Meanwhile across the Tasman...
It's worth noting that when the government (or the market) lowers the price of residential property and people do lose money on their properties, the ones who lose most are people who live in the house they own. To an investor the drop in price is a taxable event, so the government/taxpayer is covering a third to a half of the loss (this is another reason the government want to quarantine losses to the property that incurs them). But if you live in the house that's all your money.
And for people like me who earn less than the $100,000/year my house is dropping in price even the current "slow fall" is not good news. I could easily go bankrupt if there's an actual crash. Along with most of that half of Australia who have mortgages.
And for people like me who earn less than the $100,000/year my house is dropping in price even the current “slow fall” is not good news. I could easily go bankrupt if there’s an actual crash. Along with most of that half of Australia who have mortgages.
Is that when people are forced to sell houses because of job loss or such events, and the sale doesn't cover the mortgage?
the sale doesn't cover the mortgage?
that's the one. The term is "negative equity" and apparently about 20% of Sydney homeowners are in that position right now. I'm not. Yet.
Two years wasted and millions poured into the pockets of developers.
And it doesn’t look as though the government has learnt anything from this disaster.
No one forced them, as they are now claiming, to build houses no one wanted to buy. That was a choice.
It was also a choice not to listen to those saying this is not good policy.
Twyford is now finally saying he will early next year direct councils to stop their capricious decisions on height controls in CBDs. That should have been done the day he entered government.
Still no movement on reforming the Unit Titles Act which is desperately needed if apartment buyers are to have any hope in maintaining and governing apartment buildings. The whole intensification project will collapse if this is not dealt with quickly.
Also no curiosity about how the construction industry gets away with outrages prices for buildings that are often substandard - leaky buildings are still being built.
It’s all been overtaken by other events. Who would have thought that there was no te reo word for allegation that didn’t also imply rumour. Nudge nudge.
I don’t think it’s that surprising that a policy premised on demonising ethic groups winds up pouring money into property developers. If it was a National govt one might think that was all planned.
I think I might have referred to this issue somewhere up thread:
1100 out of 1200 buildings tested show evidence of compromised construction. The true extent of which may not become known for many years leaving anyone owning an apartment in such a building in a very difficult position.
This plus the continued building of leaky buildings on top of the $47 billion (more likely to be 2 to 5 times that) cost of previously built leaking buildings plus other issues such as passive fire resistance defects will all add up to a huge tsunami of pain and financial hardship for thousands of people.
It will also greatly undermine confidence in intensification as apartment buildings will all be suspect.
One reason this has not got the attention it deserves is so many people don’t want this to be out in the open. They want to sell up before this becomes common knowledge, while they still have a chance to sell to the unsuspecting.
Isn’t it seriously odd how such a major issue got zero attention during the local body elections.
And neither Labour nor National happen to show the slightest inclination to confront this disaster. The more time goes by with nothing done the greater the disaster will be and the greater the number of people who will have their lives destroyed.
Leaky buildings still being built highlighting the very urgent need for action especially action on laws governing apartment building management.
Currently, f you buy an apartment you’re taking on a very big risk.
1100 out of 1200 buildings tested show evidence of compromised construction
This has consequences for their end of use demolition as well - if those taking these buildings down are basing their methods on the original submitted plan rather than the actual construction.