net dwellings, like my original post, its a big step in the right direction - you call it s**t, I call it positive

 

[leon123]

I think people need to remember that lower income is often families and tiny houses aren't big enough

If you do the numbers, you know actual evidence, you will find the most in need in terms of affordability is single person households.

Need is defined as depth of housing stress and volume - number of persons in need.

So, tiny houses are a great solution to the need - which could feasibly be provided by the private sector via new planning rules (ie no land purchase component). Family housing - community housing providers then has more resources to respond to larger households in housing stress

 

[Gralin]

Well, not sure how your coming up with this, target is 12,000 new social housing dwellings, inclusive of 1000 (apprx) replacements, so a net increase of 11,000 dwellings (social housing).

Of course development industry involved - it involves development.

The only other mechanism to fund such a build is via taxation - that I agree is debateable or sell assets to fund the social housing build

Not to s**t 11000 net dwellings, like my original post, its a big step in the right direction - you call it s**t, I call it positive

I said public housing not social housing
They aren't the same thing, neither is community housing

 

[leon123]

I said public housing not social housing
They aren't the same thing, neither is community housing

well get on the debate about community versus public housing then - I genuinely would like to hear peoples perspectives. Wrong or right - the community housing sector is the current model across Australia.

But end of the day, 11,000 new net dwellings that provide affordable housing outcomes for low income households is a step in the right direction hey or nah?

 

[leon123]

I said public housing not social housing
They aren't the same thing, neither is community housing

FYI social housing is an umbrella term that includes community and public housing

 

[Gralin]

well get on the debate about community versus public housing then - I genuinely would like to hear peoples perspectives. Wrong or right - the community housing sector is the current model across Australia.

But end of the day, 11,000 new net dwellings that provide affordable housing outcomes for low income households is a step in the right direction hey or nah?

No you said social housing that is different from community housing

The Vic government plan doesn't increase public housing stock, it at best replaces existing stock but with years of reduced stock first

It also gives access to public land for developers to make a profit off selling housing

It is like most housing policy announced around the country to "deal" with the crisis largely an excuse to subsidize private developer profits at the very real cost of public assets and support for people who actually need it

It is s**t and it's why Vic ALP members are trying to get it changed into a slightly better policy

Your other point on private sector tiny housing via removal of red tape is also crappy neoliberal style policy where you make it easier for developers to profit by reducing regulations but don't guarantee an actual outcome that helps people

Tiny houses are not houses they've really caravans

Your solution to the housing crisis is expensive caravans for the poors via private profits

It's saying poor people don't deserve a real home

 

[Gralin]

FYI social housing is an umbrella term that includes community and public housing

It's a way to muddy the waters about what you're actually doing with taxpayers funds