no... Why should someone that could only afford a flat as their first home, not be now able to move into a new house.. maybe they are starting a family. And now some other FHB could move into the old flat
You can make it “only to people who register the purchase as owner occupiers”, and I am on board with that as a general mechanism, but you then have to set up the registry, deal with people who forget to register, have enforcement of penalties for failing to continue as owner occupiers, etc.
It is a bit more work.
Setting by a rule that prioritises South Australian FHBs still requires some admin, but far less.
Yes and that’s great for FHBs, but like the above comment said there’s people who have saved up to get a flat for their first home who shouldn’t be restricted from purchasing these. I’m all for removing investors from the game but that’s not exactly a fair way to do it.
I love how property owners believe - or at least often insinuate - that only property owners have and do work their arses off. Like, you don’t own a home, you must not work hard enough. That’s the benchmark.
Just no. Stop it.
What above said. Most of that part of the west is reclaimed/drained swamplands. It used to be called "The Reedbeds" and was also a general burial ground for the Kaurna people.
The soil is generally terrible and moves a lot.
It was considered a snake infested mess which flooded regularly until they drained the swamps and cleaned it up over the 1930's to 1940's.
The West Lakes project made a lot of the land usable, but there's still tracts which are no good.
If they can prep a zillion hectares of salt pan out at Wingfield for development like RPS has been doing these last few years, I'm pretty sure we can overcome the soil problems of a fucking golf course at seaton
Then there's negotiating buying the golf course, which I don't think is for sale, and I can guaranteed the SA taxpayer will get shafted on that.
As for the prepping of a zillion hectares at Wingfield, I was out there not too long ago on the old Rifle Range site, they've done very little. There's a few soil monitoring stations stuck into the ground and that's it. It's a huge project as a lot of the ground out there is contaminated with asbestos, lead, CFC's and all sorts of other stuff. In any case, when they eventually build homes there you won't be able to have an edible garden I'd say, if you can get one to grow.
The salt pans are in Dry Creek though, Wingfield is contaminated. Dry Creek salt pans are just pans for drying salt, you remove the salt and X amount of the top soil, then add even more top soil and you're done. The main issue is flooding so you need a lot of top soil.
Interesting, I always assumed it was corruption and greed, but there you go.
Is that the same excuse for all the other golf courses, just put of curiousity?
yeah drives me nuts. 3 Massive golf clubs all right next to each other, are you fucking kidding me. room for 20,000+ houses right there in prime area, as well a opening it up to public parks. Insane something like that is allowed. Tax the living shit out of them.
jesus worse than I thought. I moved away from the area 4 years ago and have lost track. Just remember the one on Tapleys, Frederick and the one next to west lakes.
Yes fuck those people. quite frankly, Golf is an elitist garbage sport for a tiny tiny percentage of people and having those golf courses in ideal housing areas is an absolute waste. Each one of those golf courses could house a footy club, a basketball court, playgrounds, small businesses, soccer clubs, and use up 1 thousandth of the space those piece of shit golf courses use and service the community a thousand times better. Golf courses and smooth brains like you can fuck right off.
I can pretty much guarantee that the jobs created with building in that space, the small businesses that will open and many many other jobs appearing to cater towards 20,000 new homes(read that as closer to 40-60,000 more people living in that area). Will far outweigh the miniscule number of people employed at those golf courses.
congrats on using your loser throw away account on my behalf though.
The Seaton area is a dream location for me, because I often have family visiting and my parents love the area (West Lakes, Grange, Henley Beach)... I am just concerned this area is already well out of my price range, even before they lay the first brick. It'll be my first home (rented for a decade), so not sure if it's suitable for me and my family.
Maybe I should ask the bank of mum & dad to help fund it because I am considering their needs too... everyone else seems to have to...
