Housing Crisis

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Politicians in many countries around the world claim to be experiencing a “housing crisis”. But how do they define it, who is affected, and what is the cause?
These are critical questions. Exploring them can help us understand why much of the evidence from research is not carried through into political discourse and policy.
In the wake of the growing global “crisification” of housing, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673037.2019.1697801" target="_blank">our research</a> evaluated political speeches in Hansard connected to the housing crisis in New Zealand over three terms of the centre-right National Party government (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_National_Government_of_New_Zealand" target="_blank">2008-17</a>). We sought to better understand how the issue became visible in politics and then trace this through to policy. We found the term “housing crisis” was rarely used before 2013.
Our aim was to provide deeper insights into why the problem appears to be resisting resolution. While the research took place in New Zealand, the findings have wider relevance for other countries grappling with this issue of “housing crisis”.
Tracing the rise of the housing crisis
Crises are truth claims. They are invoked, they define, they blame and, in doing so, they privilege certain ideologies or policy “solutions” over others.
If the problem is seen as due to “red tape”, too much immigration or unfair taxes, then these all require very different interventions. Some responses will be more effective than others. Some may have more in common with long-held political ideology than a body of scientific evidence.
The chart below shows the emergence, frequency and party-oriented nature of housing being framed in terms of a “crisis”.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311241/original/file-20200121-117943-1pmrh05.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""> 
Frequency of the ‘housing crisis’ framing by year and political party. Author provided
From being used only two times during the first term of National government (2008-11), the term was used 105 times in the second (2011-14) and 205 times in the third (2014-17). (The lack of use in 2014 appears more related to parliament being distracted by an election year than the profile of the issue.)
You can also see it’s almost exclusively opposition parties, in particular Labour and the Greens, that use the crisis framing. MPs from the ruling National Party used the term only five times, and then mainly in response to previous speakers to resist the charge.
A contest to frame the issue
Turning to the content of debate, the following table provides an overview of the strength and focus of the framing themes used.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312709/original/file-20200130-154320-qaf3ab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Author provided
Even though the governing party resisted the crisis terminology, a very consistent narrative dominated housing debates. It was that the reason for poor affordability was an inefficient and overly bureaucratic planning system that stifled the release of development land. It was a problem of supply, the reasoning went: more land should logically lead to more houses to meet demand, which should make housing more affordable.
In some ways the subordinate counterframing attempts by opposition parties provide an insight into the complexity of the housing crisis. In contrast, the government framing appears both easier to communicate and “solve”.
The episodic and missing frames are of particular interest as they help demonstrate what perspectives and voices were not represented in any meaningful manner.
Even though the National government did not accept the framing as a crisis, the high profile of the political discourse led to a suite of legislative and policy initiatives. These documents strongly reflect the dominant narrative. For example, the Resource Management Act, the main planning legislation in New Zealand, receives repeated blame for high house prices as part of the justification for measures aimed at increasing the supply of land.
What does this mean for evidence and policy?
A key finding is that the crisis claim from opposition parties did not just lead to a contest over whether this was correct, or even its meaning. It also opened up a new political space for the ruling party to promote long-standing ideas about the preferred relationship between the state, private sector and market.
Researchers recognise housing as a multifaceted public policy problem and draw upon multiple streams of evidence. However, the political framing of housing as a crisis and its links to policy was much more simple, siloed and ideological. Although wider political discourse did acknowledge the complexity of housing issues, the nature of politics and the balance of power meant the cause was reduced to a simple effective message – poor land supply and an inefficient planning system – which informed the policy responses.
This gap between evidence and politics may also help explain how various urban and environmental crises have become less of a one-off event and more of a modern lived condition that may never be “solved” but rather redistributed politically.
In reality, the various frames show how there is not just a singular “housing crisis”. There may be a supply crisis, a demand crisis, a quality crisis, a distribution crisis, a credit crisis, a rental crisis, and so on. All of these issues differ between local, national and international contexts.
Lastly, if political power and existing ideological perspectives are so central to the framing and response to a crisis, then this raises questions for how researchers can better integrate research into politics and policy. While topics such as liveability, sustainability, density, connectivity, justice and quality are well represented in research, the data show this is not carried through into political discourse. Perhaps by focusing on the reasons for this gap we can better understand policy failure and the role of power and ideology in perpetuating the housing crisis.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128861/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/iain-white-95947" target="_blank">Iain White</a>, Professor of Environmental Planning, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-waikato-781" target="_blank">University of Waikato</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/housing-crisis-what-crisis-how-politicians-talk-about-housing-and-why-it-matters-128861" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

