Should we revive the Housing Trust?

[Aidan]

In the pre-Bannon days, the South Australian Housing Trust played a very important role in the state's economy, reducing the cost of living and making the state more economically competitive. Unlike its current role of providing housing for those who can't afford to buy or even rent commercially, it was originally aimed at making the lower end of the housing market more efficient for everyone - see http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/natint/s ... 533804.htm.

Could, and should, we do it again?

Conditions are certainly different in Adelaide now - there's less available land for a start. And we need to avoid the mistakes of the past, like entire suburbs made up of Housing Trust homes. But the option of restoring the Housing Trust to its former role, with new houses dotted around new developments and redevelopments, offers some great opportunities:

Firstly, it is probably the best way to ensure that many energy efficient homes are built quickly. There have been many complaints about the overabundance of Federation style houses and McMansions (which are said to be wasteful) but the private sector predominantly stick with what they know will sell well. With the Housing Trust commissioning a number of different designs (due to variations in block size, slope, orientation and zoning regulations) it should be possible to ensure all its houses score well on efficiency, functionality, good looks and low cost.

Secondly, it could help achieve the original objective of reducing the cost of living in SA. And even though the industrial relations system is now different, that's still extremely important. Last state budget the businesses were complaining about payroll tax - even though our state has it low and many small businesses are exempt, some aren't and complain what they're getting charged here they wouldn't have to pay interstate. But if it meant they could pay lower wages, it's unlikely any would mind. So anything that reduces the cost of living without making people worse off ought to be pursued!

So should we revive the Housing Trust? And if not, what compelling reason not to have I missed?

[Norman]

What's the difference between the Housing Trust and affordable homes in new developments such as Cheltenham?

[Wayno]

it's an interesting idea aiden, one question: who would qualify to live in a HT home? or would it simply be a matter of anyone adding their name to the waiting list?

ok, so that was 2 questions...

[Aidan]

What's the difference between the Housing Trust and affordable homes in new developments such as Cheltenham?

The affordable homes are what the government requires developers to provide, but that's about the extent of its involvement. With the HT, there would be ongoing public sector would be involved in more of the process, so house design would be good rather than merely cheap, and there would be a much greater emphasis on rental, as the HT would not initially sell the houses, though tenants would have the option of buying them eventually.

it's an interesting idea aiden, one question: who would qualify to live in a HT home? or would it simply be a matter of anyone adding their name to the waiting list?

The latter.

[Will]

I think that this is a worthy idea worth pursuing. I am terrified that the majority of people my age will never be able to buy their own houses.

I have long advocated an idea where for example the state government buys land, develops it and then sells the homes/ apartments to eligible homebuyers at the cost of construction. To keep costs down, there would be no display centres, no ads in the media and no flashy websites. Homes/apartments would be sold via this website http://www.homestart.com.au/property-lo ... ocator.asp to eligible buyers on a 30 day basis. i.e. if all homes/apartments in a particular development have not been sold to eligible homebuyers in 30 days then they would be released into the market at market prices.

Furthermroe costs could be further reduced by these developments not having spas, gyms, cinemas, zen gardens or employing feng shui consultants. Furthermore the design of these homes/ apartments could be left to final year architecture students...

Although I recognise this would not be a profit making exercise for the government, certain costs could be recuperated by having retail tenancies in the development which could then be sold at market prices. However I feel that in the long run, by making housing more affordable via such a scheme, our population and economy may further grow as young people priced out of the housing market in other states may chose to come and live here.

[teflon fox]

Will, your idea has merit but there will be people who abuse it . You can pay say 220k for an apartment
but they don't all sell as you have outlined above so the remainder sell for the market price of 275k. After
living there for 12 months you sell for 300k, pocket the 80k and move back with mum and dad. Not saying
that everyone would do this but restrictions would have to be imposed to stop this

[Will]

Will, your idea has merit but there will be people who abuse it . You can pay say 220k for an apartment
but they don't all sell as you have outlined above so the remainder sell for the market price of 275k. After
living there for 12 months you sell for 300k, pocket the 80k and move back with mum and dad. Not saying
that everyone would do this but restrictions would have to be imposed to stop this

Indeed, I have considered this, and I would suggest that people buying such properties would be forced to sign a contract, that they must reside and not sell their apartment for at least 5 years.