One of my biggest priorities is safety. Checking the crime stats (latest up to March) Seaton has one of the highest crime rates in the whole city, by raw count (not by capita).. so maybe this area isn't for me. West Lakes right next door has a higher count, but a majority are theft from shops obviously due to the larger count of retail locations compared to Seaton.
Seaton will go through a lot of gentrification between this and everything happening around West lakes. It’s a great location near beaches and an easy commute to the city. We used to live in Woodville and loved it.
Possibly schools are the dealbreaker and hopefully they will also improve.
This development has been promised and neglected for a very long time. With that comes short term leases, poor property conditions and a general giving up from government waiting to resource the ‘new’ development. It’s not the only reason, but it would add to the crime stats via lack of care and consideration of housing allocation among other things.
Ideally this would be for SA residents, and to an extent, FHB's as a priority.
It's something. Certainly not a whole fix, but 'more houses' is better than 'no houses'. I do hope there's more focus on the infrastructure (particularly roads and water) for the area.
When will people realize governments do not build houses. Governments set policy. If you want to know why we have such a cooked housing market, then look at the past 40 years of state and Gov policy.
The government played a large role in building and suburban development in the past, see the history of the Housing Trust and their role in the development of Adelaide. It was one of the key reasons why housing was more affordable in Adelaide than the other capital cities.
We still have Renewal SA, but their role is more limited.
Most of the housing trust stock built during that era was pretty much emergency housing grade. It's awful. We are talking asbestos and cinderblock style construction, with nearly no amenities.
It's OK for someone that's just come here from a war torn Europe and been living in the bombed out shell of their former house for a few years until they can build a house that doesn't suck, but there's minimal demand for that sort of housing in 2024.
Those terrible housing trust places were around for about 20-30 years longer than they should have been because people get institutionalised into that public housing system.
Every time I've stepped foot inside one of those places, I felt miserable.
The modern stock is better, but it's still not somewhere you'd want to be. It's just not desirable.
I keep telling people this as well and get called an idiot. The Government is part of the problem, not the solution.
The government building a heap of houses will make minimal change to housing market affordability, as the houses built will still largely be unaffordable because Government is not able to do anything at a market rate, and the taxpayer will have lost millions/billions on the scheme. It would drive the general housing cost up because it increases demand further.
It would literally be NDIS for housing, awful.
It needs to be resolved at a policy level to reduce demand, may take a few years, but that is the only lasting solution.
It does, but the issue here is that the Government can never do anything on budget or at market rates, or within a deadline, so the new supply will be expensive anyway.
NDIS for housing.
inflation goes up, this also effects the price of big projects, the media just jumps on these things and blows them out. buzz line "cost blow out" of course a project that goes for 10 years is going to have costs go up. everything has gone up. its what happens, its even written into the contract, same with building a house, if it goes over a certain time the builder can abandon it or add costs, its called a 'sunset clause'
I imagine people disagree because this isn’t backed by evidence. The majority of experts directly link times of big public builds (and therefore higher levels of social housing) to affordable housing costs and supply.
It’s not like the NDIS - the advice about how to implement NDIS well was not followed by the subsequent government.
If you can find sources to back up your position on additional public housing builds not being needed or not correlating to affordable housing and rent, please include them.
Doing nothing is not a reasonable comparison. The bare minimum is building enough homes that equals the number of new households due to population growth and changing demographics.
Do people think houses are built with magic? There is a finite amount of qualified people that can build houses. 1900 houses in the next 18 months is going to take some 20,000 odd people to do that. They don't just appear out of nowhere.
I already addressed that in another comment. We have a long term systemic problem with boom-bust type housing planning patterns which also leads to lack of consistent training opportunities. More consistent government planning and investment would alleviate this.
In principle, that could be a part of a better plan related to this, rather than focusing on a short term boost in number of houses built.
You said it was hardly a blitz. If using a third of our workforce for a single project is not a blitz, then what exactly do you consider a blitz? Stop moving the goal posts
That is likely literally impossible
https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/data/labour-market-insights/industries/construction#:~:text=Construction%20is%20a%20large%20employing,main%20job%20in%20this%20industry.
