Housing policy debates

Policy shifts regarding eviction bans and housing legislation remain central to public debate. Advocates are pushing for stronger renter protections and a pivot away from developer-led models to address supply and affordability. What specific reform interests you? — gen1e.xyz

Guessing it's to do with this "no wonder they always seem to prioritise maximising corporate profits by building unaffordable ‘luxury’ properties, instead of the social and affordable housing we need." Which....seems fine

(It's not really a hot take, the old SVHS building basically had no windows)

With that is increased property taxes. That’s how they push people out of neighborhoods. Gentrification.

I spent my teenaged years in Lancing, and lived in Worthing for eight years when my kids were younger, surrounded the whole time by retirees from London, so I'm curious as to your reasons for saying this. Is it removal from support network? Is it the hassle of it?

It depends if you actually want to solve the housing crisis, or nearly all new housing to be owned by the state. Sadly may on the left are more interested in ideological purity than actually improving as many lives as possible

The whole downsizing thing is under stress anyway, with so many young people being forced to still live in the family home beyond the age at which people used to typically move out. But yes I agree about bad past experiences being another factor. I'm never moving. No way. not after last time.

I know of two NGO/campaign groups on housing and urban landscapes that are actually OK, and a few really locally driven crisis relief charities who are good, pragmatic (and under resourced) But it's mainly renter unions and political actors (Greens, socialists) pushing actual ambitious gaols

Not that I'm bitter that I went from being within grasping range of buying my own place to having to wait 6 years to be able to get a shared ownership flat and only then after a parent died.

Yeah I mean my whole genration aim to be one and done. Rent until you can buy a fully family home in your late thirties as your first kid starts school and just accept whatever commute that means based on your career up to then.

of course it's less expensive to provide housing than it is to maintain homelessness. and it's a moral imperative. governments are obliged to protect the lives of citizens by law. Vancouver doesn't want to solve homelessness bsky.app/profile/urba...

No they really want to keep the house forever so they can pass it to their heirs and get the step up in basis.

I re-located from Oz to Greater Manchester as to give them better schooling and FE/HE options and so they can live at home whilst studying. Only one looks like doing a degree. I’ve told them it’s no longer worth the investment. They can see how my over education has not paid off job wise.

I couldnt get out of the house fast enough but these days what kids can afford too? I would not go to uni as it would cost too much and as for renting .................

Once Boomers die off (within ten years of this very minute), housing supply will shoot up. Also, what we need is housing for the unhoused, and that is not an issue of supply/demand.

I like Canberra as a place (well, at least I did when I lived there 15 years ago) but I shudder to think what it would be like to raise kids surrounded by 100,000 people who've only ever worked in the APS.

The problem is these are the people that show up to oppose more housing because my property values (that I can’t even take advantage of). You should welcome the fact that your neighbors are converting their home to a triplex.