Furthermore people who already own properties and those who earn more than an agreed figure would also be excluded.

[Jim]

The affordability of housing is more to do with land value rater than the cost of the house. A low cost house can be build for under $100,000 so I believe we can leave the building to the private sector. We don't need a Housing trust we really only need a Land Trust to ensure first home buyers or even developers of low rental properties can acces cheap land to build.

[SRW]

There was some suggestion earlier this year of the government funding residential expansion in the city centre. I haven't heard anything of it subsequently.

Here's the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1427

[Omicron]

With the HT, there would be ongoing public sector would be involved in more of the process, so house design would be good rather than merely cheap

Haha!

Oh.

[Aidan]

The affordability of housing is more to do with land value rater than the cost of the house. A low cost house can be build for under $100,000 so I believe we can leave the building to the private sector. We don't need a Housing trust we really only need a Land Trust to ensure first home buyers or even developers of low rental properties can acces cheap land to build.

But we don't have the cheap land any more, even when we add to the sprawl!

I'm trying to get away from the notion of programs which require huge subsidies, for two reasons: firstly it would be unpopular with governments, and even if one did approve such a thing on a large scale, it would probably disappear as soon as there was a change of government. Secondly, you could not make it available to everyone who wants it - restrictions would have to be placed on its use.

You are correct about affordability having more to do with the land value than the cost of the house. But rather than subsidizing it, the best solution is to not require the resident to buy it. The private rental market is inefficient - demand greatly exceeds supply, and landlords are making huge profits. Reviving the housing trust would enable the residents to benefit without ongoing subsidy.

And while the building can be done by the private sector, the choice of architectural design shouldn't. Far too many of the cheap houses out there are badly designed. Many are without eaves, even on the north side, so they get too hot in summer. And the style of house chosen is usually what's known to sell well rather than what features the residents actually require.

I'm reminded by Omicron's reaction that HT housing does not have a reputation for good design (to put it mildly). But is this bad reputation fair?

Regardless of whether it is or not, I did stress in my original posting that the mistakes of the past should be avoided.

The was some suggestion earlier this year of the government funding residential expansion in the city centre. I haven't heard anything of it subsequently.

That was a different issue: low cost housing for key workers (cops, teachers, nurses etc.) That's what low cost hosing is usually taken to mean in London. When it becomes an issue, you know the key workers aren't getting paid enough.

[Jim]

The affordability of housing is more to do with land value rater than the cost of the house. A low cost house can be build for under $100,000 so I believe we can leave the building to the private sector. We don't need a Housing trust we really only need a Land Trust to ensure first home buyers or even developers of low rental properties can acces cheap land to build.

But we don't have the cheap land any more, even when we add to the sprawl

The value of vacant land is what ever we want it to be. Thousand of acres of vacant land could be compulsory acquired if government had the will. Adelaide has huge tracts of unused land, in the south housing really only follows the main arterial roads, lots of infill still to do and in the North between Muno Para and Gawler to the coast. Then there are the old Yatla and Strathmont sites. This land along with higher density housing can serve Adelaide for many years to come. There was a time when the Government had a land bank it just needs the will to acquire another. Like I have said it’s not the houses that are unaffordable it is the land.

[Cruise]

The land in between Munno Para and Gawler will never be use for housing, It in a development exclusion zone, to make sure Gawler keeps it's "country town feel"

[Pat28]

The land in between Munno Para and Gawler will never be use for housing, It in a development exclusion zone, to make sure Gawler keeps it's "country town feel"

and on a slightly related pathetic notion that the community wants - apparently Stirling is a village hence no 2nd supermarket. days where Gawler is a country town are limited.

[Jim]

The land in between Munno Para and Gawler will never be use for housing, It in a development exclusion zone, to make sure Gawler keeps it's "country town feel"

Like i said

thousands of acres of vacant land could be compulsory acquired if government had the will.