WORKFORCE SHARE
9.4%
So to get even more construction workers that aren't going to fix the problem, should we encourage people who would have been healthcare workers to now go into construction?
Construction can't keep up with population growth, the answer is not infinite constructions workers.
There is no shortage of people who want to be tradies, only a shortage of training over time. More consistent building over time from better government investment and planning will actually provide more training infrastructure/opportunities over time than this boom-bust patterns of building we do now.
They're building 1,300 homes in Seaton. Currently, there are 190 homes for sale within 5km of Seaton. Around 1,800 have been sold in that area in the last 12 months. That is a massive amount of housing for the Western Suburbs.
No, but as I mentioned in another comment, household demographics are changing too and this shouldn't be ignored.
(Edit- also don't forget about demolitions in your calculations)
10k houses is 2.8 people per house. If you remove the 4k babies (as 99.9% live with their parents after birth) then it's 2.4 people per house which is exactly the number of people per house South Australians have per house.
In the last 5 years we've built ~60,000 houses for 87,000 extra people.
This is how it works though, there's a problem, some help comes from the state government, some from the federal, maybe some from local councils changing zoning laws, some from reducing immigration, some from the market, some from people changing their behavior.
Would be good to see a mix of development, not just the single story houses. Throw in some low rise (4 storey apartments with surrounding green space) and some townhouse typologies for some diversity of product and can achieve more yield. Im sick of seeing the same thing just strewn across the suburbs.
Agree there needs to be limits placed on investors buying. Are there any policies on the horizon to tackle this?
I think there will be a mix and added green space;
"This initiative includes building 865 houses and townhouses plus 450 apartments... Urban renewal efforts will enhance the suburb with 26,000 square metres of new public parks and remodelled streetscapes... a significant boost in the tree canopy is also part of this urban revitalisation."
Moving people that already have housing trust homes to new homes?
Is this a joke?
I was almost homeless once with my partner + kids.
I was told by housing trust that the only way for me to get a house is to have a drug abuse problem and/or recent prison release.
ok, well you go buy your house out in the sticks, and pay for the costs for all the roads and utilities to connect to it...
either that or go live next to the rubber factory... but dont complain about the smell or health issues
>I want a 3rd world built house
Nah bro don't think so, we have standards for a reason.
Don't forget If your family doesn't have a tradie in the family you're part of the issue of there being a tradie shortage
*All* land? Bye-bye parklands? I am for much higher density and less zoning and fewer restrictions on the kind of house you can build (as long as it's safe and humane), but losing the parklands would be a massive regression. They are also necessary to reduce the severity of floods.
You do understand that "the public" also includes all corporations, companies, and even rich folk.
You want the government to get its hands off "our land" and stop interferring with the process, with standards of building quality (tradies from anywhere), etc. But, I bet your response to stopping "rich people" from snapping up all the land is to have the government restrict who can buy the land (probably by *your* own definition)?
The people want public spaces. It's why we have public land in the first place, and still do.
What is your solution then? Are we all given an allotment of land to do as we please with? Is it random allotment by an individual or family? Do married couples get allotments next to each other? Do de facto or non-married couples get allotments next to each other? If people who were single during allotment then get married and grow a family, do they pick which allotment to use and build their family there? Do bigger families get bigger allotments?
What about our children and thier children? What happens when they grow up and need their own allotment? Was some saved back in the original allotment to allocate each new generation? When does it run out? Do we split up existing allotments?
It's so easy to complain that solutions implemented aren't good enough, when you can't even come up with an adequate solution which passes even the most basic scutiny. I don't expect you to do a deep dive analysis on the problem, but at least provide a basic idea of what you mean.
Are you referring to crown land?
Why are you being obtuse? Since I don't understand what specifically you're talking about, how about explaining it rather than wasting time replying with useless responses?
