Share
58,252 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 666
clock Created with Sketch.
28/08/22
17:53
Share
Originally posted by JoeGambler:
↑
While some of the regulation is reasonable and essentially would only impact the worst landlords that have no desire to fix things as they break, there are also lots of other rules that reduce the rights of landlords to evict tenants, raise rents at their choosing, and recently that require regular inspections of every appliance. Its all reasonable on paper, yet every new rule and added cost reduces the attractiveness to invest in real estate and add long term supply to the market. This will drive up rents. It's a catch 22, Andrews for instance wants to be the champion of the tenant, but the irony is that on the margins he is driving up rents by swinging the pendulum very much in favour of tenants. I don't know what kind of incentives state governments can give to reverse the negative impacts of pro tenant regulations and encourage supply, obviously they're not going to give cash subsidies. In Victoria it is basically at the point now where you can't move a tenant on unless they fail to pay or you are selling, there is also a brand new appliance inspection regime that is coming in now and will add hundreds of dollars every year or so to a landlord's costs. Social housing is another issue. Developers in the free market make more from building properties for the middle and higher classes. Mandating developers also build some social housing in exchange for development approval for middle class properties is one idea that's used, this cost is just captured in what the non social housing ends up costing. The truth is to build cheap housing for the poorest in the "free market" would involve very cheaply built properties in distant locations, and/or the approval of denser developments which becomes a NIMBY issue, Governments often don't want this to occur.
Expand
it certainly is a very tricky issue with no easy answers.... and yes Govs are very reluctant to make a plan which might force developers to include social housing or even affordable housing. Hence Gov housing becomes increasingly expensive for Govs to invest in. catch 22 is what it truly is - no easy answers. it sounds like Andrews' changes might be neutral in effects on landlords, except for, as you describe, dodgy landlords.