The Greens

[Millky95]

I don't think many tradesman would dodge tax on mid to large size jobs especially materials heavy unless they are stupid, really rolling the dice. The extra small ones for sure though, a lot of that would also to be to not have to bother with the paperwork.

I honestly can't remember the last time anyone I've had do work here has angled for cash apart from one mate and that was more of a 'favour' carton of beer type thing. Which he still hasn't even got around to doing a couple of years later haha.

We got our house painted. Dad got a quote. Dad asked what the cash price was. Next quote was $500 less than the original

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Gralin]

this is true and also one of the issues I have with the greens

 

[Kram]

Ahh the well off faux Greenies.

I wonder how many never take public transport and drive to work by themselves in SUVs.

 

[Pessimistic]

this is true and also one of the issues I have with the greens

By the time the trains get to their inner stations they are chock full of bogans, they don’t like that.

But is it nimbyism taking on whatever flag is convenient

It’s like EVs don’t they see the car companies are marketing them as status symbols? And disingenuously looking for subsidies on them?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

this is true and also one of the issues I have with the greens

these developments have a mixture of issues

one i was following was replacing existing commission housing, and the locals had no objection to that. the issue was the size, and the reason for the size

i forget the exact numbers, but it was something like this:

original site - 56 homes

Proposed site - 250 homes (60 public housing, 190 sold to private buyers)

the protests by locals and council were not to oppose the development, but to (1) increase the ratio of public housing significantly, (2) lower the height of the development, and (3) end the two tier quality aspect of the project - where the public units were of much less quality compared to the private sale ones

in the end a compromise on size was made (down to 180), and on public housing (up to 108), and this was still opposed. Reason being, people wanted the height still further reduced by more reductions in the private sale component of the development.

I know these fights are on all over melbourne right now (south melbourne and prahran in particular), but the reasons for opposition and their aims are differing

 

[Gralin]

these developments have a mixture of issues

one i was following was replacing existing commission housing, and the locals had no objection to that. the issue was the size, and the reason for the size

i forget the exact numbers, but it was something like this:

original site - 56 homes

Proposed site - 250 homes (60 public housing, 190 sold to private buyers)

i have massive issues with this replacing of public housing with mostly private housing thing that is happening around the country
Government doesn't pay for the rebuild, there is less public housing at the end and a private company has made a profit off what was public land

happening a lot on Vic and NSW, I assume other states also

the protests by locals and council were not to oppose the development, but to (1) increase the ratio of public housing significantly, (2) lower the height of the development, and (3) end the two tier quality aspect of the project - where the public units were of much less quality compared to the private sale ones

i have no issue with protesting against the private development, if they were pushing for the whole thing to be public that would be perfect

but there is also an element of not near me, or not this way

we have a real push back against high density housing in a lot of suburbs, its just a general view of a lot of people that high density housing is bad for their neighborhood

in the end a compromise on size was made (down to 180), and on public housing (up to 108), and this was still opposed. Reason being, people wanted the height still further reduced by more reductions in the private sale component of the development.

yeah and at some point you have to wonder if they are really protesting in good faith, or are they using the private part of the development to actually try and kill the public part

some would be and some wouldn't be I'm sure

I know these fights are on all over melbourne right now (south melbourne and prahran in particular), but the reasons for opposition and their aims are differing

yeah definitely

 

[Ned_Flanders]

i have massive issues with this replacing of public housing with mostly private housing thing that is happening around the country
Government doesn't pay for the rebuild, there is less public housing at the end and a private company has made a profit off what was public land

happening a lot on Vic and NSW, I assume other states also

i have no issue with protesting against the private development, if they were pushing for the whole thing to be public that would be perfect

but there is also an element of not near me, or not this way

we have a real push back against high density housing in a lot of suburbs, its just a general view of a lot of people that high density housing is bad for their neighborhood


yeah and at some point you have to wonder if they are really protesting in good faith, or are they using the private part of the development to actually try and kill the public part

some would be and some wouldn't be I'm sure


yeah definitely

FWIW it wasnt to kill it. Its in Ashburton, and Ashburton has a high number of commission houses because of its history (Alamein was originally created as primarily commission housing for ww2 vets)

kill it, and there are still 4-5 other estates in the area, so you're not really achieving too much

 

[Johnny Bananas]

this is true and also one of the issues I have with the greens

This is missing context if you don't post the follow-up tweet:



It's not opposing all development, just those beyond a certain size. In general, the Greens do not have an issue with medium density buildings (4-8 stories) in suburban commercial centres. The point is, there is nuance to this, it isn't blanket NIMBYism.

In European cities with much higher density levels than ours, most buildings outside financial districts are not 15 storey towers, they're medium density buildings. Europe also features a lot more medium sized supermarkets that can be restocked by regular trucks rather than semi-trailers. That's an important consideration in neighbourhoods where road space has to be shared with pedestrians, cyclists and children.

If you leave urban planning up to developers and corporate giants like Woolworths, they'll do what brings them the most profit rather than what adds to the area, which is cramming in as many people as possible with no thought to whether the local infrastructure can cope with it and how other effects will be managed. Note that governments are often happy to take developer cash without building the extra infrastructure needed for high density, or making the developers responsible for paying for infrastructure upgrades. This is how we get horrible traffic and soulless neighbourhoods.

