Yeh but i wasn’t talking about private companies so its a furphy.
I was talking about private citizens. A company is NOT a citizen.
In any event, the government seems happy to exclude everyone from public land as long as it’s in their interests or in the interests of cronies whom aim to control government.
Either way I am excluded. The difference matters not to someone with no access to land.
But the policy is designed to give those with no land some access to land. So its hard to then argue that it doesnt help those with no land.
The LVT is designed to make land use efficient. That would also give you more access to land as some lazy landholders will sell up to make better profits elsewhere and other landholders will rent out the land.
Im not saying ALL land should be parcelled off to non-land-owners, obviously for example there will still be forests and such that need protection.
But im talking about creating more supply for those that have no land and getting more people who choose that route self dependant and therefore not exposed to circumstance that might end up in requring welfare or job guarantee which whilst necessary, are burdonsome on the state.
So much of Australian land is marginal at best, moving away from services, friends etc, to have a dirt farm seems like a crappy option. Lack of access to services etc. due to geographical isolation is a major factor in social disadvantage. Providing access to services to homesteaders would be very important, otherwise it would be a really unattractive option.
There is probably some agricultural land that is under-utilised that could be put to better use by being subdivided and used for homesteading type arrangements.
The vacant land around where I live is either dam catchment, polluted, national park, or military base, all of which I don’t think would be good to parcel out. I live relatively close to Sydney, so I may not have a good idea of what land is available in more remote locations though.
Sorry, I just don’t buy the Tragedy of the Commons mythology.
If we want to provide housing, then provide housing. The idea that everyone needs land for that is a furphy. If (and it’s a big IF) our population is to continue to grow, then we’ll need to provide accommodation on less land. Alienating more of the little that we have left is a very, very bad idea. Bringing more of what has been alienated back into the public domain is a healthier policy.
Also that most trespassing laws require land owners to inform someone of trespassing and give them the chance to depart without going straight to prosecution. That, however, is also why people generally put signs around properties. On the other hand it’s also been exploited by certain, ah, urban explorers over the years.
The homesteading idea could also see support from some on the right as well including some Nationals.
I like this idea.
you still have to own land to put the tiny house on.
there was an article about a guy who bought one and he kept being moved on by the council every few weeks
and relied on friends to let him use their land to park the tiny house there.
also they are still too expensive for what they are, it could be done alot cheaper imo.
its a good idea but i think more needs to be done.
Canberra is one of the most progressive on LVT is it not?
or this …
oh, and this …
are hiring a “social engineer” who will facilitate group events and maintain harmony among roommates.
because we no longer know how to live in communities.
another good idea for shelter, but still doesn’t address the land problem which LVT solves to a large extent and homesteading is just another possibility too.
Also, kind of just sounds like a Youth Hostel.
I wonder if a side-effect of a UBI would be a significant migration of lower-income households from Sydney and Melbourne to regional towns, where housing is cheaper. It would not exactly be homesteading, but just a low-cost lifestyle with a vegie patch, chickens etc. on a 1/4 acre, with occasional casual paid work.
Australia has plenty of land; the shortage is of land close to employment. Mind you, even though land is cheaper in regional towns, it is still absurdly expensive by international standards. This country really needs a total reset of land costs.
Depends who you ask …
… and services.
Boarding houses, basically, aka those places you live when you’re a student/unemployed because you can’t afford anything else. Not remotely appropriate for couples/families to live in either. The whole idea is vaguely reminiscent of a bit of post-scarcity fiction I read years and years ago wherein the United States degenerated to the proverbial 1% owning everything and everyone else confined to tiny tiny microunit crap. Not a good solution.
Am I the only one starting to cringe every time ‘millennial’ is mentioned?
So we need better long distance transport and some way to encourage businesses to set up shop outside Sydney/Melbourne, then.
Did either of you read the article?
It seems to be behind a paywall.
There is a chrome addon that turns all mention of millennials into Snake People, it is excellent.
fuckers … my apologies to all.
Yes. The concept described therein really is very slightly upmarket boarding houses. It’s a shit idea.
(The Financial Review link you gave is behind a paywall. The SBS link is fine. EDIT: Said paywall can be bypassed by disabling javascript.)
Private group Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) said the consortium – which includes Japanese company Hitachi, infrastructure services company Cardno and the CSIRO – would deliver its proposal in response to the Federal Government’s Faster Rail Initiative Prospectus, which is seeking submissions for the co-funding of up to three business cases for faster rail initiatives.
CLARA plans to use the land value capture model along the route to fund and build eight inland ‘smart’ cities in conjunction with a high-speed rail network connecting Sydney and Melbourne via Canberra. It did put a cost on the project but estimates show that it would be more than $100 billion.
Perhaps this?