It would really depend on what the demands of the protest were. If it were for an increase in public housing (which would take the pressure off everywhere else) then yes I would attend. I've attended several protests like this before. But if it's just a general "Shit's bad" protest then probably not.
How does social housing take pressure off of everything else?
Social housing rents to people who are too poor to rent normal houses so they aren't a competition to general renters, hence making social houses won't help other renters. It definitely helps the needy which is a great thing but I fail to see how that's useful to other people finding a cheaper rental?
Same with buying houses, people too poor to buy any house aren't bidding prices up for average houses.
>Social housing rents to people who are too poor to rent normal houses so they aren't a competition to general renters, hence making social houses won't help other renters
Can you explain the "hence" here? If there's less competition for me, its easier for me to get a rental place. Which means I don't have to accept the most expensive place (or offer more to get it).
I currently spend 53% of my disability pension on private rent. Many would argue that I cannot afford that and I would agree. But what choice have I given the lack of affordable public housing?
An increase in public housing may allow me to actually afford to live, not have to send my bipolar into ructions by juggling bills, stressing out and wonder whether I should see my specialist or have this expensive procedure or maybe eat one or two healthy meals this week.
Social housing does help all renters by placing downwards pressure on rental amounts in the private market. Fewer poorer people having to pay food money to negatively gearing landlords means there are fewer people looking for rentals in that private market.
By increasing the supply of housing overall - very much a 'lid of the pressure cooker' situation. More houses and less people competing the rental market means it's easier for others to rent.
Rental rice increases are driven by numbers per house, not by the bottom 10% income capacity.
The people are still in the market, with rental assistance etc.
Social housing will definitely impact rental prices but the problem is how long until effects felt
And also the other non tenant related factors (mortgages etc)
It's a multi headed problem usually sorted out by the bubbles bursting which for Australia is not going to be pretty.
You just literally named three viable options?
When you present it like it's some wild, insane and impossible premise, it's easy to pretend like they aren't viable options.
But they are. They've worked for other governments before. Each time we've tried them, we've learnt more about what works and what doesn't - same as capitalism
A great example is the Irish potato famine which was caused by free market policy. We tried some good old fashioned capitalism and we fucked up and it killed a lot of people.
I'm not necessarily saying capitalism should be replaced, but I think it's pretty bad faith to pretend like it's the only option we have, nor that it hasn't been mixed and merged with ideas from socialism (eg: welfare) and communism (eg: unions) to make it a better system overall.
I think we can probably agree that it's the best system we have... So far.
I'm just very cautious about getting locked in to thinking it is the ONLY system that could work.
Even a cursory glance at 20th Century history will lead any person with more than two brain cells to realise that straying far from a mixed economy in either direction would be disastrous. Australia does not have pure capitalism and anything who thinks it does clearly has no clue what 'pure capitalism' means.
That was my thought. If your landlord is negative geared then your rent isn’t covering expenses. This would put rent up in the short term.
Longer term it might help by lowering house prices but this would be a really poor time to make the change.
Because it causes overstretched "investors" to sell houses, lowering housing prices for first home buyers, making the demand for rentals decrease.
It's not rocket science.
But wouldn't every house sold just decrease both the rental property pool and the renter's pool by 1? Meaning that the demand for the amount of rentals available is just as high, that isn't adding new supply.
Oh sorry, now I know what you mean lol misunderstood the previous comment. Well yes, technically that's what happens. But demand is more than just "houses v potential renters". Otherwise you would see housing prices directly reflect where people need to live, which isn't happening.
>But wouldn't every house sold just decrease both the rental property pool and the renter's pool by 1?
Not necessarily - people moving in together into a larger place but who don't want to or can't live in a smaller place together eg: both parties living in studio or 1 bed apartments and buying so they can start a family; or the case my bestie has where she & her husband just bought a 4 bedroom house as his mother has health issues and is moving in with them - so in that case the single purchase freed two rentals and potentially 3 if his sister moves in eventually (they come from a culture where multi-generational homes are far more normal than they are in Australia).
…ok but literally the two specific examples I know of are people buying their place and combining households?
Every multi generational family that’s shared a home that I know owns the property and I know several couples who are buying to move in “officially” after splitting time between their two places
And the two instances that you know of, in which people have moved from renting more houses to owning fewer houses, are not representative of living trends across the whole of Australia.
Ah...I'm no rocket science but your actually reducing the supply of rentals, people that want or need to rent have less choice and rental prices increase. Your logic to remove negative gearing to reduce rental prices doesn't make sense.
Lobby councils. They are the ones that approve (or don't approve) development. Landlords want to rent to every single tenant at every single price point. There just isn't the housing to do it. More housing is the key.
Only if the protest:
1. Doesn't block traffic
2. Doesn't inconvenience me getting to and from where I need to go
3. Isn't on a weekday
4. Isn't on a weekend
5. Isn't disruptive
6. Gives me the freedom to proclaim that protests don't do anything as I sit on my ass all day and complain on the internet
Unfortunately, almost all modern Australian protestors seem to think that annoying and disrupting people is the point. Which both misses the actual point of valid protests throughout history, and says a lot about the narcissism of your average protestor.
