The point I was trying to make is that almost every town in Australia has somewhat improved since the 1960s. The question is has Katoomba proportionally improved more than any other town in Australia since the 1960s? I personally don't think it has. The real question should be can average infrastructure improvements justify a ten fold increase in real estate prices since the 1960s? You also need to consider the blocks in 1960s were closer to the town centre than any block you could by there today.
Of course not. It's just a convenient scapegoat excuse. There's been a massive ramp up of prices in all capitals across Australia in the last 15 years but a net degradation of infrastructure and services. The rises have been fuelled by cheap credit, speculation, tax loopholes and a need to push 'self funded' options for an aging population over the last 15 or so years A very deliberate ploy in collaboration with government, industry and the aging political majority at the expense of everyone else. Every other consideration may have a minor impact, but it's really just coming down to ignoring the massive white elephant in the room. There's a LOT of lies, deceit, misdirection and subterfuge at play here because the real reason(s) have been causing considerable social and economic backlash. It's the biggest and most widespread publically endorsed ponzi scheme in Australia's history, but many political and legal power brokers consider it the lesser of two evils option. More realistically, the powers of the day have to continue pandering to the grey vote because it still forms the largest single slice of the Australian political spectrum. But by the same token, they cannot make the degredation in living standards for the younger gens too obvious, else they'll have a massive backlash. That's why even though the real cost of 'the great Australian dream' is getting ridiculous, they continue to try and make it 'more affordable' not by actually lowering the cost, but by keeping costs high but getting keys in your hand by other methods, all the whilst feeding you endless bullshit about how it's 'never been a better time to buy'. It's all lies at the end of the day, used to prop up a system of enslavement of the next generation of tax payers which is not only leading to the social ills we currently experience, but also the knock on effect to industry, manufacturing and consumer based business. They're literally going to kill the economy (and the future of younger gens) to maintain the demands of the political majority. That's why I say the 'best' years of affordability in this country are now behind us. It's just that Joe average hasn't woken up to this fact yet because if they do... they're going to be very, very pissed off.
i tend to agree with Auspm and Willrocks on this. Affordability has severely declined the last 15 years. Yet just about everyone i know round my agae, has huge mortgages (some as high as $500-$600k), new cars and furnishings most probably bought on credit. It's madness. Yes it's nice to live in a fully renovated home, filled with the latest and greatest gadgets, however i'm trying to stagger renovations out and still have an old clunker tv with only 5 channels. Advertising and modern lifestyles makes it very tempting to go out and spend. As for Katoomba, Renovator's point about it being in the middle of nowhere seems right. Relatives bought waterfront blocks in Bateman's Bay in the 50s. Friends said they were crazy to buy there, it was just bush, no sewerage or electricity. Today these blocks are overpriced because they are on the water. Even my mother remembers that travelling from Sydney city to parramatta in the early 50s was a "daytrip" along a single lane road. Parramatta was considered a village/town by many and not part of Sydney. However i do not believe improvements alone are responsible for the huge rise in land prices.
Bruce Rock is so remote it could pass for Mars. I wouldn't go there if you paid me. The fact is there is an artificial scarcity of land in Australia. The bright side is there may come a point when local governments suffer from dwindling taxation income (due to economic downturn). At that point they will release land to make up their income shortfall. Typically this happens when real estate prices are already depressed, adding more stock to an already saturated market.
Lots of small towns in Country Vic with extra cheap houses and land. Local Councils try to provide incentives for people to go live there. This is needed to keep these small communities alive, but the problem is that there are no jobs in most these areas. Houses and land can still be found at reasonable prices outside of major cities, without being in the remote wilderness. 3 months ago a 2br brick home on 8 acres was passed in after one bid of $150 000. It was sold afterwards for $170 000. This was in a town named Gorden. Its 75km west of Melbourne and you can get to the westgate bridge in 45mins.
Can anyone tell me why Ivan Milat, and the banjo tune from deliverance comes to mind when I read this?
That's what happens when shelter is priced as a speculative commodity. The local industry and cost of living 'affordability' standards is edged out by big city assholes looking to 'cash in' on a future speculative investment. Look at mining towns as a classic example. Whilst the local residents can afford to pay it's great, but once that dries up the town dies and the local councils go in a panic to keep the place alive.
1960s real estate prices around Sydney: http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-33544-1960s-real-estate-prices-sydney.html
Everything is a speculative commodity auspm. And it's not shelter, it's Real Estate, shelter is a raincoat or a sheet of tin, we don't have shelter any more, we're not cavemen, we have housing, apartments, marina developments and McMansions.
