Emily Sims

Some very important issues raised by @grhutchens in this analysis of Prosper Australia research: abc.net.au/news/2024-03-2… Many of Australia's greatest economic and policy minds are saying the same thing. Probably indicates there's something in many of these ideas...

I have two speaking events coming up in Melbourne tomorrow. 1. John Cain Memorial lunch (12.30pm at Carlton) events.humanitix.com/john-cain-lunc… 2. The Great Housing Hijack—in conversation (3.30pm RMIT Swanston St) events.humanitix.com/the-great-hous…

New report from @Prosper_Aust considers how we can eradicate 'poverty traps' in the income tax system. If all states levelled up to the ACTs land taxation effort, we could reduce welfare taper rates and remove disincentives to work. #taxshift #taxreform

@HowardFMaclean The debate is not whether adding supply puts downward pressure on prices. Nobody I've read disagrees with that point. The debate is whether upzoning is sufficient to bring about that end. The conceptual gap is the conflation of rezoning with supply.

My favourite thing about online housing discourse is that we have these endless debates about if b uilding more market homes really impacts housing costs, but out there in Domain/All Homes land it's just presented as pretty obviously true.

This.

@peter_tulip @GeorgistSteve Inner-city land is scarce because inner-cities are scarce. Locations can be shared - but not inifinitely, and not without diminishing returns (think Judge Dredd). The characteristics of certain locations can be reproduced - and transport-land use planning should be aimed at this.

@GeorgistSteve @em_prosperaus I agree with @em_prosperaus on many things but I disagree with her claim: "Each location is unique and can’t be reproduced easily, if at all." If housing density was fixed that would be true. But it’s not. We can build up, so locations can be shared. 1/2

Great conversation between @peter_tulip and @GeorgistSteve in the comments thread!

From the folks who brought us yourlogicalfallacyis comes a new platform to help battle the misinformations: theconspiracytest.org

CoHousing Australia is inviting all to our Reader Discussions for Book/Knowledge Circle. Meetings are 7:30pm-9:00pm on the last Monday of every second month. Next Circle on Nov 19 talks sustainability. #cohousing #ecovillage #SustainableDevelopment #planet #HousingForAll

The symmetry of property markets is real a political problem that we all pretend is easy to avoid

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust I can only put that down to a lack of imagination on your part. Have you ever looked at the planning and development regime in Singapore? They have no housing affordability problems over there...

@em_prosperaus @Prosper_Aust I don’t know how any sane person could conclude that the failures of the last 20 years are due to a *lack of* planning and governance, what more planning and governance could you ever dream of

Prosper Australia's Emily Sims: “If the cost of delivering [infrastructure] is higher in outer-suburban areas, the infrastructure contributions should reflect that higher cost,” ow.ly/3P5A50PYQNY

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust I wouldn't even look at house prices - too much asset pricing noise to tell us anything meaningful about supply...I'm assuming that you think that its a supply problem

@em_prosperaus @Prosper_Aust I’m arguing that when house prices are so high that you’d need a HH income of a quarter mill to afford a median house (not even a nice one), due to govt failures, that the hurdle for land and housing markets to operate “more efficiently” is extraordinarily low

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust Because arguably the past 20-odd years of urban governance was built on the back of that belief. The result is approx $12bn in unfunded infrastructure for *existing* growth areas (Melb), bad congestion (not just roads - schools &hospitals too), and no housing for low income peeps

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust Congestion has impacts across an entire urban economy - we are all worse off when our transport network is jammed. But, do you believe that if the government just 'got out of the way,' land and housing markets would coordinate more efficiently?

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust Government coordinates to lower costs (infrastructure and information) for everyone. When high insurance charges prevent somebody developing on a flood plain, we don't think the insurer is "an impediment," do we?

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust The government has a responsibility to ensure that private decisions do not harm the rest of the community. Land markets are prone to failure and can't easily 'internalise' the costs (or risks) that development can generate - congestion, for example.

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust Are you suggesting that by removing infrastructure charges and privatising the provision of power and sewers, housing markets, and the broader pattern of urban development, will become more efficient?

@em_prosperaus @Prosper_Aust Well if the govt doesn’t have enough state funds to provide water, sewer, or other infrastructure, and on that basis refuse to permit housing to be built, then there’s people going without, right?

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust I don't quite understand the leap you've taken there.

@em_prosperaus @Prosper_Aust Seems like if there’s a housing crisis a lot of people are by definition going without pretty much all of those things though

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust Hmm. Probably not. Water, sewers, power, roads. These tend to be natural monopolies that are cheaper and higher quality when provided by single supplier. They are also essential services. Better to keep have public control and make sure we aren't gouged & people don't go without.

@em_prosperaus @Prosper_Aust Sounds to me like those are powerful arguments for privatising as many of those services as possible and removing bureaucratic vetos, since that would offer cost recovery, price certainty, reduce delays and not require a budget allocation from the state

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust Noting that developer charges are really efficient if they are known in advance of land purchase because they are 'paid' by the landholder not the new homebuyer. If they are 'sprung' on the developer it's a different story...

@reynoldsrd @Prosper_Aust Yep. User or impactor pays principle for "development-contingent" infrastructure like water and sewer. If development charges are cost reflexive, they can help prevent development where it is cheap for the developer/homebuyer, but expensive for the rest of us.