“Foreign home buyers backflip”, The Age, 24/4. The Federal Government reversed its baffling decision to allow foreign investors to buy homes in Australia unimpeded. Though I have to wonder if this is due in part to an election taking place later this year.
I am utterly sick of this country’s obsession with housing – more accurately, the property market being regarded as a form of wealth generation. A house is first and foremost a place to live in. I am also sick of living in what seems to be a semi-permanent construction zone, sick of the increasing overcrowding and overdevelopment that is making my neighborhood and many others stressful to live in, sick of the ugly monstrous houses that are blighting once-pleasant streets. This columnist expresses similar feelings:
Our suburbs are changing as swathes of properties are being bought by foreigners seeking a home purely as an investment. Because they’re investors, often they’re not personally interested in the communities they are buying into. For some there’s no respect for community, history or heritage. Perfectly good houses that come with large leafy gardens are being flattened to make way for massive mansions with tiny courtyards. Many of the buyers are families of overseas students, and other temporary residents who have little connection with the area they buy into. The real trouble is that we can’t turn back the clock. Daggy, but liveable – and affordable – houses are being razed and replaced by monstrosities that sometimes soar three storeys.
I honestly wish the property market would collapse. I want the quiet neighborhood back that I used to live in, want these ugly new houses razed. I would like to firebomb the housing estates spreading like cancers over what open land remains around Melbourne.
I have not been writing much out of such despair. I am powerless to do anything to stop this destruction.
A collection of letters from The Age:
10/4:
Population
In the year of biodiversity, Michelle Grattan writes an entire article on population without mentioning the word “environment”.
– Julia Thornton, Surrey Hills
Ever since huge numbers of immigrants have been arriving in Australia, the majority of the population has always been against their arrival. We are continuing the tradition.
– Con Vaitsas, Lakemba
Given the rapid population increase that is putting pressure on housing, hospitals and the transport network, what is the government’s policy on increasing the death rate?
– Roger Farrer, Hampton
Politicians asking wrong questions
If climate change represents the “greatest moral challenge of our time” then population growth represents the greatest moral foundational question of our time, especially considering Australia’s coal-fired per capita carbon emission rate. While we have a moral obligation to accept as many refugees as possible, immigration policy is another matter.
What is the ethic of poaching skills from developing countries? Unfortunately, politicians of both persuasions, in alliance with the business lobby, have pre-empted the outcome of any debate with the dubious premise that rapid population growth is both desirable and necessary, the only pertinent questions being where and when, not how and why.
Crowded cities, choked transit routes, pressure on food and water resources and a general loss of public amenity are just a few likely problems that, according to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, represent challenges we can rise above if “we do it properly”. Do it properly? Hmmm, let’s have a look at the evidence so far. Two words say it all. River Murray.
– Dave Mack, Macclesfield, SA
Growth end in itself
A point largely overlooked in the debate is that growth has become an end in itself akin to a religious belief. Once, economic growth was a means to the end of meeting people’s needs. Now growth is an end in itself and population growth is the means, feeding it through increases in consumption and the labour force.
Many years ago anthropologist Professor Bill Stanner compared this worship of growth to a cargo cult in which he said “God is goods, and the GNP the outward and visible sign of his glory and his power”. He could have added “and to hell with the environment”.
– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge
Lower family size
The human population explosion is about more than crowded Melbourne trams; it’s a global issue, and I commend Kevin Rudd for reversing John Howard’s policy of denying aid to overseas family planning programs. Rudd pledged up to $15 million over four years to such programs. This means, for example, that East Timor – which now has to import food – might have a chance of lowering its average family size of seven children. It’s also more likely the mother will not die giving birth to her final baby.
Tony Abbott must talk about his policy on aid to family planning and maternal health programs for our neighbours.
– Pamela Lloyd, West Brunswick
Start slowing now
That majority of Australians who are happy with a population of 30 million but not happy with 36 million needs to recognise that unless we put policies in place now, the population isn’t somehow going to slow down at 29.5 million and stop at 30. The bigger it gets the faster it grows, so we need to start slowing down now.
Incidentally, when we reach 30 million there will be the same amount of water as there is now so we’ll need to get used to having about a third less water each. As we will also have reduced our total carbon emissions by then, too, we will have to cut them further by another third.
– Graham Parton, Stanley
Cut complacency
Michelle Grattan’s comments on the broader solution to managing Australia’s population are concerning (Comment, 9/4). The argument for “sustainability” earned a half-paragraph, with reasoning that we will simply work something out. We live in one of the driest countries. Australians do not need encouragement to be complacent.
– Angus Carter, Albert Park
11/4:
Less is more
What welcome news you bring. The Rudd government is going to consider population levels seriously, hopefully as part of a long-term strategy for a sustainable Australia. I believe a population of 20-25 million is a good target. This will allow infrastructure to catch up with demand, environmental degradation to be curtailed, housing pressures to ease, greenhouse gas targets to be met, adequate water resources to be found – the list goes on. Our addiction to raw growth must be changed to an enthusiasm for sustainable development, putting quality before quantity.
– Gordon Payne, South Fremantle
26/4:
Welfare for well-off
While it is heartening that the government has reversed its foreign investment real estate policy (“Foreign home buyers backflip”, The Age, 24/4), it needs to do much more if it is serious about tackling the issues of affordability and access.
Our housing system is increasingly divisive and continues to lock an increasing number of people out of home ownership and into relatively insecure rental arrangements. It is appalling that government policies support this and the wealth creation of an increasingly small proportion of the population – property investors and real estate agents.
Negative gearing and other tax perks that drive demand and inflate prices are a form of welfare. It is perverse that taxpayers are subsidising those who least need assistance, reinforcing social and economic exclusion in the process. Surely the government is responsible for the welfare of all its citizens?
– Sonia Martin, Camberwell
Insensitive agents
Estate agent Adam Gillon might get a “warm, fuzzy feeling” about overseas property buyers being at his auctions (The Age, 24/4) but he clearly doesn’t have adult children like myself who feel hopeless and dejected about ever being able to get into the property market.
In the current real estate climate it is insensitive comments like Gillon’s that give real estate agents a poor reputation.
– Diana Holten, Surrey Hills
