Albo's question

[Old Koreelah]

27 minutes ago, facthunter said:

They've been fed the idea you can have it all on CREDIT. Many will find out the hard way the perils of debt. THEY think they can have it ALL . But the people during the depression and war  knew what poverty was and "MAKE DO" with what they  had till they could afford better…

Very different to the way many of us were raised. Aim high, work and study hard, patient, start with a small, affordable car, house…

 

I’ve finally succombed to consumerism; tomorrow I will take a load of used treasures to the dump. Worn, leaking wellies, power tools that I’ll never get around to repairing, my collection of computer printers that don’t like me…

Plurry hard to toss out stuff that, not so long ago, I could never afford to buy.

 

 

[old man emu]

I have just found an Aladdin's cave of old plastic scale aircraft models priced at the right price. Next week I'm off to Sydney to spend up big.

[pmccarthy]

I had a box of clips, junction boxes etc left over from a house build 20 years ago. Threw it out a few months back and now I need it all to rewire a shed. Happens every time.

[old man emu]

[red750]

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Threw it out a few months back and now I need it all

That's the definition of junk- old stuff you throw out two days before you need it.

[facthunter]

Money in the bank is fast depreciating with inflation  making it worth little over time. People rushed to get "some" house rather than miss out and the Last government assisted them to do so. and that pushed house prices even higher which suites a lot of Pollies as they own quite a few of them. Supply is most of the problem and high land prices also as the vendor has to supply the roads Kerbing and so on (which is fair enough) Why should the existing ratepayers pay for it?   Nev

[old man emu]

38 minutes ago, facthunter said:

vendor has to supply the roads Kerbing

So they make the roads as narrow as possible to squeeze more house blocks per hectare, but the developments don't have public transfer. This means that houses are often two or three car locations and the cars are parked on the road, narrowing them. So much so that the garbos can't get down them to pick up the garbage, and in the event f a fire, all the Firies can do is watch from the nearest intersection as the street burns down. The fire spreads because the houses are so close together (more house blocks per hectare).

[facthunter]

Little boxes all in a row, so close together  you can hear people farting. Not for Me I'd rather die. If that's all you have to aspire to in life and here's why  To finally pay it off, and then  the neighbours from Hell, Move in next door,  Who could possibly want for more?  The Australian dream come true.. The kids have problems and come back to live with you   Nev

[nomadpete]

Sounds like it's time you bought a boat, Nev.

 

If you don't like the neighbours, you can pull up anchor and move.

[Old Koreelah]

11 hours ago, facthunter said:

…the vendor has to supply the roads Kerbing and so on (which is fair enough) Why should the existing ratepayers pay for it?   Nev

Why not? A generation or more ago a mate tried to get our local council to curb and gutter his streets. Council couldn’t afford it without a big increase in rates, so he organised all the residents into a working bee. They borrowed moulds, etc from the council and they did it themselves! 

[old man emu]

Gone are the days of unpaved roads and ditches for gutters in metropolitan areas. Too much dust and too much mud.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Holy quote-a-roney, Batman...

 

14 hours ago, facthunter said:

Money in the bank is fast depreciating with inflation  making it worth little over time. People rushed to get "some" house rather than miss out and the Last government assisted them to do so. and that pushed house prices even higher which suites a lot of Pollies as they own quite a few of them. Supply is most of the problem and high land prices also as the vendor has to supply the roads Kerbing and so on (which is fair enough) Why should the existing ratepayers pay for it?   Nev

As an example of how they pack them in over here, Wellesbourne Mountford was owned by the Littler family and they wanted to devedlop it into 1800 homes: https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=30608. The site is 200 acres; so just a little over 1/10th of an acre per house, ex any roads and infrastructure; iof which there won't be much more than roads, sewerage and the essential utilities.

 

There is a new development near is for a few hundred houses on what can't be much more that 30 acres of land.