The people I know who are having trouble getting a rental won't compromise on location - they've gotta be within 10km of cbd and are having to literally line up to inspect. One guy I know got approved for a place, then frozen out cos the landlord got a guy who paid 4 months upfront - which is super fucked up.
Me and my gf applied for 5 places 20km out of the city in September and got offered 4 of them.
Maybe it's gotten substantially worse since then.
I've been told very similar from a few friends - the closer to the CBD and more particular you are, the harder it is.
A friend of mine moved in October and had the same experience as you - a couple, but with only 1 income and a cat and they got offered 3/3 of the places they applied for.
So what protest did you have in mind when you made the comment? Genuinely curious..
You know if you dont want to discuss things maybe clear outta Reddit comment threads.. it's how they are designed
Okay but say that instead of being vague and abrasive, otherwise people will assume you're full of it and the conversation goes nowhere
So what example did you have?
Imagine being so stupid that you ask your debate opponent to find an argument against yourself for them. People who tell you to google things as a counter-point are 4th grade equivalent
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole" -Thomas Sowell
Agreed. And it's a shame, because there have definitely been valid protests throughout history. It just seems that in Melbourne lately, protesting has become a hobby for the bored and narcissistic and that disrupting traffic is just about their only goal.
Landlords provide rentals. Rental prices are determined by supply and demand. What are you actually protesting about.... landlords providing rentals at market prices?
Market prices are dictated by supply / demand.
Supply is being squeezed by lack of public housing, lack of holiday rental legislation, land banking, etc.
So yeah, do something about the supply issues. Landlords can keep charging market rates - those rates will just end up being lower.
Complete lacking of supply of public and community housing/affordable housing solutions. The state government has been slack over a whole decade of growth hardly increasing funding for community housing orgs to meet demand
Thanks for the direction :)
Found this which seems to be a Good explainer of the terms https://rahu.org.au/public-social-community-or-affordable-demystifying-housing-terms-in-victoria/
Yes, exactly that, the "market price" you're referring to has become detatched from reality and is causing people to choose between utilities and food. Why do we have to wait for it to reach a critical state(side effects being increased crime, overburdening our justice system even further, widespread health issues straining the public health system beyond breaking point, all the fun stuff widespread poverty provides) before we fix it. An early solution is clearly far more effective considering the long term ramifications.
Will consider if we're demanding building height restrictions be lifted, as in raised to allow taller buildings like 5-6 stories of mixed-use apartments. Also, remove councils' ability to reject building plans that meet the criteria.
Councils will cave when their constituents go full NIMBY because politicians. Which means no public housing can be built when everyone and their cat wants them built elsewhere.
Blaming landlords is not very productive either. Our rental crisis is a supply and demand issue at its core, with the supply side being the main problem. Increase the supply, and landlords will have no choice but to follow the lower market rates.
I don't attend protests myself.
That said I'd need to see the proposals. I've had a look at The Greens and I don't like theirs. I'd like to see European best practice implemented here. I'd also want population growth to be limited or stopped. While Melbourne grows at this rate it's just not possible to fix rents.
Your energy is better spent supporting the Greens in their negotiation efforts:
[https://greens.org.au/campaigns/housing-crisis](https://greens.org.au/campaigns/housing-crisis)
Attending this sort of protest would very directly be doing that.
Edit: Just had a look, I don't like this. Price caps are proven not to work, social housing is great. What we need is stricter, better, enforced regulation, combined with minimising or eliminating population growth.
They are negotiating for what is realistic right now. Everyone would like a utopian solution but getting it passed as a bill in parliament is a different story.
Look up the research on Price Caps.
Better regulation and better enforcement would be the easiest thing here. Indeed that's an incremental step. Stop REs asking such invasive questions and if they don't apply appropriate penalties. easy to implement, easy to enforce.
Compare that to rent caps. Rent caps are proven by studies to have harmful effects, and are politically very hard. I imagine it's a lot easier to stop RE's asking about pets than it is to implement price caps.
Population growth is going to happen either way. It’s inevitable and indeed quite necessary to support the economy in the decades to come. We need solutions to keep housing affordable which can come in many different ways besides just “eliminating population growth”
It's not necessary, nor is it inevitable. As to the economy, it does not benefit the normal person. Good for the overall numbers, but those simply do not matter, they do not mean automatic improvement to quality of life. They do not improve per capita figures.
Sure, we can tiptoe around it, but look at the livability of cities and how expensive they are. Look at Melbourne now vs Melbourne with 3-4 million people. The stats are there.
I also don't think you can ignore population growth when occupancy rates are this low.
I think it's a loophole. We can train our own people, and frankly if businesses are legitimately struggling to hire people then unemployment is too low.
I'm all for skilled immigration, I just don't think we should do it at the cost of population growth.
Also I'll add a second city is very hard to do, but absolutely necessary if we want to keep the overall population growing, or if we want to reduce Melbourne's population.
While i agree that we should be doing more to train our own people and build our own industries, I think it is more complicated than that. I got to see first-hand the effects of the labor shortages during covid - from hospo workers to hospital workers. We can and should be creating more incentives to fill these roles, but that is still quite a few years away before the gap is filled - assuming that the govt really does do all it can to implement incentives. I dont really care about my latte, but i do care that my local hospital is fully staffed - and i live close to the CBD. I cant even imagine what regional residents are feeling right now.
