Housing Affordability

Housing Affordability is a major issue in Melbourne at the moment. The price is too expensive and the rent has also gone up a lot. Hence I think that a lot of people are having trouble finding a place to rent. This will leave them homeless.

-- JohnLiu - 16 May 2008 22:20

The Sydney Morning Herald had an article yesterday about the number of vacant buildings within the city. A short quote:

"The number of unoccupied residential dwellings in Sydney counted by census workers in 2006 was 122,211, with the highest number found in the inner city. That does not include the thousands of empty warehouses, pubs, churches and shops."

That is an enormous volume of accommodation which is sitting idle while people are homeless. Similar numbers of residences are probably also vacant in Melbourne. Some work has been done in limited areas to count these vacant properties, producing similar results.

The current land taxation arrangements SUPPORT this economic and social inefficiency. This is why I have suggested a review into changing the land taxation arrangements into a substantially or wholly site value based mechanism. This would immediately discontinue any penalties for development, and over time, produce substantial positive pressure for land within the city boundary to be developed into accommodation or commercial space. Land to be set aside for environmental, social or historical reasons can be rated as such and protected.

The main area for discussion of this topic is under 'Prosperous city; Affordable for new businesses'. However, it applies to many areas of city life, not just business.

-- BrucePoon - 27 May 2008 13:58

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/25/1211653847174.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Hi Bruce, thanks for the article reference. I've just updated your post above with a direct link to the affordable for new businesses pathway you refer to.

-- DaleBowerman - 27 May 2008 14:28

2006 ABS statistics relating to dwellings in Melbourne and the Municipality Melbourne

Metropolitan Melbourne: Occupied dwellings = 1,351,530, Total Dwelling Stock 1,471,154. Therefore Unoccupied private dewllings119,624. This equates to a vacancy of 8% (Source: 2006 ABS Census)

City of Melbourne: Occupied dwellings = 37,996, Total Dwelling Stock = 43,570.
Unoccupied private dewllings 5,574. This equates to a vacancy of 13% (Source: 2006 ABS Census)

The ABS definition of Unoccupied private dwellings is
"...structures built specifically for living purposes which are habitable, but unoccupied at the time of the Census of Population and Housing. Vacant houses, holiday homes, huts, cabins (other than seasonal workers' quarters) and houseboats are counted as unoccupied dwellings. Also included are newly completed dwellings not yet occupied, dwellings which are vacant because they are due for demolition or repair, dwellings to let and dwellings where all members of the household were absent on census night. " (Source:ABS definitions )

Based on the timing of the census the vacancy of City of Melbourne dwellings could be attributed to the number of recent completions which would be waiting for occupancy certificates and owners/renters to move and part-time residences as people often have a residence in the city and also in the country. However as suggested more research and data collection would is needed to work through this issue.

-- SerrynEagleson - 30 May 2008 11:32

Restructure

Table of Goals and outcomes restructured in line with new format being implemented. No substantial change to content intended.

"Property investors hoping for capital gains and/or higher rents focus their hopes (and their political influence) on improving infrastructure, not worsening shortages of housing" - removed to here. Not sure how this statement fits in to Housing Affordability discussion and infrastructure needs are discussed at http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wiki/view/FMPlan/S2G1P7FacilitiesServicesForOurCommunities

-- SandraWade - 11 Jun 2008 13:42

Answering Sandra Wade's question: When property values in a certain location rise due to improved infrastructure in that location, affordability of housing is not damaged, because the increase in rent or price is due to improved amenity; there is no increase in rents or prices of homes of given amenity. But when rents or prices rise due to worsening scarcity, affordability is damaged because renters or buyers pay more for the same standard of accommodation; the gains of landlords and sellers come entirely at the expense of renters and buyers. Scarcity is a zero-sum game. Improved infrastructure is not. For more detail, see e.g. http://gavonomics.blogspot.com/2007/07/getting-sustainably-high-returns-on.html .

-- GavinPutland - 11 Jun 2008 17:13

In the table, I split the heading "housing availability" into "housing construction" and "site utilization". This allowed me to move some indicators into the table (in accordance with the new format) and to add some matching mechanisms. Splitting the goal required some rewording in the "goal" column; but I did not intend to remove any substantive ideas.

-- GavinPutland - 14 Jun 2008 18:50

Under "See also", I fixed the link to Homeground Services and added two further references. One of these was a self-citation, the appropriateness of which is for others to judge. In the interests of full disclosure, I also declare an association with Earthsharing Australia, although I cannot claim any credit for the "I want to live here" report.

-- GavinPutland - 14 Jun 2008 21:09

Gavin, thanks for keeping us informed of your changes and the reasons behind them. Appreciated.

-- DaleBowerman - 14 Jun 2008 21:22

Indicators

I have 'parked' these indicators (temporarily) while we review a measure that we can monitor

Less delay between approval of development application and actual sales of developed lots.

Fewer vacant lots (not to be confused with parks/gardens) in built-up areas.

Fewer uninhabited, unavailable dwellings (not to be confused with dwellings available "to let").

Fewer underdeveloped residential sites (e.g. single dwellings on sites zoned for multiple dwellings).

-- SandraWade - 18 Jun 2008 11:26

Hi, At the CityHealth? Meeting today it was raised that this definition should be broader and include cost of healthcare, price of food etc... as these all relate to the cost of living - so I have added these in. Also in "healthy community" the sublevel goal of "affordable health care" has been deleted and replaced with access to information for preventative health care. I think this is important - the group is reviewing these initial changes.

-- SerrynEagleson - 24 Jun 2008 14:44

Do you have any suggested actions?

Please add the here.

Melb Liveable paper

Refer paper & 7.4 - possible initiatives

SueWilcox - 18 Jun 2008 12:40

Housing Affordability - direct benefits of new city wealth into project delivery (RMIT workshop 13/6)

Need to capture increased wealth from land price rises through CoM? rates or levies and channel it into delivering affordable housing ; Affordability requires investment; Need to generate wealth & liveability

Continually investing in building value (eg wiring etc);

Economic/social paradigm shift required

Development industry need clear parameters (RMIT workshop 13/6)

Willingness in development industry to innovate around inclusive modelling and delivery of affordable housing BUT need to be clear about it if the rules change (eg to facilitate delivery of affordable housing)

SueWilcox - 01 Jul 2008 17:06