What housing crisis? How politicians talk about housing and why it matters

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Most Australians could well assume that recent falls in housing values have translated into more affordable housing. Lower prices, after all, should equate to better affordability.
We recently released our <a href="https://www.corelogic.com.au/news/perceptions-of-housing-affordability-2019" target="_blank">2019 Perception of Housing Affordability</a> report, and there was some good news on the affordability front with some 54% of Australians believing that housing affordability is the same or better than it was a year ago.
But despite that positive sentiment, there are several reasons why Australia is still facing a serious affordability crisis.
<ul>
<li>Affordability ratios remain elevated</li>
</ul>
Firstly, the dwelling value to household income ratio today is 6.5 times. So, the typical Australian household is spending, on average, 6.5 times their gross annual income to buy a median-priced dwelling of $524,000. Less than 20 years ago it was 4.5 times. And the privilege of that problem is another. It takes, on average, 8.7 years to save for a 20% deposit.
That’s a long time; an eighth to a tenth of a lifetime.
<ul>
<li>Housing costs are substantial</li>
</ul>
Australian households are spending 35% of their gross annual income to service their mortgage. That is a significant amount of disposable income they need consistently to be able to service their loan.
<ul>
<li>Wages growth is anaemic</li>
</ul>
But while house prices remain elevated, incomes have not been rising in lockstep to match. Wages edged only slightly higher than inflation over the year ending June, up by 2.3%.1
<ul>
<li>Prices are in the early stages of an upswing again</li>
</ul>
While affordability has improved with house price falls, these affordability gains may be unwound with prices now recently entering a new growth phase stimulated by the current lower interest rates and improved lending conditions. This recovery in housing values accelerated in August 2019 with national dwelling values increasing by 0.8% over the month.
<ul>
<li>Australians are struggling to secure a loan</li>
</ul>
Our report found that 45% of Australians say securing loan approval is a major obstacle coming in at second whereas in 2017 Australians viewed it as the 6th most important concern. The rise of this concern comes amid a significant tightening of credit following the implementation of prudential regulations and increased focus on borrower spending behaviour.
<ul>
<li>Low income householders struggle to save a deposit</li>
</ul>
And 31% of households with an income of less than $50,000 say they wouldn’t be able to raise more than a 5% deposit, and 41% wouldn’t be able to raise a deposit of more than 10%.
<ul>
<li>Our most vulnerable</li>
</ul>
The generation most affected by the affordability crisis are amongst our youngest: Millennials.
The fall in housing values hasn’t however dented their desire to own their own home. We found that 86% of Millennials rated home ownership as important. That makes them the most passionate of all generations. More broadly, 81% of all Australians believe it is still important to own a home.
While desire to enter the housing market burns brightly for many it will be delayed with the number of Australians who think they will be at least 30 before leaving home jumping from 20% in 2017 to 34%.
Solutions
We believe that we should be moving beyond short-term cosmetic levers such as stamp duty concessions and first home buyer grants.
We need to be deploying more foundational levers such as transport infrastructure to carry people from affordable regions to job hot spots. We also need to create more jobs in those affordable areas.
Perhaps the most significant shift required is the transitioning from a stamp duty-based property tax scheme, which is inefficient and unfair, to a broad-based land tax.
Australians across all demographics and geographies are united in calling for action on stamp duty. We found that 79% of respondents thought the best strategy to improve housing affordability was to remove stamp duty (up from 73% in 2017).
No time for complacency
We can’t rely on house price falls to improve what remains a critical issue.
Affordability hasn’t gone away. Indeed, some 83% of non-property owners are still concerned about being able to afford their first or next home (87% in 2017).
Policy makers need to acknowledge that and continue to explore structural, long-term solutions to the affordability challenge.
We need to be proactive as a nation to address this problem. Otherwise, we risk alienating the next generation of Australians who will be locked out of the great Australian dream.
LISA CLAES is the CEO of CoreLogic International.
</body></html>

Why we still have a housing affordability crisis: CoreLogic's Lisa Claes

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
A housing affordability crisis looms for Melbourne and Sydney should the underdevelopment in Sydney not change with Melbourne better prepped due to partner investment in public infrastructure, according to the latest REA Group Property Demand Index.
Nerida Conisbee, REA Group chief economist said we’re likely heading straight towards a housing affordability crisis in our two largest cities unless something changes.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/03/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-03%20at%2010.39.59%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/02/03/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-03%20at%2010.39.59%20AM.png" alt="" width="607" height="388"> 
"Demand levels on realestate.com.au continue to surge in Sydney and Melbourne, while house median prices continue to break records on the Eastern seaboard, she said.
"Melbourne is better placed to weather the storm for longer, but Sydney, hampered by long-term underdevelopment, needs action. The only long term solution to the city’s affordability problem is to increase the supply of housing.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/03/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-03%20at%2010.42.26%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/02/03/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-03%20at%2010.42.26%20AM.png" alt="" width="594" height="354">
 