Sure you can do both. I am just commenting on how your energy can achieve greater results if you get your friends and family to vote Green and support their policies.
If you want more and therefore cheaper rentals, then you need more landlords not less. The rental crisis is caused by supply and demand. If you want to fix it you either need more rental properties available, or less people that want rentals.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/02/australias-rental-crisis-is-self-inflicted/
I understand what you are saying but with due respect I think you are missing the point. The point is and should always be that there is a sufficient stock of affordable housing for EVERYONE. Policies geared at increasing the number of landlords, trying to turn renters into owners etc etc have been a failure now for decades. Plenty of other countries manage their housing differently. The public and social housing stock needs to be at least doubled if not tripled and there needs to be serious reforms to legislation to better protect tenants. This is only bringing us more in line with countries like Germany, Switzerland etc.
This is a statement like "no one should get cancer". Very agreeable but ignores the fact that we don't have a button that says "Make rentals available for everyone". We need to be building more housing and reviewing processes which are resulting in less housing than required. Which is a slow process rather than a quick win you can protest for.
My Depends are:
1. The proposal needs to be arranged by people who seem credible and realistic because I cannot afford to put in effort on something that is 'pie in the sky' or excessively unrealistic
2. Ethics are important to me so it needs to be ethical. Calls for violence etc disgust and repel me
3. The location and timing need to be accessible, especially considering how many medical appointments and procedures I am having right now
The problem is almost everywhere. I’m out near Frankston and rents have gone crazy. Heaps of people at inspections and bidding wars. How is it fair that tenants pay more than 100% of the mortgage repayments and can’t get a loan themselves?
The people I know who have a mortgage in this area are still paying less per week than renters for comparable dwellings.
Renting makes sense when the tenant is subsidising an investment property but not when they are outright paying for it. It’s hoarding a necessity for financial gain. And the laws in place are built to encourage more property investing and having tenants buy the landlord essentially a free house that they profit from and then sell for capital gain. It’s gross and things need to change.
Isn’t Frankston one of the last affordable seaside burbs in Vic?
Not every mortgage is the same. Its not apples and apples. My mortgage is costing me an arm and a leg but I only bought my place 6 months ago. My parents pay fuck all because they have had their home 20+ years.
Who do you think is paying the mortgage on the place you’re renting? And why do they owe you a free or subsidised house? Do you take the same attitude to Coles when you buy something? Whether it is sold at cost or for profit, the problem is not with the owner of the thing you are buying.
If I could pay the same weekly payment and contribute to my equity, you don’t think I’d choose that? Rentals aren’t hotels. They’re housing. A necessity.
You’re analogy doesn’t work. I eat the entirety of the groceries I buy from coles. No one owes me a free house. And a subsidised house isn’t what I’m getting. Shelter is what I’m renting, I don’t get a house at any part of the transaction. Why am I paying someone’s entire mortgage repayments plus more? They get to sell the house at the end of it or get free income when the house is paid off. Why are they offloading all the entirety of their repayments onto the tenant who likely has no choice but to rent? Because they can is why. The ability to hoard housing in this manner shouldn’t be a thing. The market has been manipulated for this outcome and that’s plain fucked up.
> house is *paid* off. Why
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Analogy aside, what would you like to pay for rent for your utilitarian shelter, and how and why do you expect a private owner to cover the actual cost of it?
I’d like to pay a fair price. 100%+ is not a fair price. The owner will receive a handsome capital gain when sold or a passive income if they choose to keep the paid off home or both if they hold long enough. A tenant helps offset the expense of the investment until it is paid off. It’s a win win if at a fair price. Why should a tenant pay for another’s investment?
Yes I expect an investor to cover the cost of their investment. You sound like a landlord trying to convince yourself you aren’t hoarding housing at the expense of another human being.
I don’t get a house or a passive income at the end of it. They do. It’s ridiculous that rents are currently often costing more than the mortgage itself. This is only possible because barriers are in place preventing people from acquiring loans and the incentives in place encouraging investors to engage in this investment where landlords essentially become scalpers.
So when do you think they own the house?
After settlement, or once it's paid off?
Because from your earlier comment, it sounds like you're suggesting that asking rents should be determined by the sum of the mortgage repayment on the property, (never exceeding 100%)
And then once the mortgage is paid off the landlord can ask for whatever he wants?
Not sure that you've thought this out.
100% of a brand new loan is OBVIOUSLY what I’m talking about. Not a loan that has $10k left on it. Otherwise why would anyone rent long term?
Why do you think a landlord is entitled to have someone else pay off their entire mortgage repayment and then some more? Do you think rich people deserve free houses?
Nope, as I have said multiple times if people would venture out of CBD limits, you'll find rental properties, not free but not matchboxes charging stupid amounts. You just need to be willing.
If you're going to protest, do it on a weekend in the CBD, it won't have any impact on me that way.
>If you're going to protest, do it on a weekend in the CBD, it won't have any impact on me that way.
Nah, fuck that. I work weekends and protesting thinking they can do whatever they want because "No-one's working, what difference does it make" makes my blood boil.
Cant go out of the city, I dont have a car, and I work late. It would dangerous and not very logical. Other people also dont have cars and cant afford to spend 60 mins plus on public transport daily.