They also don't care about the concerns of existing residents, some of which are valid. After all, it's a big change to go from 2 storey detached houses to 15 storey apartment blocks. Much bigger than it is to go from 2 to 6 stories. I don't blame people for feeling that they've lost the community they always knew with such a drastic change. Having lived in apartment blocks of various sizes, I feel like it's much easier to build or maintain a sense of community with 6 storey buildings than 15 storey buildings. You can actually meet most of your neighbours that way.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

we have a real push back against high density housing in a lot of suburbs, its just a general view of a lot of people that high density housing is bad for their neighborhood

This is a perfectly natural view for them to have, because people generally don't like their neighbourhood changing, as it becomes something they have to adapt to and learn to understand all over again. It's up to people like myself (and I'm guessing yourself too) who see the benefits of more dense neighbourhoods to convince these people of the benefits rather than running roughshod over their concerns. And it's up to governments to prove they'll build the infrastructure improvements necessary to keep the same quality of life with higher density, or get the developers to provide those improvements. Yes, there will be some intransigence from some, but in a democracy we need to get at least some people onside.

Something that has to be considered is the definition of high density compared to medium density. The ABS definition is low density being 1-3 stories, medium density being 4-8 and high density being 9+. I think some streets and neighbourhoods are best suited for low rise buildings, but you can still increase density within that limit through terrace houses, duplexes and triplexes. An area like Elsternwick should be able to take medium density, but I can understand the concern about 9+ stories.

 

[Gralin]

This is a perfectly natural view for them to have, because people generally don't like their neighbourhood changing, as it becomes something they have to adapt to and learn to understand all over again. It's up to people like myself (and I'm guessing yourself too) who see the benefits of more dense neighbourhoods to convince these people of the benefits rather than running roughshod over their concerns. And it's up to governments to prove they'll build the infrastructure improvements necessary to keep the same quality of life with higher density, or get the developers to provide those improvements. Yes, there will be some intransigence from some, but in a democracy we need to get at least some people onside.

Something that has to be considered is the definition of high density compared to medium density. The ABS definition is low density being 1-3 stories, medium density being 4-8 and high density being 9+. I think some streets and neighbourhoods are best suited for low rise buildings, but you can still increase density within that limit through terrace houses, duplexes and triplexes. An area like Elsternwick should be able to take medium density, but I can understand the concern about 9+ stories.

I mean we should be having a conversation about how there are enough vacant properties to house everyone already...

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I mean we should be having a conversation about how there are enough vacant properties to house everyone already...

I reckon that's overstated, as not everyone was home on census night, and some of those vacant properties could be in areas with little demand for housing. Hardly useful for house hunters in Melbourne if a property is vacant in a small town 400km away, if they can't work from home.

 

[Kram]

Not feasible for everybody of course but Australians need to get around the idea of living in places other than the major cities.

 

[Gralin]

I reckon that's overstated, as not everyone was home on census night, and some of those vacant properties could be in areas with little demand for housing. Hardly useful for house hunters in Melbourne if a property is vacant in a small town 400km away, if they can't work from home.

I'm talking about homelessness not rental market.
We've got housing that's being used as air bnb and holiday homes

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I'm talking about homelessness not rental market.
We've got housing that's being used as air bnb and holiday homes

not in the suburbs on a large degree (most in the burbs is room rentals - not whole house)

speaking to cbd apartment owners a few years ago, they only went airbnd because they were having trouble with finding tenants. airbnb for cities is problematic because you get lots of party hires (so repair and cleaning costs are high)

 

[Brad Goodman]

I'm talking about homelessness not rental market.
We've got housing that's being used as air bnb and holiday homes

Would you ban holiday homes?

 

[Gralin]

Would you ban holiday homes?

I think holiday homes are an issue yeah.
There are people that can't find anywhere to rent where they live and houses that are vacant except for a few times a year

We've got massive inequality in our housing market

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I think holiday homes are an issue yeah.
There are people that can't find anywhere to rent where they live and houses that are vacant except for a few times a year

We've got massive inequality in our housing market

how will tourist towns work then where holiday rentals are a big part of the local economy?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

We could abolish the private ownership of land

 

[Gralin]

We could abolish the private ownership of land

start with the government

 

[Forward Press]

We could abolish the private ownership of land

Karl Marx likes this.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Karl Marx likes this.

not necessarily. can move to something like London with the 99 year leases

 

[Forward Press]

Polling has indicated a strong chance of the Greens primary vote to be well in excess of 10%. To reiterate from another thread a few weeks ago, if they manage to get 15% I will run naked down St Georges Terrace wearing nothing but a United Australia Party hat.

 

[Kwality]

And disingenuously looking for subsidies on them?

Or playing the game dominated by virtue signallers handing out (we) taxpayers money ?

 

[Kwality]

how will tourist towns work then where holiday rentals are a big part of the local economy?

Send the industry/jobs overseas, we are good at that.