"There are a number of things that need to be done to improve this.
"This includes amalgamation of councils to improve planning systems and changes to NSW strata laws.
"Better relationships between state government and developers should be a priority, in order to partner investment in public infrastructure such as roads, schools and shops with new developments. This has led to a lot of success in Melbourne which despite being an expensive city, is far more affordable than Sydney.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/03/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-03%20at%2010.43.49%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/02/03/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-03%20at%2010.43.49%20AM.png" alt="">
 
"Sydney's lack of affordability is an economic issue.
"If it’s too expensive to live in the city, people will begin to move to more affordable regions and cities. The first to move will be those in essential services, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, pharmacists, plumbers, police, who don’t necessarily need to live in a large expensive city to secure work.
"Any changes to bank lending rates this month will determine demand levels for February. The Reserve Bank of Australia is expected to keep rates stable, or even decrease them this month, however there is no guarantee that banks will follow suit.
"Conditions remain highly challenged in Western Australia and Northern Territory where demand continues to fall, while Tasmania remains a stand out, continuing to perform above expectation.
"High levels of apartment development across the country are leading to demand levels increasing at a slower pace than housing and, despite very high demand for housing in the major Victoria and New South Wales markets, demand for apartments is stabilising in both states."
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/03/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-03%20at%2010.31.31%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/02/03/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-03%20at%2010.31.31%20AM.png" alt="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Housing affordability crisis looms for Melbourne, Sydney: REA Group

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/68791/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The UK has long been in the grip of a housing crisis. Back in 2004, respected economist Kate Barker carried out a major review of housing, concluding that if the low rates of construction continued, it would increase levels of homelessness and continue to make housing less affordable. 
Ten years later, it’s clear that these urgent warnings fell on deaf ears. In 2004/05, when Barker’s report was published, 205,000 houses were built in the UK. In 2014/15, only 153,000 homes were constructed. As each year passes, the backlog of demand for housing grows larger, leading to rising house prices and greater numbers of households in rented accommodation. 
Currently, almost 80 percent of all new dwellings are built by private house builders. In 2014/15, just ten companies were responsible for nearly half of the new homes developed. But it has not always been this way. In the 1960s and 70s, there were several years when local authorities and housing associations developed more houses than all private companies put together. 
Prioritising profit
The issue of who builds housing matters, because government has so little control over the decisions and actions of private house builders. And since the 2008 recession, what has become clear is that the biggest house builders have been growing their profits much faster than they have been building new houses. 
Our recent research shows that from 2012 to 2015, the number of new houses built by the five largest private house builders grew by 31 percent. Meanwhile, their revenues increased by 76 percent, and their end-of-year profits (after taxation and various other deductions) increased by over 200 percent. It seems that maintaining the scarcity of new housing keeps sale prices high, which removes the incentive to significantly increase the number of dwellings being built.
Of course, profit-making can be helpful, if firms then reinvest in more house building. But in 2015, the five biggest house builders returned 43 percent of their annual profits to shareholders in dividends. Our research suggests that if this had been reinvested in building more homes, nearly 9,000 extra houses could have been built – equivalent to a 6 percent increase in annual output.
It could also be argued that shareholder investment makes such house building possible, and that dividends are a fair price to pay. Yet this still leaves us with an uncomfortable conclusion; that an increase in housing supply depends on whether just a few companies decide to reinvest or pay out to shareholders.
Changing direction?
For many years after the 2008 financial crash, senior politicians did little to highlight or address this issue. But recent announcements by the government suggest a shift in political direction. Sajid Javid, the government minister responsible for housing, recently declared that “the big developers must release their stranglehold on supply”. 
This echoes the more general statements made by the new prime minster: Theresa May has suggested that her government will intervene in dysfunctional markets – and the market for new houses could well be the first in line. 
The forthcoming Autumn Statement promises increased government investment in housing. A series of new measures were recently announced, including the £3 billion Home Building Fund. This will be targeted at small and medium-sized developers, and may work to lessen the dominance of the large firms. 
What does not seem to be on the government’s agenda, however, is the introduction of measures that would increase building by local authorities, housing associations and other non-profit bodies – in spite of proposals by sector representatives which outline how this could be achieved. 
The government could do much more to increase public sector house building. Possible measures include allowing not-for-profit and public bodies to use more of their reserves for housing, and lifting borrowing restrictions. A wide range of economists have advised the government to borrow for investment in physical infrastructure. 
Housing is not currently categorised as infrastructure, but treating it as such could generate economic gains, while addressing the growing shortfall in housing. What is for sure is that the house building industry on its own will not supply the homes which the UK so desperately needs.
Tom Archer is PhD Candidate, Sheffield Hallam University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tom-archer-315893" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Housing Crisis

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Housing Crisis

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News