I’m sorry but as author of the above article I can’t let you have the last say! Using your mentality we should have $20 tollways for driving and similar $20 train fares. Using user pays mentality always fails because it does not consider the holistic effect of infrastructure on the surrounding communities. The benefit of a new train = higher land values.

Please check out the Developers Map of Sydney and also please please read Wheels of Fortune (scroll down) to see how East Asian train companies can be profitable with minimal user fees.

Why should one generation have to foot the bill for developer charges when for over century council rates have funded them over 20 years and a multitude of owners? For an understanding of effective council rating please read this report prepared for the Aust Institute of Urban Planning

ahh that feels better!
Karl

I agree we need to address urban sprawl, Mark, but wouldn’t the Earthsharing idea of higher taxes on property tend to discourage sprawl and encourage more intensive development within the existing urban footprint?

As land values rise over a period of time, why shouldn’t the owner contribute some small part of this uplift in value back to the community? That is, initial headworks charges and maintenance become recouped by the state over a protracted period of time.

Trying to get it all back ‘up front’ from developers is the sort of arrant policy nonsense into which the community has slipped, clearly adding enormously to the cost of a piece of land. We usen’t do it this way, and we shouldn’t now.

Once it’s known that headworks charges will be recouped gradually over time in property rates or land tax, this must act to reduce homeowners’ initial land purchase costs. It used to work quite well this way – and the only change is nonsensical public policy.

Surely, slugging the property developer up front really only sends the purchaser’s costs up, Mark?

Infrastructure charges are completely fair in my opinion. Let’s say a developer gets a hold of a nice big parcel of land 5km from an exiting population centre. They get approval for let’s say 100 lots and they clear it, put in water/sewer pipes, dedicate road etc and generally get it ready for people to setup houses there. The developer sells the lots and leaves. In the meantime 100 new families move in. These 100 families add use on the infrastructure they connect to. Roads, sewer, water treatment, parks, community facilities, stormwater, water supply etc. So why should the public at large pay for the strain created by new developments while the people who profit from it walk away scott free? Infrastructure charges mean that the costs of development are worn by those who benefit from it. Yes, these charges are ultimately born by the purchaser but contrary to the claims of the housing industry, on a lot per lot basis, they are not at levels high enough to explain Australia’s crisis in affordable housing.

Agreed tho, the developer charges are destined to fall to criticism. A return to the more effective system of council rates (on site values only) where infra is paid off over 20 years via the use of council bonds is desperately needed.

The government on the other hand has walked away (or blindly ignored) this problem in the hope that the community will attack them. Lack of investment in infrastucture to diverse and competing new and developing outer areas of the city would have negated the need for high housing.

If north, east, west and south regions are all competeing for new land buyers, and the infrastructure was such that it was reasonable to live in those locations – then this problem would be negated to a large extent.