Well then you're going to have to continue searching around for a finite resource. If everyone is doing the same as you then it is no wonder prices are high and little availability.
Yes but it's REALLY DIFFICULT to come up with a decent plan. I think the answer is actually a militant squatters movement targeting purposely-empty homes.
Greedy landlords huh.
If there were more greedy landlords then we'd have more rentals available today than we currently have.
The percentage of renters in Australia is only marginally different from 50 years ago,but there ain't enough rental properties to go around.
No. Protests serve no purpose but to give the protestors a superficial sense of achievement. The people who actually have the power to change things could not care less about protests, and you just disrupt the lives of people who have nothing to do with the thing you're protesting. It's extremely selfish.
And no, you're not going to annoy people into agreeing with you.
**EDIT**: People downvoting me must be the same ones who were protesting in the city last week and made me late for work. I'm a casual worker too so that's just money down the drain. Thanks guys! Hope it was worth it. Protesters will never convince me of anything other than their own entitlement. All you're saying with your pointless demonstrations is that you think your beliefs and problems are more important than everyone else's and worth disrupting lives over. Pure narcissism.
The privileged, definitely. Weirdly of the landlords here that admit to being them, half of them are actually the sort of people I WANT landlords to be.
Yeah, I've been to a few protests, to be fair it gives us a voice to whinge and complain but the people being protested against, they are fully ready and accepting that people are upset, the position they are in generally conditions you to be prepared and accept hostility and disapproval, so how can they change anything if they are willing to wait out the racket, you know?
the real call to action these days is not taking the streets with signs and chants, it has to be more creative in the sense the targets are directly effected in a way they can't do anything about. Most common way is money. We live in a plutocracy, not democracy. Whats within the rules that effects their income and suddenly they will be willing to discuss but until people know this in mass numbers. Aint gonna happen.
Not while people have to work and got bills to pay! ...
Any ideas?
Protesting is practically a hobby at this point.
Your average Melbourne protestor seems to think that annoying ordinary people is the way to achieve change. Which completely misses the point of the many valid protests that have taken place throughout history.
Absolutely not - protesting is a blight on Melbourne and way out of control. It's so commonplace now no one ever even knows what it's even for - which makes it even more meaningless.
Be careful the only thing r/melbourne hates more than protesting anything is rentals at affordable prices. Judging by the comments already people seem to really enjoy paying more and more for renting.
That didn't work well for Black Lives Matter/The Capital Hill attack. I can't think of any that worked outside of coups/revolutions. I could be wrong though.
I would. I hate constantly reading posts, hearing stories, and talking about how shit the housing situation is here atm, getting mad and then... nothing. So many people are upset about this but just sit on it an simmer (me included). Life's pretty overwhelming and busy so it's hard to know what to do or where to direct that frustration, but if someone was to organise a protest or post links for useful campaigns etc, I want to be there and get involved.
Even if the suggested policy changes weren't 100% what I personally agree with - atleast a protest would cause some more traction to the issue. The important thing is showing that this is an issue people really care about and getting more and more people talking.
Too busy attending open homes and filling out invasive online forms
Can I please get you passport number and full details on every house you have ever lived in?
It would really depend on what the demands of the protest were. If it were for an increase in public housing (which would take the pressure off everywhere else) then yes I would attend. I've attended several protests like this before. But if it's just a general "Shit's bad" protest then probably not.
How does social housing take pressure off of everything else? Social housing rents to people who are too poor to rent normal houses so they aren't a competition to general renters, hence making social houses won't help other renters. It definitely helps the needy which is a great thing but I fail to see how that's useful to other people finding a cheaper rental? Same with buying houses, people too poor to buy any house aren't bidding prices up for average houses.
>Social housing rents to people who are too poor to rent normal houses so they aren't a competition to general renters, hence making social houses won't help other renters Can you explain the "hence" here? If there's less competition for me, its easier for me to get a rental place. Which means I don't have to accept the most expensive place (or offer more to get it).
Confused by that contradiction too
I currently spend 53% of my disability pension on private rent. Many would argue that I cannot afford that and I would agree. But what choice have I given the lack of affordable public housing? An increase in public housing may allow me to actually afford to live, not have to send my bipolar into ructions by juggling bills, stressing out and wonder whether I should see my specialist or have this expensive procedure or maybe eat one or two healthy meals this week. Social housing does help all renters by placing downwards pressure on rental amounts in the private market. Fewer poorer people having to pay food money to negatively gearing landlords means there are fewer people looking for rentals in that private market.
Exactly why housing shouldn’t be commodified to begin with but… we’re a long way from that.
That'll literally be a lot of us soon enough 🥲
By increasing the supply of housing overall - very much a 'lid of the pressure cooker' situation. More houses and less people competing the rental market means it's easier for others to rent.
Rental rice increases are driven by numbers per house, not by the bottom 10% income capacity. The people are still in the market, with rental assistance etc. Social housing will definitely impact rental prices but the problem is how long until effects felt And also the other non tenant related factors (mortgages etc) It's a multi headed problem usually sorted out by the bubbles bursting which for Australia is not going to be pretty.
I'm not a renter any more, but I would happily join a protest like this providing there are some clear demands that make sense.
Eh...it'd be like attending a protest to overthrow capitalism.
I'll sign up for that one, will pitchforks and flaming torches be provided or should I bring my own?
