Page 2773 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 16 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This increase in the lease variation charge will see the monopolistic position of the government’s land agency further reinforced at the expense of small builders and small townhouse projects. The government often says in many different forums that it is committed to providing affordable housing. However, this big new tax of LVC hits first homebuyers hard because increasing the cost of development will increase the cost of properties and it will reduce the availability of affordable housing. This may become a deterrent for suburban renewal as costs to developers become unsustainable.
If there are no buyers, there is no development and it will kill competition within the land supply market because it does not apply to the government’s own land supplier or to Mr Fluffy sales, which will of course now get a big head start over any competition. This change only affects residential purpose leases, so it misses all greenfield land—in other words, LDA or SLA land—and commercial areas where large apartment developments can be built. The simple reality is that this LVC in the budget is effectively a tax that targets the only real competition to land supply the government has: its own ratepayers.
Another example we have seen is the debacle that is the contentious use of community facility zoned land. We all understand in a general sense that the purpose of zoning laws is: to improve and protect the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of our citizens; to help plan for the future development of communities; to develop new community centres with adequate utility, health, educational and recreational facilities; to recognise the need of industry and business for future growth; to provide residential areas with health surroundings for family life; and to ensure that the growth of the community is constant with the efficient and economical use of public funds. Yet we have seen the government sneak through a technical amendment that significantly changes their ability to use community facility zoned land which takes away from the amenity of all ACT residents to expect community facilities where they live.
In some areas there has been community outrage at the proposal to build public housing flats or townhouses in five suburbs. But as I have said in another discussion, the argument that community outrage would have occurred if there had been a proposal, for example, to build a defence facility on that community facility zoned land is not the point. The actual purpose of the building on that land is not the point; the point is that it is not being used for a community facility. However, the government chose not to be transparent and kept from the community the information about changing the purpose for the community facility zoned land. Instead of listening to those who were concerned about the developments—the ratepayers who indirectly fund these developments—the government has dismissed them and labelled their concerns as nimbyism.
This is one of those arguments that is really difficult to rebut because the government is trying to show that people do not have regard for people in public housing. The government is using this argument to belittle the concerns of local residents. But local residents, some of whom purchased properties near the CFZ land expecting the zoning to be for community facilities, are quite outraged at being labelled nimbies. They
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video