 

 

13 hours ago, old man emu said:

So they make the roads as narrow as possible to squeeze more house blocks per hectare, but the developments don't have public transfer. This means that houses are often two or three car locations and the cars are parked on the road, narrowing them. So much so that the garbos can't get down them to pick up the garbage, and in the event f a fire, all the Firies can do is watch from the nearest intersection as the street burns down. The fire spreads because the houses are so close together (more house blocks per hectare).

It absolutely p155es me off here how narrow the roads (really lanes) are, and they are village roads - not the new development roads. But, yes, some houses will get a 1 small-car garage with theirsl sonme may get two. But often, the double storey shoe box owners end up simply converting the garages into living sapces and voilla - same problem - on roads often designed to have only parking on one sire of the road.  Although, I think these days, the councils often impose covenants prohibiting development of garages into living spaces for those very reasons of rubbish removal and emergency vehicle access.

 

13 hours ago, facthunter said:

Little boxes all in a row, so close together  you can hear people farting. Not for Me I'd rather die. If that's all you have to aspire to in life and here's why  To finally pay it off, and then  the neighbours from Hell, Move in next door,  Who could possibly want for more?  The Australian dream come true.. The kids have problems and come back to live with you   Nev

Would you really rather die, or just sell up and move somewhere better?  I would take the latter as if I have to do it at a loss, it is a lesser loss than the former. My "kids" (16 and 20 year old) still moan about moving from London, until they visit their mates' places in London, after whicvh they change their tune very quickly. Lock down was horrendous for many who lived in citites and towns. But out our way, it didn't have that big an impact, except it was even quieter than it is now.

 

When moving back to Australia (I am not going to give a date because something always bloody comes up), I am conflicted about a city or one of my favourite rural areas. When I am in London, I do like the vibe (but I don't frequent the problem areas). But, I also am very fond of a bit more land and a few less people, but still withing a convenient distance to the basic amenities like an airfield, reasonable supermarket, accessible medical care, and, of course, a decent take-away/fiosh and chip shop.

 

2 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Why not? A generation or more ago a mate tried to get our local council to curb and gutter his streets. Council couldn’t afford it without a big increase in rates, so he organised all the residents into a working bee. They borrowed moulds, etc from the council and they did it themselves! 

I think that is right for building/repairing/replacing existing infrastructure, but the developer should pay for it as part of a new development and pass it on as a cost to the buyers. Since I moved to the greater Taunton area back in 2014, the amount of new housing has been explosive. Where the drive from where we used to have 12 acres into town was mostly fields and smatterings of houses/shops until quite close to town, it is now new two-storey shoe boexes as far as the eye can see. I wouldn't even want to guess how many there have been around Taunton and Wellington (both under the same coucil), but it has to be near 7,000 or so.. not including apartments/units. The developers are liable to pay for all infrastructure - new roads, widening existing ones if required, all the utilities, etc.

 

If the development is big enough, they will also be compelled to build properties for services - e.g. shops, car parks, leave some par space, schools, etc. Of course, they either sell them or lease them, so they make their money (for schools, etc, rather than the council buy them - they are responsible for education delivery - they reduce some of the council charges by a reasonable amount, and of course, any further offset is built into the residential and commercial properties (if any) prices

 

The developers were sneaky. Leasehold is still a common tenure of land; and with new homes, they used to sell them as Leaseholds - which meant the property developers held the freehold and for usually 999 years from building, would be due ground rent. And what did they do? After the guaranteed period of no rises on tuppence ground rent (usually 5 years), they jacked it up. The government abolished selling new homes as leaseholds in 2019.

 

(we have only bought freehold, or leasehold with a share of the freehold - the flat would have to be under a leasehold, but we owned an equal share of the freehold of the entire block of flats - it is against my religion tp buiy a leasehold)

[Old Koreelah]

Cars and where to park them is one of the biggest headaches for urban planners. Just after the Fukushima earthquake we visited Japan. In Osaka our young tour guide was doing it tough, with few tourists and a depressed economy. She needed a car for her business, but had to pay $100 each week for the right to park in the street. 
 

