[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[Waewick]

Some serious shoulder chips being put on display here.

[aaronjameslange]

Maybe im on the wrong thread, i thought this was the north south motorway thread, 'not whose house is worth bulldozing' but ill post this here regardless
Southbound wearing course of t2t being completed this weekend, apart from landscaping on the surface roads, there cant be too much left. I wonder when we will see 80kph on the lowered motorway. It sure is hard to keep to 60

[rockthenation]

Maybe im on the wrong thread, i thought this was the north south motorway thread, 'not whose house is worth bulldozing' but ill post this here regardless
Southbound wearing course of t2t being completed this weekend, apart from landscaping on the surface roads, there cant be too much left. I wonder when we will see 80kph on the lowered motorway. It sure is hard to keep to 60

80km/h down the T2T lowered motorway should commence this Monday 15/10/2018 (weather permitting) according to this:
http://www.t2talliance.com.au/lowered-m ... september/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[mawsonguy]

AIUI it would be unconstitutional for property to be acquired for below market value, yet you're the second person today I've encountered apparently claiming the government do so. Am I missing something?

Actually, it's only unconstitutional for the Commonwealth Government to acquire property other than "on just terms" (s51(XXXI) of the Constitution). There is no such restriction on states. However, the High Court has held that the Commonwealth cannot by way of section 96 (the grants power) or any other provision provide money for a state requiring the state to resume land on unjust terms.

As for the State of South Australia acquiring land, this is governed by the Land Acquision Act (https://legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/LA ... 3.AUTH.PDF). This Act requires the State Government to negotiate in "good faith". Section 25 states that the compensation must be "such as adequately to compensate [the owner] for any loss that he has suffered by reason of the acquisition of the land; and in assessing the amount ... consideration may be given to—
(i) the actual value of the subject land; and
(ii) the loss occasioned by reason of severance, disturbance or injurious affection"

In other words, the owners don't just get the value of the land they also get the cost of relocating and establishing on new land.

Of course, to quote Dennis Denuto, there's also "the vibe" ...

[Waewick]

AIUI it would be unconstitutional for property to be acquired for below market value, yet you're the second person today I've encountered apparently claiming the government do so. Am I missing something?

Actually, it's only unconstitutional for the Commonwealth Government to acquire property other than "on just terms" (s51(XXXI) of the Constitution). There is no such restriction on states. However, the High Court has held that the Commonwealth cannot by way of section 96 (the grants power) or any other provision provide money for a state requiring the state to resume land on unjust terms.

As for the State of South Australia acquiring land, this is governed by the Land Acquision Act (https://legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/LA ... 3.AUTH.PDF). This Act requires the State Government to negotiate in "good faith". Section 25 states that the compensation must be "such as adequately to compensate [the owner] for any loss that he has suffered by reason of the acquisition of the land; and in assessing the amount ... consideration may be given to—
(i) the actual value of the subject land; and
(ii) the loss occasioned by reason of severance, disturbance or injurious affection"

In other words, the owners don't just get the value of the land they also get the cost of relocating and establishing on new land.

Of course, to quote Dennis Denuto, there's also "the vibe" ...

The hassle has always been that people value their land higher than its worth (which is fine).

I know of a person who aquired land for a development, but it was the compulsory aquired.

They paid him what the land was valued at, not my he thought the land was worth as a development site.

I can only wonder at the cost of aquiring land along the eastern corridor of Portrush road would be though.

[neoballmon]

The government should really be buying any property along any of its future corridors when it pops up for sale, for a much cheaper price than it could be in 10 years time, the rent it out until it needs to be demolished.
No extra cost to compensate owners relocating. No hassle of people feeling like their own home is being destroyed, instead, the 12 month lease just doesnt get renewed. And the government can make some of the money they make from buying back in receiving rent. A house rented for $480/w would bring in a quarter of a million over 10 years

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Waewick]

The government should really be buying any property along any of its future corridors when it pops up for sale, for a much cheaper price than it could be in 10 years time, the rent it out until it needs to be demolished.
No extra cost to compensate owners relocating. No hassle of people feeling like their own home is being destroyed, instead, the 12 month lease just doesnt get renewed. And the government can make some of the money they make from buying back in receiving rent. A house rented for $480/w would bring in a quarter of a million over 10 years

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Whilst i completely agree with you, that would require politicians with a long term vision.

[Eurostar]

Rather than building new road over the railway at Dry Creek why not use reuse old alignments for an east west connection. Grand Junction Road, Cavan Road, reuse the Cavan Road (cul de sac nowadays) from there cross to Goldsborough Road to a new junction (Montague Road and Sharp Court.