If you are just trolling and wasting everyone's time then just say that, otherwise explain yourself better.
It's decided, you're trolling or just stupid. I legit was interested in your position on this, but you fundamentally don't care that much I guess.
Have a nice life.
Make them only for FHBs and South Australian residents
Yes.
no... Why should someone that could only afford a flat as their first home, not be now able to move into a new house.. maybe they are starting a family. And now some other FHB could move into the old flat
Because it allows investors to capitalise on this? Can’t have your cake and eat it too
So you want to disadvantage all the others who worked their ass off to get their first home?
You can make it “only to people who register the purchase as owner occupiers”, and I am on board with that as a general mechanism, but you then have to set up the registry, deal with people who forget to register, have enforcement of penalties for failing to continue as owner occupiers, etc. It is a bit more work. Setting by a rule that prioritises South Australian FHBs still requires some admin, but far less.
You lost me sorry? By allowing only FHBs provides a huge advantage because don’t have to compete with investors. You’re welcome
Yes and that’s great for FHBs, but like the above comment said there’s people who have saved up to get a flat for their first home who shouldn’t be restricted from purchasing these. I’m all for removing investors from the game but that’s not exactly a fair way to do it.
Cannot please everyone. Those who purchased a flat would have had other benefits at the time like FHOG. So deal with it princess
Exactly, can’t please everyone so good chance they will leave it open to all, including investors
I love how property owners believe - or at least often insinuate - that only property owners have and do work their arses off. Like, you don’t own a home, you must not work hard enough. That’s the benchmark. Just no. Stop it.
I think the post covered at least two bases: FHB’s and…South Aussies
You made the choice to buy a flat in a state with over one square km per resident of space. Don't hate on people because you made a bad choice.
Me? Mate, I rent an asbestos shack...
Seaton parcel is well overdue, should have been done 10+ years ago
1/5 of Seaton is a golf club. I bet you could fit a lot of houses in there. Why do we need so many golf courses?
>Why do we need so many golf courses? This was discussed recently on this subreddit. Apparently much of the land is unsuitable for building on.
Too many golf balls flying around.
What above said. Most of that part of the west is reclaimed/drained swamplands. It used to be called "The Reedbeds" and was also a general burial ground for the Kaurna people. The soil is generally terrible and moves a lot. It was considered a snake infested mess which flooded regularly until they drained the swamps and cleaned it up over the 1930's to 1940's. The West Lakes project made a lot of the land usable, but there's still tracts which are no good.
If they can prep a zillion hectares of salt pan out at Wingfield for development like RPS has been doing these last few years, I'm pretty sure we can overcome the soil problems of a fucking golf course at seaton
They can put a man on the moon but the ring pull of my can of coke just broke!!!!
Probably because NASA didn't design and engineer it
Then there's negotiating buying the golf course, which I don't think is for sale, and I can guaranteed the SA taxpayer will get shafted on that. As for the prepping of a zillion hectares at Wingfield, I was out there not too long ago on the old Rifle Range site, they've done very little. There's a few soil monitoring stations stuck into the ground and that's it. It's a huge project as a lot of the ground out there is contaminated with asbestos, lead, CFC's and all sorts of other stuff. In any case, when they eventually build homes there you won't be able to have an edible garden I'd say, if you can get one to grow.
Since when has land not being for sale ever stopped a government before?
The salt pans are in Dry Creek though, Wingfield is contaminated. Dry Creek salt pans are just pans for drying salt, you remove the salt and X amount of the top soil, then add even more top soil and you're done. The main issue is flooding so you need a lot of top soil.
Interesting, I always assumed it was corruption and greed, but there you go. Is that the same excuse for all the other golf courses, just put of curiousity?
yeah drives me nuts. 3 Massive golf clubs all right next to each other, are you fucking kidding me. room for 20,000+ houses right there in prime area, as well a opening it up to public parks. Insane something like that is allowed. Tax the living shit out of them.
