Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

[Number37]

Yes and Sttew is going to disagree in the most bonkers way possible

Always good for a laugh is Sttew and his joining of random dots.

My uncle was looking at investing in hotel rooms decades ago. A new hotel was being built in Melbourne, forget which one, and they were selling rooms like the multi level car parks do. The end result was you had an investment with that you could try and sell that was managed and had an income source, was maintained by the hotel etc
Don't know if he ever went through with it but its not a new concept. I'd not heard of booking out an actual hotel room via AirBnB before but then I refuse to use it

There is a lot of that kind of thing (eg Mantra hotels, student accommodation etc)
For about $120k you can buy one.
But you don't actually own it, still owned by the landlord, and

• you get to pay the landlord exhorbitant fees for managing your property.
• you can't actually stay in the place yourself ( they do give you 2 or 3 weeks a year)

 

[Saint]

ALP are 58% 2PP against Libs in the 35-49 and 66% in the age group below that.

How could the Libs possibly be doing worse? Generationally in the toilet, letting the Govt run rampant and still losing voters.



Instead of banging on about Dictator Dan, the Libs should be thanking him for keeping so many of their voters alive.

 

[Gralin]

‘Derelict’ Carlton towers to be demolished and rebuilt in federal housing fund’s first project

Anthony Albanese praises Victorian government for not ‘flogging off’ site to developers as he announces project alongside Daniel Andrews

www.theguardian.com

“When this $2bn was announced the prime minister was very clear – it’s for public housing. We are still awaiting clarification that the housing commitments announced today will be publicly owned and publicly managed,” Butterss said.

“We are cautiously optimistic but it will be extremely disappointing if the management of these tenancies is once again referred to the community housing sector.”

god I hope this really is going to all be public but I'm not confident that it will be

 

[tangolikelama]

‘Derelict’ Carlton towers to be demolished and rebuilt in federal housing fund’s first project

Anthony Albanese praises Victorian government for not ‘flogging off’ site to developers as he announces project alongside Daniel Andrews

www.theguardian.com

god I hope this really is going to all be public but I'm not confident that it will be

It will be GLM

https://www.homes.vic.gov.au/ground-lease-model

 

[Gralin]

It will be GLM

https://www.homes.vic.gov.au/ground-lease-model

So get money from the feds get money from a developer "lease" public land and **** over people in need of housing again.

The ****ing state of politics in this country

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

‘Derelict’ Carlton towers to be demolished and rebuilt in federal housing fund’s first project

Anthony Albanese praises Victorian government for not ‘flogging off’ site to developers as he announces project alongside Daniel Andrews

www.theguardian.com

god I hope this really is going to all be public but I'm not confident that it will be

Seems like it is going to have significant public housing.

‘Derelict’ Carlton towers to be demolished and rebuilt in federal housing fund’s first project

Anthony Albanese praises Victorian government for not ‘flogging off’ site to developers as he announces project alongside Daniel Andrews

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gralin]

Seems like it is.

‘Derelict’ Carlton towers to be demolished and rebuilt in federal housing fund’s first project

Anthony Albanese praises Victorian government for not ‘flogging off’ site to developers as he announces project alongside Daniel Andrews

www.theguardian.com

Did you just link me the same article from my post?

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

So get money from the feds get money from a developer "lease" public land and * over people in need of housing again.

The ******* state of politics in this country

From the article I read, there will be a 10% increase on prior public housing numbers at the site?

 

[Gralin]

From the article I read, there will be a 10% increase on prior public housing numbers at the site?

Whenever they call it social housing and haven't confirmed yet that it will be government run I get suspicious.
That's from the same article

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Did you just link me the same article from my post?

Unless I am reading it wrong, they'll have a 10% on prior stock?

Not ideal. But something.

 

[Gralin]

Unless I am reading it wrong, they'll have a 10% on prior stock?

Not ideal. But something.

Like I said they've yet to confirm it will be government run public housing in full

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Whenever they call it social housing and haven't confirmed yet that it will be government run I get suspicious.
That's from the same article

Me also, but the prior tenants are being given first dibs, so I'm guessing it is actually public housing.

 

[Gralin]

Me also, but the prior tenants are being given first dibs, so I'm guessing it is actually public housing.

I have very low levels of trust given all the current ground lease programs the government has done

 

[Sttew]

Victoria’s debt burden has been confirmed as double that of NSW in the latest budget forecasts.

The Minns government handed down its first NSW budget on Tuesday, predicting net debt to grow to $113.6bn by 2026-27 – the equivalent of $38,000 for every household.

That compares to current Victorian projections that show state debt will skyrocket in the same time to $171bn – or almost $70,000 for every household.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/budget-forecast-shows-victorias-debt-to-almost-double-new-south-wales-within-next-three-years/news-story/2416176a9248f800aa6c12cc9d8eebf9

 

[Xtreme]

THANKS DAN!