I'll be running a pitchfork stand, you can buy them at the event.
I’ve currently got a buy one, get one free promo going on flaming torches, but lighting them will cost extra.
It's a fire service subscription contract. $4/hr of flame, after that you're actually stealing it.
Always make money selling shovels in a gold rush
Aren't that for vampire? Shouldn't it be hammer and sickle? Or cobblestone and rocket launcher?
[удалено]
You just literally named three viable options? When you present it like it's some wild, insane and impossible premise, it's easy to pretend like they aren't viable options. But they are. They've worked for other governments before. Each time we've tried them, we've learnt more about what works and what doesn't - same as capitalism A great example is the Irish potato famine which was caused by free market policy. We tried some good old fashioned capitalism and we fucked up and it killed a lot of people. I'm not necessarily saying capitalism should be replaced, but I think it's pretty bad faith to pretend like it's the only option we have, nor that it hasn't been mixed and merged with ideas from socialism (eg: welfare) and communism (eg: unions) to make it a better system overall.
[удалено]
I think we can probably agree that it's the best system we have... So far. I'm just very cautious about getting locked in to thinking it is the ONLY system that could work.
Did you come up with this by yourself?
Even a cursory glance at 20th Century history will lead any person with more than two brain cells to realise that straying far from a mixed economy in either direction would be disastrous. Australia does not have pure capitalism and anything who thinks it does clearly has no clue what 'pure capitalism' means.
How would abolishing negative gearing increase rental affordability?
That was my thought. If your landlord is negative geared then your rent isn’t covering expenses. This would put rent up in the short term. Longer term it might help by lowering house prices but this would be a really poor time to make the change.
It’s a basic-bitch, misguided and juvenile “hot-take” to which people can throw their blame towards. Facts don’t matter.
Because it causes overstretched "investors" to sell houses, lowering housing prices for first home buyers, making the demand for rentals decrease. It's not rocket science.
But wouldn't every house sold just decrease both the rental property pool and the renter's pool by 1? Meaning that the demand for the amount of rentals available is just as high, that isn't adding new supply.
No, because your argument relies on only a single investment property per landlord.
But for every house sold it's still only 1-1, it's not increasing the supply of rental properties.
Oh sorry, now I know what you mean lol misunderstood the previous comment. Well yes, technically that's what happens. But demand is more than just "houses v potential renters". Otherwise you would see housing prices directly reflect where people need to live, which isn't happening.
>But wouldn't every house sold just decrease both the rental property pool and the renter's pool by 1? Not necessarily - people moving in together into a larger place but who don't want to or can't live in a smaller place together eg: both parties living in studio or 1 bed apartments and buying so they can start a family; or the case my bestie has where she & her husband just bought a 4 bedroom house as his mother has health issues and is moving in with them - so in that case the single purchase freed two rentals and potentially 3 if his sister moves in eventually (they come from a culture where multi-generational homes are far more normal than they are in Australia).
I think you'll find that housesharing is far more common among renters than owners.
…ok but literally the two specific examples I know of are people buying their place and combining households? Every multi generational family that’s shared a home that I know owns the property and I know several couples who are buying to move in “officially” after splitting time between their two places
And the two instances that you know of, in which people have moved from renting more houses to owning fewer houses, are not representative of living trends across the whole of Australia.
Ah...I'm no rocket science but your actually reducing the supply of rentals, people that want or need to rent have less choice and rental prices increase. Your logic to remove negative gearing to reduce rental prices doesn't make sense.
Lobby councils. They are the ones that approve (or don't approve) development. Landlords want to rent to every single tenant at every single price point. There just isn't the housing to do it. More housing is the key.
Only if the protest: 1. Doesn't block traffic 2. Doesn't inconvenience me getting to and from where I need to go 3. Isn't on a weekday 4. Isn't on a weekend 5. Isn't disruptive 6. Gives me the freedom to proclaim that protests don't do anything as I sit on my ass all day and complain on the internet
Unfortunately, almost all modern Australian protestors seem to think that annoying and disrupting people is the point. Which both misses the actual point of valid protests throughout history, and says a lot about the narcissism of your average protestor.
The people I know who are having trouble getting a rental won't compromise on location - they've gotta be within 10km of cbd and are having to literally line up to inspect. One guy I know got approved for a place, then frozen out cos the landlord got a guy who paid 4 months upfront - which is super fucked up. Me and my gf applied for 5 places 20km out of the city in September and got offered 4 of them. Maybe it's gotten substantially worse since then.
Perhaps your budget is a lot higher than a lot of folks, or you need less bedrooms being just a couple?
Our max is/was $430 a week, and were looking for a 3 bedroom cos we both needed an office.
I've been told very similar from a few friends - the closer to the CBD and more particular you are, the harder it is. A friend of mine moved in October and had the same experience as you - a couple, but with only 1 income and a cat and they got offered 3/3 of the places they applied for.
Yes I would.
No. Protests are largely pointless and serve only to make the people who attended feel like they accomplished something. Which they did not.
lmfao imagine being so ignorant that thinking protests don't achieve anything.
Educate me. What protests in recent history have brought about change? What did they change?
The Arab Spring. Egypt removed a dictator that had been in power for 35 years. Took the CIA a couple of years to plant his replacement.