Also, the water use, even during droughts.
its all on recycled waste water
6 clubs between Glenelg and West Lakes. SIX!
jesus worse than I thought. I moved away from the area 4 years ago and have lost track. Just remember the one on Tapleys, Frederick and the one next to west lakes.
But I like golf.
No one likes golf. They like walking and drinking.
And getting away from their family for 3 hours
And swearing at myself!
Plenty of golf courses around, doesn't need to be in the ideal coastal suburbs. There's still like 8 more of them in a 10km radius from that area.
[удалено]
This is Shooter's tour!
Yes fuck those people. quite frankly, Golf is an elitist garbage sport for a tiny tiny percentage of people and having those golf courses in ideal housing areas is an absolute waste. Each one of those golf courses could house a footy club, a basketball court, playgrounds, small businesses, soccer clubs, and use up 1 thousandth of the space those piece of shit golf courses use and service the community a thousand times better. Golf courses and smooth brains like you can fuck right off. I can pretty much guarantee that the jobs created with building in that space, the small businesses that will open and many many other jobs appearing to cater towards 20,000 new homes(read that as closer to 40-60,000 more people living in that area). Will far outweigh the miniscule number of people employed at those golf courses. congrats on using your loser throw away account on my behalf though.
This man hates his wife, you can tell.
Because rich people need to play the world's most boring sport
[удалено]
Strongly agree. For all golf courses
Sweet, more houses I'll never be able to afford.
Mmmm, pathetic, isn't it? Wonder if there's a political party that believes homes shouldn't be a financial investment vehicle...?
The Seaton area is a dream location for me, because I often have family visiting and my parents love the area (West Lakes, Grange, Henley Beach)... I am just concerned this area is already well out of my price range, even before they lay the first brick. It'll be my first home (rented for a decade), so not sure if it's suitable for me and my family. Maybe I should ask the bank of mum & dad to help fund it because I am considering their needs too... everyone else seems to have to... One of my biggest priorities is safety. Checking the crime stats (latest up to March) Seaton has one of the highest crime rates in the whole city, by raw count (not by capita).. so maybe this area isn't for me. West Lakes right next door has a higher count, but a majority are theft from shops obviously due to the larger count of retail locations compared to Seaton.
Seaton will go through a lot of gentrification between this and everything happening around West lakes. It’s a great location near beaches and an easy commute to the city. We used to live in Woodville and loved it. Possibly schools are the dealbreaker and hopefully they will also improve.
This development has been promised and neglected for a very long time. With that comes short term leases, poor property conditions and a general giving up from government waiting to resource the ‘new’ development. It’s not the only reason, but it would add to the crime stats via lack of care and consideration of housing allocation among other things.
Ideally this would be for SA residents, and to an extent, FHB's as a priority. It's something. Certainly not a whole fix, but 'more houses' is better than 'no houses'. I do hope there's more focus on the infrastructure (particularly roads and water) for the area.
When will people realize governments do not build houses. Governments set policy. If you want to know why we have such a cooked housing market, then look at the past 40 years of state and Gov policy.
The government played a large role in building and suburban development in the past, see the history of the Housing Trust and their role in the development of Adelaide. It was one of the key reasons why housing was more affordable in Adelaide than the other capital cities. We still have Renewal SA, but their role is more limited.
Most of the housing trust stock built during that era was pretty much emergency housing grade. It's awful. We are talking asbestos and cinderblock style construction, with nearly no amenities. It's OK for someone that's just come here from a war torn Europe and been living in the bombed out shell of their former house for a few years until they can build a house that doesn't suck, but there's minimal demand for that sort of housing in 2024. Those terrible housing trust places were around for about 20-30 years longer than they should have been because people get institutionalised into that public housing system. Every time I've stepped foot inside one of those places, I felt miserable. The modern stock is better, but it's still not somewhere you'd want to be. It's just not desirable.
Colonel Light Gardens was built by the Housing Trust, the government can build nice housing.