 

[Crankyhawk]

Hotel rooms are rooms found in hotels

I think that some hotels do sell rooms inside to investors and these could then get listed via air bnb

 

[Crankyhawk]

‘Derelict’ Carlton towers to be demolished and rebuilt in federal housing fund’s first project

Anthony Albanese praises Victorian government for not ‘flogging off’ site to developers as he announces project alongside Daniel Andrews

www.theguardian.com

god I hope this really is going to all be public but I'm not confident that it will be

is there even a net gain of housing from this? apartment towers would seem to hold more than 231 "dwellings"
though if they are end of structural life/ unsafe rebuild makes sense

 

[Gralin]

This housing plan announcement is so grim
he's there with private developers and super fund managers

no community or public housing groups, not rental groups

he's mapping out basically wiping out large amounts of the small remaining public housing stock to hand the land over to developers to build way more dwellings than are on their now but this will only increase the social housing stock in the state by 10%

so public land for private profits but they're pretending the lease of the land means they aren't selling it off cheap like NSW did

blocking councils ability to tax airbnb owners because of their $17 levy they want to charge the consumer to line their pockets

"faster approvals for developers for 10% affordable housing" which we know isn't actually affordable and developers after getting approvals on these things hold those dwellings hostage as they then seek to add way more than was approved

we've seen that political tool used in Brisbane and Melbourne this year where developers cry poor when councils wont let them add more floors onto the top of buildings above the approved height so they can build luxury apartments, once they have their approvals they can cut the affordable housing

this is such neoliberal bullshit as expected, developers have all the money

 

[Gralin]

If you want to read the governments spin on why this is good akshully

More homes for Victorians

Housing is one of the biggest challenges we face in Victoria. We need to build more homes each year over the next 10 years to increase housing supply and meet our needs as a growing state.

www.vic.gov.au

 

[Gralin]

is there even a net gain of housing from this? apartment towers would seem to hold more than 231 "dwellings"
though if they are end of structural life/ unsafe rebuild makes sense

in that and his press conference today they talk about how this will increase social housing stock by 10%

they kind of fail to mention that heaps more dwellings will be built on these sites than 10% more

so they're giving developers prime real estate to profit off and claiming a win for public housing at the same time, when its not even going to cover the current shortfall, let alone what it will be by the time these builds are finished

and there will be 30+ year leases on the land to the developers and they will probably get management contracts

its also really murky about how much will be public housing vs social housing or "affordable" housing

public housing is run and owned by the government and it costs you a set % of your income regardless of what that income is

social housing can charge more and is run by community or private groups with government subsidy, so we still pay for it as tax payers but the possibility for someone to profit off it exists and less of those that need housing can afford that because the rent isn't linked directly to income like with public housing

"affordable" housing is usually just something like a 10% discount on the sale price compared to market, so if you build a new tower and are selling the apartments for 900k the "affordable" ones are 810k

we're at the point where median income earners already can only afford 13% of properties on the market and those closer to minimum wage less than 3%

this isn't going to help with that, but it is going to make a lot of money for the developers that get picked

 

[swingdog]

Probably not worth getting too excited until we have a handle on how many Airbnb's are actually potential rental stock, and not holiday homes/city pads that will never come onto the market, and of the remainder how many 7.5% are really going to shake loose.

In isolation, without a broader limitation, it just seems to be more tinkering.

It’s tokenistic in terms of freeing up AirBnB properties for housing. All they’ll do is add the levy to the price like the city taxes in Europe.

Will raise money for Homes Victoria - that’s it’s only value.

 

[Crankyhawk]

in that and his press conference today they talk about how this will increase social housing stock by 10%

they kind of fail to mention that heaps more dwellings will be built on these sites than 10% more

so they're giving developers prime real estate to profit off and claiming a win for public housing at the same time, when its not even going to cover the current shortfall, let alone what it will be by the time these builds are finished

and there will be 30+ year leases on the land to the developers and they will probably get management contracts

its also really murky about how much will be public housing vs social housing or "affordable" housing

public housing is run and owned by the government and it costs you a set % of your income regardless of what that income is

social housing can charge more and is run by community or private groups with government subsidy, so we still pay for it as tax payers but the possibility for someone to profit off it exists and less of those that need housing can afford that because the rent isn't linked directly to income like with public housing

"affordable" housing is usually just something like a 10% discount on the sale price compared to market, so if you build a new tower and are selling the apartments for 900k the "affordable" ones are 810k

we're at the point where median income earners already can only afford 13% of properties on the market and those closer to minimum wage less than 3%

this isn't going to help with that, but it is going to make a lot of money for the developers that get picked

will providing more housing (In general in terms of the non social housing) help with cost of housing more generally - for those who don't qualify for social housing?
I don't think the government has the money or the technical expertise to actually build the housing 100% themselves (Or if we judge by recent big build projects, will have cost overruns/ waste etc)
so the options are get nothing new or this

I know you are likely to counter with something farfetched about how we "can do anything we want and have the money too" but that is unfounded pollyanna idealism.

