Hi,There are positives in both approaches.Singapore had...

  1. 6,368 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 281
    Hi,
    There are positives in both approaches.
    Singapore had something that very few places can count on having.Lee Kuan Yew was arrogant and authoritarian.
    But , he was incredibly intelligent, a true patriot who saw his role as producing his ''model ''country.
    And to a large extent he was successful. I'm a big fan, but cannot think of anyone else like him.
    He also got to produce his housing model from a substantially blank canvas.
    I'm not sure that you can do the same thing trying to transform a city like Sydney.
    However , the attitude to public housing design and integration goes anywhere.
    The main reasons I had public housing at the top of my list was as follows
    1. it protects the vulnerable
    2. it puts a brake on rents and thru that capital appreciation
    3. it decreases the sense that housing is just a commodity , it is something that society should be supplying to its citizens

    Now, my next 3 points, have at their core a distinct libertarian streak.
    They are aimed at freeing up the market, increasing mobility, turnover and optimizing usage .
    Crazy, look up the number of vacant bedrooms in Australia each night.

    Point 5 is obvious .
    Only build early and well.

    Note: I have no problem with negative gearing, if the capital gains are treated more like income than they are.

    cheers



 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.