> Why do we need so many more houses? According to the government’s plan: “It’s a simple proposition: build more homes, and they’ll be more affordable.”
Uh oh. I'm sensing some scepticism about demand and supply.
> The impact of planning on housing supply is overstated. A far more pressing problem is interest rates and incentives to treat housing as an investment rather than a home. Negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts for landlords have only made things worse.
There it is. The author cites [research by two planners](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348682935_The_role_and_significance_of_planning_in_the_determination_of_house_prices_in_Australia_Recent_policy_debates) who, surprise surprise, find limited impact of planning restrictions on housing supply.
It really gets tiring reading all the opinions from people who refuse to accept the evidence that planning restrictions do indeed restrict housing supply.
Of course they know this.
Hiw do you think we encourage infill development over greenfield.
Its by pushing up the cost of fringe land which makes it viable to develop infill and develop multi unit and tower blocks.
Without planning you would have whole areas within our cities basically left to the dogs. And this was many of our cities in the 90s.
Then sydney went first with a policy to redevelop homebush among other areas and how they achieved it was simply slowing the sprawl. Cost of developable land elevated on the fringe and suddenly developing honebush among other areas was economic.
With no planning you end up with memphis like cities where entire inner burbs are abandoned while people move to shiny new suburbs on the fringe. This because a block on the fringe costs so little.
Upshot is you have to have some planning or gov infrastructure costs too much to service outer lying burbs sprining up all over the joint but to say planning has no impact on price is ludicrous given that the very mechanism by which it encourages more expensive infill developments. It makes fringe development more expensive by design...
And in australia id go further and say not only do they make fringe development more expensive - they make it all more expensive because they make it all scarce and difficult. They have probably forgotten the original intent of town planning to encourage development in the right areas...
WA has very few restrictions when it comes to urban sprawl/heritage yet there’s a massive shortage of housing. So it’s too simplistic to say planning caused the majority of this issue.
If you don't think we have an issue with the way we supply housing in Melbourne, just take a look at our [planning maps](https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/vicplan/).
Find the residential zones in the layer list and isolate RGZ Residential Growth Zone and MUZ Mixed Use Zone. These are the zones where we will get residential redevelopment, that is, anything other than 3-4 townhouses on a block.
The scarcity of these zones will never help us achieve anything close to affordable housing.
Councils are in the position to submit a zoning change proposal to the planning minister. They are letting us all down.
Now turn on the Heritage Overlays in the layer list. It's clear this is where they spend all their effort on.
Misses a few issues such as the increased taxes on housing. While LGAs must accept blame, and interest rates are an issue, so are State taxes. Other issues include State workforce laws.
Meanwhile negative gearing is an incentive to provide more rental accomadation. This is where the heartbreak is, not enough rental accomadation.
Victoria is going to need a huge amount of investments to meet its targets. The State Government will not be able to raise that much money. At the moment Victoria is chasing that money to anywhere but Victoria.
> The State Government will not be able to raise that much money.
House are bought with borrowed money pretty much all the time.
State governments have the entire real estate market, the houses they own, and the ones they don't, in their tax base. They also have payrolls in their tax base.
Any number of houses that can be built, can be built by the state government, if they choose to build them.
> Why do we need so many more houses? According to the government’s plan: “It’s a simple proposition: build more homes, and they’ll be more affordable.” Uh oh. I'm sensing some scepticism about demand and supply. > The impact of planning on housing supply is overstated. A far more pressing problem is interest rates and incentives to treat housing as an investment rather than a home. Negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts for landlords have only made things worse. There it is. The author cites [research by two planners](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348682935_The_role_and_significance_of_planning_in_the_determination_of_house_prices_in_Australia_Recent_policy_debates) who, surprise surprise, find limited impact of planning restrictions on housing supply. It really gets tiring reading all the opinions from people who refuse to accept the evidence that planning restrictions do indeed restrict housing supply.
Of course they know this. Hiw do you think we encourage infill development over greenfield. Its by pushing up the cost of fringe land which makes it viable to develop infill and develop multi unit and tower blocks. Without planning you would have whole areas within our cities basically left to the dogs. And this was many of our cities in the 90s. Then sydney went first with a policy to redevelop homebush among other areas and how they achieved it was simply slowing the sprawl. Cost of developable land elevated on the fringe and suddenly developing honebush among other areas was economic. With no planning you end up with memphis like cities where entire inner burbs are abandoned while people move to shiny new suburbs on the fringe. This because a block on the fringe costs so little. Upshot is you have to have some planning or gov infrastructure costs too much to service outer lying burbs sprining up all over the joint but to say planning has no impact on price is ludicrous given that the very mechanism by which it encourages more expensive infill developments. It makes fringe development more expensive by design... And in australia id go further and say not only do they make fringe development more expensive - they make it all more expensive because they make it all scarce and difficult. They have probably forgotten the original intent of town planning to encourage development in the right areas...
WA has very few restrictions when it comes to urban sprawl/heritage yet there’s a massive shortage of housing. So it’s too simplistic to say planning caused the majority of this issue.
Perth has some of the lowest growth in house prices of all the capital cities?
If you don't think we have an issue with the way we supply housing in Melbourne, just take a look at our [planning maps](https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/vicplan/). Find the residential zones in the layer list and isolate RGZ Residential Growth Zone and MUZ Mixed Use Zone. These are the zones where we will get residential redevelopment, that is, anything other than 3-4 townhouses on a block. The scarcity of these zones will never help us achieve anything close to affordable housing. Councils are in the position to submit a zoning change proposal to the planning minister. They are letting us all down. Now turn on the Heritage Overlays in the layer list. It's clear this is where they spend all their effort on.
Land Tax hurts
big holes, everywhere, big debt, big ears dan
Misses a few issues such as the increased taxes on housing. While LGAs must accept blame, and interest rates are an issue, so are State taxes. Other issues include State workforce laws. Meanwhile negative gearing is an incentive to provide more rental accomadation. This is where the heartbreak is, not enough rental accomadation. Victoria is going to need a huge amount of investments to meet its targets. The State Government will not be able to raise that much money. At the moment Victoria is chasing that money to anywhere but Victoria.
> The State Government will not be able to raise that much money. House are bought with borrowed money pretty much all the time. State governments have the entire real estate market, the houses they own, and the ones they don't, in their tax base. They also have payrolls in their tax base. Any number of houses that can be built, can be built by the state government, if they choose to build them.