 

[MPMonkeys]

How the hell can 800000 new homes be built in the next 10 years?
That's over 200 new homes completed every day.

Who comes up with this nonsense when it is obviously not achievable unless he is planning to include tents and sandcastles as new homes.

 

[Gralin]

will providing more housing (In general in terms of the non social housing) help with cost of housing more generally - for those who don't qualify for social housing?

no, we don't have a supply issue, we have a housing as an asset class issue which via policy mechanism encourages prices to go up and the rich to stockpile them thus controlling the market and pushing prices up both for buyers and renters

this will just fuel that, building more houses without addressing the real problems

which of course they don't actually want to address and most politicians benefit from this directly

I don't think the government has the money or the technical expertise to actually build the housing 100% themselves

we don't have the money to do things when its competing with private sector donors profits
we do have the money to do things when its enhancing the private sector donors profits

as for expertise
do you say that for level crossing removals or hospital builds?
its not like the public servants have to go and build it
all they have to do is put out a tender and award a contract for the actual design or building

(Or if we judge by recent big build projects, will have cost overruns/ waste etc)
so the options are get nothing new or this

no the option for the state to actually do their job and maintain and build public housing stock is an option, just one they choose not to do

they can also buy up existing housing stock or off the plan (which the off the plan part is in the new housing plan)

they can also make owning investment properties unattractive, actually make owning short stay unprofitable and then turn around and buy that stock to make it public housing

there are lots of things they could do, but they choose not to and they act like its not a choice and all that they are doing all they possible could

and they don't get the heat from the top end of town that would make them crumble (like the private school tax) so they get away with it

we don't push them like that so why would they be afraid of us

I know you are likely to counter with something farfetched about how we "can do anything we want and have the money too" but that is unfounded pollyanna idealism.

well I am glad you threw this in before I responded

but they could put the SRL on hold and put the money into fixing the housing crisis

they could stop spending so much money on having events like the F1, giving the AFL and clubs hand outs all the time, plenty of ways they could better fund stuff

its not always about having unlimited money, but governments have the ability to borrow a lot more and raise a lot more than private enterprise, and they don't have to pay out profits to share holders even though they act like they do

 

[Crankyhawk]

no, we don't have a supply issue, we have a housing as an asset class issue which via policy mechanism encourages prices to go up and the rich to stockpile them thus controlling the market and pushing prices up both for buyers and renters

this will just fuel that, building more houses without addressing the real problems

which of course they don't actually want to address and most politicians benefit from this directly


we don't have the money to do things when its competing with private sector donors profits
we do have the money to do things when its enhancing the private sector donors profits

as for expertise
do you say that for level crossing removals or hospital builds?
its not like the public servants have to go and build it
all they have to do is put out a tender and award a contract for the actual design or building


no the option for the state to actually do their job and maintain and build public housing stock is an option, just one they choose not to do

they can also buy up existing housing stock or off the plan (which the off the plan part is in the new housing plan)

they can also make owning investment properties unattractive, actually make owning short stay unprofitable and then turn around and buy that stock to make it public housing

there are lots of things they could do, but they choose not to and they act like its not a choice and all that they are doing all they possible could

and they don't get the heat from the top end of town that would make them crumble (like the private school tax) so they get away with it

we don't push them like that so why would they be afraid of us


well I am glad you threw this in before I responded

but they could put the SRL on hold and put the money into fixing the housing crisis

they could stop spending so much money on having events like the F1, giving the AFL and clubs hand outs all the time, plenty of ways they could better fund stuff

its not always about having unlimited money, but governments have the ability to borrow a lot more and raise a lot more than private enterprise, and they don't have to pay out profits to share holders even though they act like they do

On a few points

• they contract out hospital builds, often don’t involve staff in the design then pay extra to fix issues identified (we went through this with our last hospital infrastructure)
• level crossings i will pay as there aren’t competing alternatives.

Pausing SRL won’t happen (there’s sunk costs and pausing will then leave a useless half build, prolonged disruption to movement around inner Melbourne in terms of road closures, constant reminder of a political failure, and then higher costs to complete or to fill in and abandon)
- sure no issue with cutting out some of the afl and other grants, but there might have been some analysis which concludes such grants return money via taxes and tourism and economic activity (the validity of such analyses always being open to interpretation depending on data and analytic integrity)