The existing Diagonal Road between Goldsborough Road and Port Wakefield, turn it into a cul de sac, removing the set often lights. Also turn Diagonal Road between Goldsborough Road and Main North Road into a cul de sac also.

[Aidan]

Rather than building new road over the railway at Dry Creek why not use reuse old alignments for an east west connection. Grand Junction Road, Cavan Road, reuse the Cavan Road (cul de sac nowadays) from there cross to Goldsborough Road to a new junction (Montague Road and Sharp Court.

The existing Diagonal Road between Goldsborough Road and Port Wakefield, turn it into a cul de sac, removing the set often lights. Also turn Diagonal Road between Goldsborough Road and Main North Road into a cul de sac also.

What would be the point of that? It wouldn't link with the PREXY nor correct a major flaw in our road network.

[SBD]

The government should really be buying any property along any of its future corridors when it pops up for sale, for a much cheaper price than it could be in 10 years time, the rent it out until it needs to be demolished.
No extra cost to compensate owners relocating. No hassle of people feeling like their own home is being destroyed, instead, the 12 month lease just doesnt get renewed. And the government can make some of the money they make from buying back in receiving rent. A house rented for $480/w would bring in a quarter of a million over 10 years

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Whilst i completely agree with you, that would require politicians with a long term vision.

That sounds like a great theory, until anyone gets wind of what is happening. The prices would very quickly escalate way above the objective "value".

Imagine being the vendor, and decide to sell at auction as you have little idea what your unique property is actually worth. You discover that the government will be sending a bidder with a blank cheque and instructions to buy the property at any cost. Your friend/brother-in-law/someone-you-met-at-the-pub-last-night-and-offered-$500-to/whoever shows up at the auction and bids every time the government buyer bids, up to 50% over whatever the estate agent told you was the best you could dream of. That only has to happen two or three times before "market value" for the street has been reset to this new higher mark, and it all starts again. It's much better in practice to have "market value" set for the whole project at once rather than piecemeal.

[how good is he]

There is major fact you may not be aware about on this issue or may have overlooked. Since many, many years ago the Highways Dept (now DPTI) lodged registered notices on people’s property titles that may be affected by road widening etc. This warns them and purchasers in the future that they may be affected and obviously should affect the purchase price/value of the property into the future.
By registering their interest it also served to give owners many years notice before things happened, it may help the home owner re-consider doing major works and even influence if people even buy the property in the first place when they find out. I have heard stories that in the T2T section there were home owners who had been waiting for the past 50 + years for this possible road widening/ resumption that finally happened a few years ago.

[bits]

When the government has decided they will build a road and have budgeted for it they already do buy the land.

Plenty of land along t2t was already owned by the Government.

Buying every house available at any cost will just hike prices to insane levels. That is the dumbest plan ever.

So where is the example of what the Government should have bought but did not?

[bits]

From many, many years ago the Highways Dept (now DPTI) issued Registered notices on people’s titles (that may be affected) to earn them (and purchasers in the future) that they may be affected by road widening etc. By registering their interest it also served to give them many years notice before things happened and also may help the home owner re consider doing majircworks or how much purchasers pay for the property.

How is it fair or just to alter someone's right to use their land for normal activities. There is surely zero chance you could do this without compensating and that compensation is surely in the form of the Government buying the broken land.

I would not accept the Government handing me a registered note saying "we are giving you aids in an undisclosed amount of time, dont have sex with people from now on. ".
I don't think a court would have any trouble saying the Government owed me a whole bunch of money immediately to compensate for the life they ruined. I wouldn't need to wait for an undisclosed amount of time for the Government to finally fulfil their promise.

[Waewick]

Government acquisitions aren't very subtle.

You get a letter telling you your property is being acquired, then you are told how much (then there is mediation).

In the context of buying along a corridor, i would have thought telling people their house maybe a road in 10 years is going to make it difficult to sell to anyone else but the Government, so any thought of a bidding war isn't going to cut it.

[how good is he]

Usually all parties get their own independent valuations of the property as the basis to set the price. The thing is with calculating valuations they use the same data (recent comparable past sales to evaluate average sqm land rate plus a value of the building per sqm with a rating system which assesses the improvements/condition of the home.)
So theoretically the result of any valuation should be very similar for the home owner or the Govt’s. Also if the home owner does want to continue to argue the value they will need to move out regardless by a certain date (they can’t hold up/blackmail the process by years in court). My understanding after say mediation (if there is still a legal dispute) the Govt pays the money they have offered to the home owner into a court trust account (proving payment/consideration) and the home owner can continue to argue for more money in court but importantly has to get out or becomes evicted regardless of any dispute over money.