Meanwhile, in the Old World, buildings collapse onto cars and sleeping families.

I won’t complain about our minor irritations.

[Bruce Tuncks]

There are much smaller blocks being sold in Oz. In Palmerston, they were selling 150 sq m blocks and I was shocked. ( your blocks at 1800 from 200 acres are about 400 sq m ( 360 sq m if you get a yield of 80% ) .

Well i came home to Craigmore only to find that 150 sq m blocks were here too. Gosh, my old  hangar ( 18m by 9m shed ) is too big for those blocks!.

[Bruce Tuncks]

The old blocks were 1/4 acre so the neighbor's dunny didn't smell too bad. Sewage systems are partly to blame for small blocks these days.

[old man emu]

11 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Sewage systems are partly to blame for small blocks these days.

They bring shit into closer settlement.

[facthunter]

High density  should be specifically designed from the outset not a  closely grouped hotch potch of slightly differing "same" things. Common walls can easily be made sound proof and the whole thing a lot more secure..  Make your home environment better and you don't get the frantic rush to leave the cities at each short Holiday.   Nev

[red750]

Makes one wonder Who is telling us what !!!!

 

This is the most critical issue in Australia's future because it is the first spark that will cause a long burning bushfire throughout our economy and your assets.

 

IF YOU OWN PROPERTY VOTE NO FOR THE TREACHEROUS VOICE REFERENDUM OR YOU WILL LOSE YOUR TITLE AND SECURITY OF OWNERSHIP IN THE FUTURE

  Spread this around

 

Why the Voice could hurt parliament, capital system: Robert Gottliebsen
 

Anthony Albanese is pushing for a referendum to change the constitution to recognise the role of First Nations people in Australia’s history.

 

Slowly the Voice debate is swinging to issues like property ownership, rent and the allocation of government revenue.

 

I could say welcome to my country, but it is a very unwelcome country.

 

On election night last May, among the most inspiring words of our newly elected Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was his embrace of a referendum to change the constitution to recognise the role of First Nations people in Australia’s history.

 

Albanese aimed to bring together our past and our present and end current and future basic differences.

 

At the time, like most Australians without Aboriginal heritage, I knew very little about how the so-called voice would work, but the Prime Minister’s sentiments made me an early supporter.

Then the detail started to emerge, and it became apparent that we were being asked to vote on a proposal without full knowledge of what the legislation to be passed by parliament would contain. I found this both strange and disturbing.

 

Then came constitutional experts, who warned us that while the proposed wording change to the constitution might look innocuous to a lay person, keywords had legal meanings which the High Court could easily interpret to give the First Nations body very wide approval powers over the actions of the parliament of Australia. Almost certainly that would include the federal budget.

 

The Australian’s legal affairs writer Chris Merritt, who is also vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, explains that the constitutional provision has been drafted in a way that would permit the First Nations body to dissipate its efforts across the entire range of federal public policy – a very powerful body indeed.

 

More recently the debate has taken an even more dangerous course and a group of First Nation people led by a member of the upper House of the federal parliament now opposes the Voice referendum because it inhibits First Nations’ rights to be declared the real owners of all land in Australia.

 

Some people in this group take the natural next step and say that as people with Aboriginal heritage own the land, those who occupying it should pay rent.

 

The Greens, whose support the government needs to pass most of it controversial legislation, say the voice is merely a first step and a “treaty” must follow. The word “treaty” in this context usually means property ownership and rent.

 

We are now looking at a potential attack not just on the power of our parliament but our capital system, which operates on the basis people who buy, and mortgage property have title to the land.

It’s possible – maybe even likely – that reference to land ownership will be contained in this so far secret legislation.

 

Perhaps that’s why it’s being kept secret.

 

In normal circumstances when groups of people or individuals want to reconcile their views and move forward, then any issues involving property, money or rent must be put on the table as part of the reconciliation. If not addressed, then such issues will arise again and again.

