Toll Roads in Adelaide

[Waewick]

basically we are all agreeing that we shouldn't be generalizing the economic standing of people over various suburbs

but I still believe that the cost associated with housing should be evenly spread rather that being cross subsidised.

I fail to see why I have to continue to subsidise people for no other reason that I live close to the city.

and finally

So we should all cram into tin cans like the Japanese and everyone from kids to the elderly can be depressed in their tin cans? All so we don't have sprawl?

why do you need to go to extremes? where did I say or suggest that? FFS people need to stop going off half cocked - medium density is a long long way from tiny 35m2 apartments which certain users are using as a "scare" tactic.

[muzzamo]

So we should all cram into tin cans like the Japanese and everyone from kids to the elderly can be depressed in their tin cans? All so we don't have sprawl?

No one is going to be forced to do it.

The problem is right now we are all paying for this congestion. The cost to society is still there, its just not being bared by those who are actually causing it.
If people want to live out in the sticks then fine, but they need to understand the true cost of doing so and the economic signals need to be in place for them to realise this. The principle is not a lot different to the carbon tax - if the true cost of doing things is passed on, it gives people a greater incentive to modify their behavior.

By the way, have you ever been to Japan? I was there recently and their transport system in the cities is outstanding. Even in Nagoya, the car capital of Japan (and home to Toyota), if you look up the raised urban freeways/tollways 90% of the traffic is trucks and commercial traffic that *needs* to go by road. Everyone else catches the train.

In terms of lifestyle, the Japanese actually have quite a good lifestyle even though they live in tiny apartments. A lot more effort goes into their shared spaces - shopping areas, parks, clubs, bars, restauarants etc instead of fantasizing about getting a granite benchtop for their massive kitchen. As a country they have done well by investing in production and industry instead of huge houses that they don't really need and can get by just fine without.

[Waewick]

I agree with you Muzz

the true cost of the ridiculous expansion needs to be borne by those who benefit from it.

and the benefits of increase density can then be seen and made viable.

[Will]

basically we are all agreeing that we shouldn't be generalizing the economic standing of people over various suburbs

but I still believe that the cost associated with housing should be evenly spread rather that being cross subsidised.

I fail to see why I have to continue to subsidise people for no other reason that I live close to the city.

.

But, you can afford to live close to the city, whereas those who live in the outer suburbs may want to live close to the city, but cannot afford to do so. I don't see how this is unfair to you, as they could equally say that they subsidise you by paying more in petrol taxes due to their longer commutes

Furthermore, I am confused by your arguement. Are you suggesting that property prices be the same everywhere?

[muzzamo]

As they could equally say that they subsidise you by paying more in petrol taxes due to their longer commutes

I don't think this argument holds up. Petrol taxes are quite deliberately put in place so that those who use the roads more pay more.

The problem is that they are nowhere near high enough to pay for the ten-billion-dollar fixup job that South Road requires.

But, you can afford to live close to the city, whereas those who live in the outer suburbs may want to live close to the city, but cannot afford to do so.

The problem is, if they are paying for the true cost of their lifestyles, then they probably can't afford either.

The sad truth is they probably need to decrease the size of their lifestyles. If that brings them close to poverty, then that is unfortunate but it means that the way to improve their lot is to decrease the cost of housing - through more efficient processes, cheaper materials, cheaper planning, cheaper labor (457 visas for the building industry?) etc.

In reality I don't think it will put them anywhere near poverty but probably will mean that they can't afford to live in detached housing.

[Will]

The problem is, if they are paying for the true cost of their lifestyles, then they probably can't afford either.

The sad truth is they probably need to decrease the size of their lifestyles. If that brings them close to poverty, then that is unfortunate but it means that the way to improve their lot is to decrease the cost of housing - through more efficient processes, cheaper materials, cheaper planning, cheaper labor (457 visas for the building industry?) etc.

In reality I don't think it will put them anywhere near poverty but probably will mean that they can't afford to live in detached housing.

Are you serious?

You are comfortable to consign thousands of your fellow citizens to lives of poverty?

[muzzamo]

Are you serious?

You are comfortable to consign thousands of your fellow citizens to lives of poverty?

For a starters you missed my last line where I said it probably wont.

Secondly what it would mean is that the government would need to take a good hard look at ways of decreasing the cost of building and supplying housing.

[Will]

Are you serious?

You are comfortable to consign thousands of your fellow citizens to lives of poverty?

For a starters you missed my last line where I said it probably wont.

Secondly what it would mean is that the government would need to take a good hard look at ways of decreasing the cost of building and supplying housing.

In your last line you say: "I don't think it will put them anywhere near poverty but probably will mean that they can't afford to live in detached housing"

And yet in a previous post, you also say: "No one is going to be forced to do it."


So essentially, only the wealthy will have this choice, whereas working people will be forced to live in human filling cabinets?