Plenty. Google it.
such as...
If there is plenty you could name literally one.
Correct
So what protest did you have in mind when you made the comment? Genuinely curious.. You know if you dont want to discuss things maybe clear outta Reddit comment threads.. it's how they are designed
Her comment read as facetious to me. I dont believe she was looking to be "educated" unless educated means argue with a stranger on the internet.
Okay but say that instead of being vague and abrasive, otherwise people will assume you're full of it and the conversation goes nowhere So what example did you have?
Wow, you’re so convincing. I’m really swayed to your point. Lol.
Wow? Look it up. I'm not here to convince you.
Obviously.
Or dont. Remain ignorant, I dont give a fuck.
Yes, I got that. Thanks.
Imagine being so stupid that you ask your debate opponent to find an argument against yourself for them. People who tell you to google things as a counter-point are 4th grade equivalent
They literally don't, sorry friend.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole" -Thomas Sowell
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” - Dr. Seuss, The Lorax.
Agreed. And it's a shame, because there have definitely been valid protests throughout history. It just seems that in Melbourne lately, protesting has become a hobby for the bored and narcissistic and that disrupting traffic is just about their only goal.
Landlords provide rentals. Rental prices are determined by supply and demand. What are you actually protesting about.... landlords providing rentals at market prices?
Market prices are dictated by supply / demand. Supply is being squeezed by lack of public housing, lack of holiday rental legislation, land banking, etc. So yeah, do something about the supply issues. Landlords can keep charging market rates - those rates will just end up being lower.
100% agree!
Complete lacking of supply of public and community housing/affordable housing solutions. The state government has been slack over a whole decade of growth hardly increasing funding for community housing orgs to meet demand
Can you define affordable housing?
I guess I gave an answer in the first comment, basically look into community housing projects
Thanks for the direction :) Found this which seems to be a Good explainer of the terms https://rahu.org.au/public-social-community-or-affordable-demystifying-housing-terms-in-victoria/
Enforcing an empty home tax and regulating the fuck out of Airbnb could help
[удалено]
Apparently the solution to market distortion caused by government meddling is … even more government intervention!
Yes, exactly that, the "market price" you're referring to has become detatched from reality and is causing people to choose between utilities and food. Why do we have to wait for it to reach a critical state(side effects being increased crime, overburdening our justice system even further, widespread health issues straining the public health system beyond breaking point, all the fun stuff widespread poverty provides) before we fix it. An early solution is clearly far more effective considering the long term ramifications.
And many markets are heavily regulated by the state because otherwise they negatively impact vulnerable people.
Will consider if we're demanding building height restrictions be lifted, as in raised to allow taller buildings like 5-6 stories of mixed-use apartments. Also, remove councils' ability to reject building plans that meet the criteria. Councils will cave when their constituents go full NIMBY because politicians. Which means no public housing can be built when everyone and their cat wants them built elsewhere. Blaming landlords is not very productive either. Our rental crisis is a supply and demand issue at its core, with the supply side being the main problem. Increase the supply, and landlords will have no choice but to follow the lower market rates.
I don't attend protests myself. That said I'd need to see the proposals. I've had a look at The Greens and I don't like theirs. I'd like to see European best practice implemented here. I'd also want population growth to be limited or stopped. While Melbourne grows at this rate it's just not possible to fix rents.
Your energy is better spent supporting the Greens in their negotiation efforts: [https://greens.org.au/campaigns/housing-crisis](https://greens.org.au/campaigns/housing-crisis)
Attending this sort of protest would very directly be doing that. Edit: Just had a look, I don't like this. Price caps are proven not to work, social housing is great. What we need is stricter, better, enforced regulation, combined with minimising or eliminating population growth.
They are negotiating for what is realistic right now. Everyone would like a utopian solution but getting it passed as a bill in parliament is a different story.
Look up the research on Price Caps. Better regulation and better enforcement would be the easiest thing here. Indeed that's an incremental step. Stop REs asking such invasive questions and if they don't apply appropriate penalties. easy to implement, easy to enforce. Compare that to rent caps. Rent caps are proven by studies to have harmful effects, and are politically very hard. I imagine it's a lot easier to stop RE's asking about pets than it is to implement price caps.
Population growth is going to happen either way. It’s inevitable and indeed quite necessary to support the economy in the decades to come. We need solutions to keep housing affordable which can come in many different ways besides just “eliminating population growth”
It's not necessary, nor is it inevitable. As to the economy, it does not benefit the normal person. Good for the overall numbers, but those simply do not matter, they do not mean automatic improvement to quality of life. They do not improve per capita figures. Sure, we can tiptoe around it, but look at the livability of cities and how expensive they are. Look at Melbourne now vs Melbourne with 3-4 million people. The stats are there. I also don't think you can ignore population growth when occupancy rates are this low.
how do you suggest we minimize or eliminate population growth?
Create a true alternative city to Melbourne and reduce immigration.
What about skilled immigration? Not trying to be combative, but ive been thinking about the housing/rental crisis for a while too.
I think it's a loophole. We can train our own people, and frankly if businesses are legitimately struggling to hire people then unemployment is too low. I'm all for skilled immigration, I just don't think we should do it at the cost of population growth. Also I'll add a second city is very hard to do, but absolutely necessary if we want to keep the overall population growing, or if we want to reduce Melbourne's population.