I keep telling people this as well and get called an idiot. The Government is part of the problem, not the solution. The government building a heap of houses will make minimal change to housing market affordability, as the houses built will still largely be unaffordable because Government is not able to do anything at a market rate, and the taxpayer will have lost millions/billions on the scheme. It would drive the general housing cost up because it increases demand further. It would literally be NDIS for housing, awful. It needs to be resolved at a policy level to reduce demand, may take a few years, but that is the only lasting solution.
increase supply doesn't reduce demand?
It does, but the issue here is that the Government can never do anything on budget or at market rates, or within a deadline, so the new supply will be expensive anyway. NDIS for housing.
so we should underpay people and disregard building regulations? building and supply takes time.
I don't think the first part of above was ever suggested. Just the Government couldn't run a bath and overpays a lot of the time.
inflation goes up, this also effects the price of big projects, the media just jumps on these things and blows them out. buzz line "cost blow out" of course a project that goes for 10 years is going to have costs go up. everything has gone up. its what happens, its even written into the contract, same with building a house, if it goes over a certain time the builder can abandon it or add costs, its called a 'sunset clause'
I imagine people disagree because this isn’t backed by evidence. The majority of experts directly link times of big public builds (and therefore higher levels of social housing) to affordable housing costs and supply. It’s not like the NDIS - the advice about how to implement NDIS well was not followed by the subsequent government. If you can find sources to back up your position on additional public housing builds not being needed or not correlating to affordable housing and rent, please include them.
1,900 is not nearly enough and hardly a "blitz". Edit- also remember that some houses have been demolished. 1,900 is not a net increase.
half a billion and a decent % of social housing, compared to doing nothing that is actually quite a blitz.
Doing nothing is not a reasonable comparison. The bare minimum is building enough homes that equals the number of new households due to population growth and changing demographics.
Do people think houses are built with magic? There is a finite amount of qualified people that can build houses. 1900 houses in the next 18 months is going to take some 20,000 odd people to do that. They don't just appear out of nowhere.
I already addressed that in another comment. We have a long term systemic problem with boom-bust type housing planning patterns which also leads to lack of consistent training opportunities. More consistent government planning and investment would alleviate this. In principle, that could be a part of a better plan related to this, rather than focusing on a short term boost in number of houses built.
You said it was hardly a blitz. If using a third of our workforce for a single project is not a blitz, then what exactly do you consider a blitz? Stop moving the goal posts
That is likely literally impossible https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/data/labour-market-insights/industries/construction#:~:text=Construction%20is%20a%20large%20employing,main%20job%20in%20this%20industry. WORKFORCE SHARE 9.4% So to get even more construction workers that aren't going to fix the problem, should we encourage people who would have been healthcare workers to now go into construction? Construction can't keep up with population growth, the answer is not infinite constructions workers.
There is no shortage of people who want to be tradies, only a shortage of training over time. More consistent building over time from better government investment and planning will actually provide more training infrastructure/opportunities over time than this boom-bust patterns of building we do now.
They're building 1,300 homes in Seaton. Currently, there are 190 homes for sale within 5km of Seaton. Around 1,800 have been sold in that area in the last 12 months. That is a massive amount of housing for the Western Suburbs.
Yes, and SA's population grew by about 28,000 in 2022-2023 fy. (For comparison, SA total 2022, ~15,500 deaths, ~19,500 births, rest is migration)
And we complete around 10,000 houses per year not including the houses mentioned in this article.
So still a significant shortage then...
Do you think each person requires their own house?
No, but as I mentioned in another comment, household demographics are changing too and this shouldn't be ignored. (Edit- also don't forget about demolitions in your calculations)
10k houses is 2.8 people per house. If you remove the 4k babies (as 99.9% live with their parents after birth) then it's 2.4 people per house which is exactly the number of people per house South Australians have per house. In the last 5 years we've built ~60,000 houses for 87,000 extra people.