[Waewick]

basically we are all agreeing that we shouldn't be generalizing the economic standing of people over various suburbs

but I still believe that the cost associated with housing should be evenly spread rather that being cross subsidised.

I fail to see why I have to continue to subsidise people for no other reason that I live close to the city.

.

But, you can afford to live close to the city, whereas those who live in the outer suburbs may want to live close to the city, but cannot afford to do so. I don't see how this is unfair to you, as they could equally say that they subsidise you by paying more in petrol taxes due to their longer commutes

Furthermore, I am confused by your arguement. Are you suggesting that property prices be the same everywhere?

you really are clutching at straws, and no I am not suggesting that property prices should be the same everywhere.

What I am saying, is the benefits of living close to the city are not reflected in Adelaide because the general there is no benefit from living inner city.

There are some pretty simple disincentives such as paying a sewerage cost based on my household value? What is the relevance? Do I shit more because my house is worth more?

Why wouldn’t you charge based on the amount of toilets? so the people in the outer suburbs with 3 toilets can pay their fair share?

Why should I pay an increase in service to property charge for electricity (my house hasn’t moved) simply so we can build more powerlines to the outer suburbs? I’m also coping more because we lose more in transition.

Why don’t we have a great incentive for PT the inner suburbs? Why does a ticket to Unley cost nearly the same as a trip to Port Noarlunga?

Do I even need to continue?

I’m more than happy to accept that living where I live, I have a larger mortgage and pay higher council rates and hell, I’ll even deal with the higher land tax

But I’m completely confused as to why I have to make it cheaper for people to buy in the outer suburbs than to make inner city more affordable.

[Waewick]

Are you serious?

You are comfortable to consign thousands of your fellow citizens to lives of poverty?

For a starters you missed my last line where I said it probably wont.

Secondly what it would mean is that the government would need to take a good hard look at ways of decreasing the cost of building and supplying housing.

In your last line you say: "I don't think it will put them anywhere near poverty but probably will mean that they can't afford to live in detached housing"

And yet in a previous post, you also say: "No one is going to be forced to do it."



So essentially, only the wealthy will have this choice, whereas working people will be forced to live in human filling cabinets?

why do they have to be human filing cabinets?

Its fine if they can't afford something why do we subsidise something, that in the long term they still cannot afford?

[muzzamo]

So essentially, only the wealthy will have this choice, whereas working people will be forced to live in human filling cabinets?

In the real world we can only have what we can afford.

Also for some reason you equate living anywhere but detached housing to be living in poverty.

Have you travelled worldwide much? Most of the urban populations of the world, even in rich countries, don't live in detached housing.

[Waewick]

So essentially, only the wealthy will have this choice, whereas working people will be forced to live in human filling cabinets?

In the real world we can only have what we can afford.

Also for some reason you equate living anywhere but detached housing to be living in poverty.

Have you travelled worldwide much? Most of the urban populations of the world, even in rich countries, don't live in detached housing.

I've come to the conclusion will is trolling.

There can be no other explanation.

[Will]

So essentially, only the wealthy will have this choice, whereas working people will be forced to live in human filling cabinets?

In the real world we can only have what we can afford.

Also for some reason you equate living anywhere but detached housing to be living in poverty.

Have you travelled worldwide much? Most of the urban populations of the world, even in rich countries, don't live in detached housing.

I think with luxury items we should be limited to what we can afford, however I beleive that there are certain things which are above this, such as health, education and decent housing.

And in Australia, like other 'new world' countries like the USA, Canada and NZ, most of our urban population do live in detached housing. Comparing us to the old world cities of Europe which were built prior to the arrival of the motor car is unrealistic.

Nevertheless, having said that I am not against high-density living, on the caveat that people are provided with apartments of a decent size. And here is where our opinions diverge. I do not think the market can provide decent high-density housing that those who are currently forced to live in the outer suburbs can afford. And therefore, until the government intervenes in this regard, I do not think we should be removing what is essentially the only entry into the property market working people have. Only, once such people have a genuine choice, will I agree with this idea of making people in the outer suburbs pay to live out there.

[Will]

So essentially, only the wealthy will have this choice, whereas working people will be forced to live in human filling cabinets?

In the real world we can only have what we can afford.

Also for some reason you equate living anywhere but detached housing to be living in poverty.

Have you travelled worldwide much? Most of the urban populations of the world, even in rich countries, don't live in detached housing.

I've come to the conclusion will is trolling.

There can be no other explanation.

Not everyone thinks our lives should be dictated by the market

[Waewick]

That is what I'm trying to say

The Government should be encouraging inner city, medium denisty housing

the subsidies that apply to greenfields sites (both directly and inderectly) should be diverted in full to medium density housing.

I would rather see that, than a heap 250sqm homes on 300 sqm blocks in Roseworthy.