Housing Requires Land?

Perhaps this?

let the people sleep on the trains

Perhaps another option to consider is the Israeli Kibbutz system where you have a collective of people sharing the land, often remote or even in a Arid Desert. They create some form of industry onsite (eg: a small factory) and everyone in the Kibbutz work towards that goal. I don’t think that they “own” their house directly but they own shares in the Kibbutz, which is legally structured as a cooperative that owns everything inside. Also, everything is taken care of for you, especially the childcare, which is amazing.

I have contacts if PPAU wants to investigate Kibbutz further, plenty of Australians are involved

I see that as a function of the private market.
If people want to get together to do that then they can, now easier than ever.
But, i dont think the government needs to incentivise it.
Or at least, if it were investing into a factory as an infrastructural investment, it shouldnt be an investment into private ownership but rather public ownership because it’s using the publics money.

Yes, I see it that way too, but there could still be ways that government could assist to encourage it taking off if there are ways in which it would help with public policy, i.e. Homelessness.

There could also be certain areas which we are already trying to lure more people to live in. For example, Farmers have a labour shortage in some parts of regional Australia. Open a Kibbutz with the lure of Socialism and then you’ve got a whole bunch of people to draw workers to local farms from, and families growing up there for the next generation. It does not have to be totally self-sufficient year-round.

yes i agree with the idea if it were regulated to ensure that the people owned it, not a corporation.
This is investing into coops idea that Richard Wolff talks about too.
But i don’t agree that a privately owned unregulated community should be preferred over the individual.
In as much as the distributed ownership is ensured then i agree with it.
that basically ensures they dont get extorted too.

There is no way that a Kibbutz could exist as the only solution. It only works because the people inside WANT to live that lifestyle.

true but the basic principle of not funding cronyism through public tax money is what im speaking of.
so if it is Apple Inc owning the kibbutz i dont think they should get preference over individual investment (giving crowne land to individuals or families).
Tax money should go to public services or goals that improve society.
So, if it were distributed ownership then great, it might have more benefits than just giving land to individuals or families,
but if its Apple Inc, then naa. unless they had an investment matching scheme. but i think thered need some level of regulation.

Kibbutz can only be coops of individuals.

Any interests in companies are just as business dealings in the best interest of the coop and their members.

Government can fund as far as there is public interests in the coop. I.e. strategic location, move social problems out of cities, reform existing remote communities with social problems, support local economy

Ideally the Greens want the policy to take no more than 30% of someone’s weekly income. They believe the plan will save New Zealanders $100 a week compared to commercial mortgages

Ardern said the new Government would look at a number of options to get people into their first home.

“For us it’s about using a range of mechanisms to make sure people get into home ownership,” she said.

“Some of the subsidy schemes the government have introduced don’t necessarily help home owners, because the proportion of a deposit they’re expected to accrue is still just too high.”

… or this?


I would support the leasing of public land (for a peppercorn rent) for homesteading, but this is still ridiculously inefficient and in my view a paltry response to the grave injustices these people face in a rich developed nation such as ours.

We have a whole bunch of regional and rural towns which are constantly shrinking and leaving huge amounts of already built existing infrastructure intact and massively underutilised. Schools which are at less than half capacity, empty homes etc. Basically these towns are being hollowed out and becoming Geriatric centres.
The problem is no one will move in or remain there (everyone is moving out of those places) because there are no jobs and no hope of there being jobs - unemployment in these places is ridiculously high (and it has nothing to do with automation), it’s purely an internal trade deficit issue due to low export capacity. Something which is easily fixed, or at least offset by a strong Horizontal Fiscal Equilisation policy (which can take the form of a Job Guarantee).
This is not the silver bullet to the long touted goal of decentralisation - the other major problem being services and connectivity, but with sufficient other public investments in internet (and potentially rail) infrastructure it would be a far more potent and serious policy response. It would also finally stop taking people living in those regional/rural areas for granted.

It would cost very little to up the maintenance of the existing infrastructure in those towns and ensure all our citizens can have reasonable access to public services, rather than giving them the choice of camping out in the bush in some tents on crown land - something which most of them won’t do because they’re probably financially better off begging (and using services) in the city, hence why they generally congregate there.
The main things needed are job creation (demand injections), connectivity enhancing infrastructure and provision of public services, and sufficient land taxes to ensure the homes in those towns don’t become speculative vacant assets once people start moving in.
Also we don’t want to be giving away a free lunch to the landowners in those towns who benefit from the reverse in migration, or at least I don’t.


Here is an example though which I find ridiculous. You don’t even need to give people access to crown land to homestead, you just need to leave them the bloodly hell alone when they choose to do it.

1 Like

Yep. Just saw that through reddit as well.
Some of the links in the top comment are useful too:

1 Like

This is appalling. Sure I’m in favour of putting land to higher use, but to not adequately compensate these people for their improvements and moving costs is criminal.
A complete erosion of security of tenure, long term notice should’ve been given.

I don’t think that Notice was the issue, it’s that some of them literally could not afford to move because they have no money left or any equity to afford moving costs.

I suppose that the responsible thing would have been for the previous park owner who guaranteed his residents long-term access to the property to negotiate relocation as part of the sale.

The deeper issue is that some people want to live humbly and need access to cheap land where they can’t be booted off on a whim.


There are hopes, too, in Australia for more community land trusts being set up; non-profit corporations that own real estate to benefit the local community with housing and commercial spaces. There could also be more micro-homes produced as are being seen in Europe, and more mixed housing, like in Holland where elderly people and Millennials live side by side in the same projects.

“Millennials want the same thing as everyone else – somewhere they can put down roots, feel a sense of belonging, have safety and security, and not having to keep moving,” says Ms Goldsworthy.

“But the difference is that this generation are used to sharing, with the sharing economy and not necessarily owning things like vehicles. They want accessibility, but not necessarily ownership. So different typologies of housing like sharing spaces, co-housing, or having small bedrooms but sharing facilities with others, could suit them.”

she probably hasnt read about henry george.

This is not exactly how it is. The fact that you own the land does not mean that you do not have commitments. You still have to pay land rates/taxes to the government, you still have to pay fees to the PP Board, you still have to pay the local government for the right to have toilets if you are living off grid!!! This means that you can not be self sufficient, unless you can make money from your property, eg growing & selling vegies or herbs. To do this you have to obviously make enough to pay all government fees & taxes, plus the cost of transport for your product to a market, plus the cost of the stall at the market. Basically you are not free to do as you will on your own property & live a self sufficient & self reliant lifestyle. You still have to make money, engage in money making. You can’t just survive on trading & labour sharing.

1 Like