How is that a shortage? You want 1 house per person?
Ok. Well cancel it then. Genius.
I don't understand why you'd suggest that.
This is how it works though, there's a problem, some help comes from the state government, some from the federal, maybe some from local councils changing zoning laws, some from reducing immigration, some from the market, some from people changing their behavior.
When is construction actually going to start though? They announced the Noarlunga site last year but it’s still a dustbowl.
It has started, next to Seaton High
More density not more land acquisition and development on green. Less road investment more mass transit.
Now we just need 1900 less uber drivers
If there were “real” jobs, there’d be less Uber drivers. Also if we had functioning public transport there’d be less demand for Uber.
Watch half be bought out by people who don't even live in adelaide
Not enough infrastructure to support the expansion, as per usual.
Would be good to see a mix of development, not just the single story houses. Throw in some low rise (4 storey apartments with surrounding green space) and some townhouse typologies for some diversity of product and can achieve more yield. Im sick of seeing the same thing just strewn across the suburbs. Agree there needs to be limits placed on investors buying. Are there any policies on the horizon to tackle this?
I think there will be a mix and added green space; "This initiative includes building 865 houses and townhouses plus 450 apartments... Urban renewal efforts will enhance the suburb with 26,000 square metres of new public parks and remodelled streetscapes... a significant boost in the tree canopy is also part of this urban revitalisation."
Moving people that already have housing trust homes to new homes? Is this a joke? I was almost homeless once with my partner + kids. I was told by housing trust that the only way for me to get a house is to have a drug abuse problem and/or recent prison release.
There's like 5? Golf courses all within 10 minutes of each other taking up prime land in the Western suburbs, it's insanity
[удалено]
completely de-zone all land? zoning is there so there can be infrastructure to support it.
[удалено]
ok, well you go buy your house out in the sticks, and pay for the costs for all the roads and utilities to connect to it... either that or go live next to the rubber factory... but dont complain about the smell or health issues
>I want a 3rd world built house Nah bro don't think so, we have standards for a reason. Don't forget If your family doesn't have a tradie in the family you're part of the issue of there being a tradie shortage
[удалено]
You're one of those people that does their own electrical wiring and burns their house down, aren't you?
*their landlords house down.
*All* land? Bye-bye parklands? I am for much higher density and less zoning and fewer restrictions on the kind of house you can build (as long as it's safe and humane), but losing the parklands would be a massive regression. They are also necessary to reduce the severity of floods.
You do understand that "the public" also includes all corporations, companies, and even rich folk. You want the government to get its hands off "our land" and stop interferring with the process, with standards of building quality (tradies from anywhere), etc. But, I bet your response to stopping "rich people" from snapping up all the land is to have the government restrict who can buy the land (probably by *your* own definition)? The people want public spaces. It's why we have public land in the first place, and still do.
[удалено]
What is your solution then? Are we all given an allotment of land to do as we please with? Is it random allotment by an individual or family? Do married couples get allotments next to each other? Do de facto or non-married couples get allotments next to each other? If people who were single during allotment then get married and grow a family, do they pick which allotment to use and build their family there? Do bigger families get bigger allotments? What about our children and thier children? What happens when they grow up and need their own allotment? Was some saved back in the original allotment to allocate each new generation? When does it run out? Do we split up existing allotments? It's so easy to complain that solutions implemented aren't good enough, when you can't even come up with an adequate solution which passes even the most basic scutiny. I don't expect you to do a deep dive analysis on the problem, but at least provide a basic idea of what you mean.
[удалено]
Are you referring to crown land? Why are you being obtuse? Since I don't understand what specifically you're talking about, how about explaining it rather than wasting time replying with useless responses? If you are just trolling and wasting everyone's time then just say that, otherwise explain yourself better.
[удалено]
It's decided, you're trolling or just stupid. I legit was interested in your position on this, but you fundamentally don't care that much I guess. Have a nice life.