 

Now that section of the First Nation community has raised the issue of property and rent to be paid by Australian householders and commercial property “owners” for occupying land they “don’t own” the issue is in the table.

 

The government is pouring very large sums into places like Alice Springs, and the overall Australian community has little concept of just how this money is being distributed.

 

The same applies to the large royalties being paid by mining companies.

 

Reconciliation is not all one way. It should be a two-way exercise, with both sides coming together and prepared to give ground.

 

In this context, Australian land covering large parts of WA, SA, NSW Queensland and Northern Territory has the potential to be used as major solar power generation sites and for the growth of carbon absorbing plants like saltbush.

 

This will be highly remunerative. The land is part of Aboriginal land rights. We need to talk about these things now, rather than leave it to heated debates later.

 

I don’t pretend to have any knowledge of the forces that are causing First Nations people to attack each other and wreck property.

 

Obviously alcohol plays a big role, but I suspect deep in the background is the way the abundant cash is being distributed and the difficulty of First Nations people in those areas have in owning a house.

We are now discovering in our capital cities and regional areas that when you spray money into a community, as we did in JobKeeper, it can have bad impacts on the younger generation irrespective of their colour or racial origins.

 

We are rushing into a referendum that is great superficial community appeal where we have not sorted out the details and kept some of the details that have been sorted out secret. Lasting reconciliation agreements negotiate these things first. By rushing we may head into an area of dispute it will last many decades.

 

Finally, our Prime Minister is telling us that the new parliamentary body will not impact the broader workings of the nation’s parliament.

 

I suspect most of the nation is like me and wants to believe him, but the Prime Minister is not a constitutional expert and those with far more knowledge of this subject are warning us that he is wrong.

 

ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN 

BUSINESS COLUMNIST

Robert Gottliebsen has spent more than 50 years writing and commentating about business and investment in Australia. He has won the Walkley award and Australian Journalist of the Year award.

 

Share this article

[facthunter]

Please red don't get us involved with these  various opinions . Someone else could produce arguments for the opposite case and I don't come here for this stuff. I get it just about everywhere I go. . Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well I read and like what red has written. Personally, I have never exploited an aborigine at all, and I have always paid fully for any property. And I can't see why I am less Australian than any other person, aboriginal or not. 

They have had all the opportunities I have had and more besides.

The reason I will be voting "no" is that I have never had it explained how this voice thing would benefit anybody at all. Airy ideas about morale don't impress me, but being told I can't go climbing in the Grampians sure makes me angry. I submit that the aborigines have so very few disadvantages that they are reduced to prohibiting whitefellers from climbing, because that is about all they have left. Gosh, I wish I had some of their access to lawyers at the taxpayer's expense. Not to mention university education.

[red750]

I didn't write it, I copied and posted what was written by noted award winning journalist Robert Gottleibsen.

[facthunter]

I know that  but do we want other views diametrically opposed to be put here? As I said I get it everywhere else so  don't welcome more of it here of either persuasion...  Nev

[rgmwa]

I suspect that by the time the vote comes around, the waters will be so muddied that the No vote will get up, particularly because all the States have to pass it. Although many people will already have made up their minds, the outcome will be determined by those currently undecided and disengaged voters (probably most of the population) who will choose at the last minute. If they don't understand it at voting time and when clearly not even all the aboriginals are for it, they will most likely vote no.  I think that selling the Voice as a concept only with the details to be worked out later is a mistake, especially with Dutton and others campaigning against it.  

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by rgmwa

[red750]

If you don't want to read it, Nev, then don't. This IS the Politics forum, that's why it's here. Not just to laud the almighty Albo.

[red750]

Did you think about the points and possibilities raised?

 

They are always on about "You invaded our land and took it from us."   Stands to reason they will demand it back and want us to pay for it. Are you prepared for that? Wasn't me that "stole" it. I was born here, so were my parents.