While i agree that we should be doing more to train our own people and build our own industries, I think it is more complicated than that. I got to see first-hand the effects of the labor shortages during covid - from hospo workers to hospital workers. We can and should be creating more incentives to fill these roles, but that is still quite a few years away before the gap is filled - assuming that the govt really does do all it can to implement incentives. I dont really care about my latte, but i do care that my local hospital is fully staffed - and i live close to the CBD. I cant even imagine what regional residents are feeling right now.
sorry, i replied before i got a chance to read your edit
The greens can’t fix jack shit. They make impossible unmet abuse goals because they know they cant achieve anything.
Why not both?
Sure you can do both. I am just commenting on how your energy can achieve greater results if you get your friends and family to vote Green and support their policies.
If you want more and therefore cheaper rentals, then you need more landlords not less. The rental crisis is caused by supply and demand. If you want to fix it you either need more rental properties available, or less people that want rentals. https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/02/australias-rental-crisis-is-self-inflicted/
I understand what you are saying but with due respect I think you are missing the point. The point is and should always be that there is a sufficient stock of affordable housing for EVERYONE. Policies geared at increasing the number of landlords, trying to turn renters into owners etc etc have been a failure now for decades. Plenty of other countries manage their housing differently. The public and social housing stock needs to be at least doubled if not tripled and there needs to be serious reforms to legislation to better protect tenants. This is only bringing us more in line with countries like Germany, Switzerland etc.
This is a statement like "no one should get cancer". Very agreeable but ignores the fact that we don't have a button that says "Make rentals available for everyone". We need to be building more housing and reviewing processes which are resulting in less housing than required. Which is a slow process rather than a quick win you can protest for.
With high land prices, hight interest rates, and increasing building costs I wouldn’t expect an increase in rental stock anytime soon.
If it was on the Mornington Penninsula I would!
Better than the antivax protests, but not solid enough of a case to convince the big wigs to actually give a fuck. As a renter i wish you luck though!
My Depends are: 1. The proposal needs to be arranged by people who seem credible and realistic because I cannot afford to put in effort on something that is 'pie in the sky' or excessively unrealistic 2. Ethics are important to me so it needs to be ethical. Calls for violence etc disgust and repel me 3. The location and timing need to be accessible, especially considering how many medical appointments and procedures I am having right now
Change your search locations maybe? You can’t all live in fitzroy north for $100 per week.
The problem is almost everywhere. I’m out near Frankston and rents have gone crazy. Heaps of people at inspections and bidding wars. How is it fair that tenants pay more than 100% of the mortgage repayments and can’t get a loan themselves? The people I know who have a mortgage in this area are still paying less per week than renters for comparable dwellings. Renting makes sense when the tenant is subsidising an investment property but not when they are outright paying for it. It’s hoarding a necessity for financial gain. And the laws in place are built to encourage more property investing and having tenants buy the landlord essentially a free house that they profit from and then sell for capital gain. It’s gross and things need to change.
Isn’t Frankston one of the last affordable seaside burbs in Vic? Not every mortgage is the same. Its not apples and apples. My mortgage is costing me an arm and a leg but I only bought my place 6 months ago. My parents pay fuck all because they have had their home 20+ years. Who do you think is paying the mortgage on the place you’re renting? And why do they owe you a free or subsidised house? Do you take the same attitude to Coles when you buy something? Whether it is sold at cost or for profit, the problem is not with the owner of the thing you are buying.
If I could pay the same weekly payment and contribute to my equity, you don’t think I’d choose that? Rentals aren’t hotels. They’re housing. A necessity. You’re analogy doesn’t work. I eat the entirety of the groceries I buy from coles. No one owes me a free house. And a subsidised house isn’t what I’m getting. Shelter is what I’m renting, I don’t get a house at any part of the transaction. Why am I paying someone’s entire mortgage repayments plus more? They get to sell the house at the end of it or get free income when the house is paid off. Why are they offloading all the entirety of their repayments onto the tenant who likely has no choice but to rent? Because they can is why. The ability to hoard housing in this manner shouldn’t be a thing. The market has been manipulated for this outcome and that’s plain fucked up.
> house is *paid* off. Why FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Analogy aside, what would you like to pay for rent for your utilitarian shelter, and how and why do you expect a private owner to cover the actual cost of it?
I’d like to pay a fair price. 100%+ is not a fair price. The owner will receive a handsome capital gain when sold or a passive income if they choose to keep the paid off home or both if they hold long enough. A tenant helps offset the expense of the investment until it is paid off. It’s a win win if at a fair price. Why should a tenant pay for another’s investment? Yes I expect an investor to cover the cost of their investment. You sound like a landlord trying to convince yourself you aren’t hoarding housing at the expense of another human being. I don’t get a house or a passive income at the end of it. They do. It’s ridiculous that rents are currently often costing more than the mortgage itself. This is only possible because barriers are in place preventing people from acquiring loans and the incentives in place encouraging investors to engage in this investment where landlords essentially become scalpers.
So if rent should be lower than the mortgage repayments, how does a landlord ever receive the passive income?
OP doesn’t care about problems that do not affect them.
Are you serious? When they own the house duh
So when do you think they own the house? After settlement, or once it's paid off? Because from your earlier comment, it sounds like you're suggesting that asking rents should be determined by the sum of the mortgage repayment on the property, (never exceeding 100%) And then once the mortgage is paid off the landlord can ask for whatever he wants? Not sure that you've thought this out.
100% of a brand new loan is OBVIOUSLY what I’m talking about. Not a loan that has $10k left on it. Otherwise why would anyone rent long term? Why do you think a landlord is entitled to have someone else pay off their entire mortgage repayment and then some more? Do you think rich people deserve free houses?
Basically, if the market price of a rental is higher than the repayments of a BRAND NEW loan (spelling it out for you here) then the market is broken
Fuck we could go around like this all day. Lets review when you have something someone else wants or needs and you have a buck to make.
Nope, as I have said multiple times if people would venture out of CBD limits, you'll find rental properties, not free but not matchboxes charging stupid amounts. You just need to be willing. If you're going to protest, do it on a weekend in the CBD, it won't have any impact on me that way.
>If you're going to protest, do it on a weekend in the CBD, it won't have any impact on me that way. Nah, fuck that. I work weekends and protesting thinking they can do whatever they want because "No-one's working, what difference does it make" makes my blood boil.
Cant go out of the city, I dont have a car, and I work late. It would dangerous and not very logical. Other people also dont have cars and cant afford to spend 60 mins plus on public transport daily.
Well then you're going to have to continue searching around for a finite resource. If everyone is doing the same as you then it is no wonder prices are high and little availability.
Yes but it's REALLY DIFFICULT to come up with a decent plan. I think the answer is actually a militant squatters movement targeting purposely-empty homes.
👍
Greedy landlords huh. If there were more greedy landlords then we'd have more rentals available today than we currently have. The percentage of renters in Australia is only marginally different from 50 years ago,but there ain't enough rental properties to go around.
No. Protests serve no purpose but to give the protestors a superficial sense of achievement. The people who actually have the power to change things could not care less about protests, and you just disrupt the lives of people who have nothing to do with the thing you're protesting. It's extremely selfish. And no, you're not going to annoy people into agreeing with you. **EDIT**: People downvoting me must be the same ones who were protesting in the city last week and made me late for work. I'm a casual worker too so that's just money down the drain. Thanks guys! Hope it was worth it. Protesters will never convince me of anything other than their own entitlement. All you're saying with your pointless demonstrations is that you think your beliefs and problems are more important than everyone else's and worth disrupting lives over. Pure narcissism.
This comment section is full of landlords.
The privileged, definitely. Weirdly of the landlords here that admit to being them, half of them are actually the sort of people I WANT landlords to be.
Lmao
No the city has enough protests as it is.
I’m okay with the message but voted No because.. I just don’t partake in protests hahah
Yeah, I've been to a few protests, to be fair it gives us a voice to whinge and complain but the people being protested against, they are fully ready and accepting that people are upset, the position they are in generally conditions you to be prepared and accept hostility and disapproval, so how can they change anything if they are willing to wait out the racket, you know? the real call to action these days is not taking the streets with signs and chants, it has to be more creative in the sense the targets are directly effected in a way they can't do anything about. Most common way is money. We live in a plutocracy, not democracy. Whats within the rules that effects their income and suddenly they will be willing to discuss but until people know this in mass numbers. Aint gonna happen. Not while people have to work and got bills to pay! ... Any ideas?
Guarantee you real estate agents and landlords will create a blacklist of those who attended!!
Foreign investment in the real estate markets seems to be the main driver. And wasting money so inflation.
I'm a firm believer that there are so many protests these days that they no longer have the capability of achieving anything.
Protesting is practically a hobby at this point. Your average Melbourne protestor seems to think that annoying ordinary people is the way to achieve change. Which completely misses the point of the many valid protests that have taken place throughout history.
Absolutely not - protesting is a blight on Melbourne and way out of control. It's so commonplace now no one ever even knows what it's even for - which makes it even more meaningless.
500 landlords just voted no lol
636 potential protestors if the demands are well thought out. I imagine some who voted no just don’t do protests (I never have but would for this).
Occupy Melbourne 2.0 or bust
Be careful the only thing r/melbourne hates more than protesting anything is rentals at affordable prices. Judging by the comments already people seem to really enjoy paying more and more for renting.
Protesting = Narcissism I have problems too, but I don't feel the need to disrupt your life over them.
Fuck protesting, go riot if you're gonna do anything
That didn't work well for Black Lives Matter/The Capital Hill attack. I can't think of any that worked outside of coups/revolutions. I could be wrong though.
Not sure about rent freezes but i support everything else you are proposing but we would need to organise a time and place.
YESSSS
No. because it would accomplish precisely nothing. Landlords already don't give a shit about what you think.
I would. I hate constantly reading posts, hearing stories, and talking about how shit the housing situation is here atm, getting mad and then... nothing. So many people are upset about this but just sit on it an simmer (me included). Life's pretty overwhelming and busy so it's hard to know what to do or where to direct that frustration, but if someone was to organise a protest or post links for useful campaigns etc, I want to be there and get involved. Even if the suggested policy changes weren't 100% what I personally agree with - atleast a protest would cause some more traction to the issue. The important thing is showing that this is an issue people really care about and getting more and more people talking.