ACT election - Tea leaf predictions

bj_ACT said :

Watto23 said “Rates in Tuggeranong have not gone up as much as inner suburbs so the whingers from down south about the light rail probably need a bit of perspective in their lives.”

It is this lack of basic numeracy and closed mind thinking that hampers debate about the recent rate rises and their effects on residents in certain parts of the ACT. Reminds me of those who say that Clive Palmer pays for more GST than Joe Average, so increasing the GST will have a bigger effect on Clive Palmer than Joe Average.

The annual Land Rates of some suburbs (such as Forrest and Griffith 56%) may have risen a bit more as a base percentage (than say Kambah or Wanniassa 41%). But this is only because the land values of these suburbs have risen much much more than Kambah and Wanniassa over the same period.

However, as a percentage of its residents earnings and assets, the Kambah and Wanniassa rises are much higher per household. As a percentage of house values, the Kambah and Wanniassa rises are much higher. As a total amount of rates paid to Government per suburb, Kambah pays more in total land rates than any of these suburbs.

Yet despite paying more land rates in total than other suburbs, Kambah gets less facilities and worse infrastructure. Considering a large portion of ACT Revenue comes from Federal grants, which in turn come from federally collected taxes, this means Tuggeranong is providing more tax dollars to the ACT than Woden, Weston Creek or South Canberra but getting less returned to them via the ACT Government.

Effectively Tuggeranong (and to a lesser extent Belconnen) is subsidising other parts of Canberra through all the Federal and ACT government’s spending on infrastructure, transport, entertainment precincts, tourist and cultural attractions etc which are housed mainly around the centre of Canberra. All this expenditure and public assets, drive up the housing asset values for these inner suburb residents, making their rates seem to be rising as a higher percentage against the original charge. But only someone who doesn’t understand the broader picture and doesn’t have the ‘perspective in their lives that Watto23 claims others should’, would use this as an effective way to measure the hardship of rising rates.

By the way, I haven’t lived in Kambah for over 5 years, but I see the effect of Government policy on the area through increased Unemployment numbers, increased crime, increased mortgage default and increased bankruptcy.

Wow so just jump on and bash someone you know absolutely nothing about. My numeracy and thinking skills are pretty good. Most engineers have these skills. I also happen to actually live in Tuggeranong.

You basically twisting facts to suit your argument. The fact is rates are cheaper in Tuggeranong.
Per sq metre of land the rates are cheaper. That is a fact.

Kambah for example was built a long time ago, and has a nice 3 lane road through the middle of it that rarely gets traffic jams. I reckon some people on the northside would loved to have that built before they moved in. What new infrastructure does it need? Refreshing existing infrastructure of course, but so many areas have this issue.

I’m trying to work out what Infrastructure we need in Tuggeranong rather than just being a bit selfish. Did we really need a new swimming pool in Lanyon like Zed promised? I’d like to see Erindale cleaned up, carparking fixed and streets fixed up a bit more. I note its getting a new bus station.

Also I highly doubt the taxes paid by Tuggeranong actually subsidise that much. If people are on the lower end of the socio-economic scale, which I agree is most likely along with parts of Belconnen and weston creek, then they are far more likely to be taking more out of the system than putting into it. Now I’m fine with that, I believe in paying taxes, supporting those in need and building quality infrastructure where its needed. Tuggeranong doesn’t need light rail right now. It would be nice if we had a clean lake to use in Tuggeranong, but lets be honest, Belconnen and LBG have the same problem.

I’m also completely against the GST increasing. Its rubbish the wealthy pay more, especially when even the middle class avoids paying GST on a new laptop or car if they salary sacrifice. However the chaneg to rates makes so much sense I’m surprised there is opposition to it. I’ve noticed the local Libs have eased off, especially given the previous and current federal treasurers, plus many of the state treasurers and economists agree its a good plan. In the long term, rates will keep rising faster in other suburbs of Canberra, while Tuggeranong will have the slowest rate increases.

I just can’t see how Tuggeranong is the place being screwed over, It got a lot of infrastructure built in the past. I think my only gripe is broadband is bad in some suburbs and one hopes we’ll get FTTP NBN but I doubt that. The libs ruined that with their twisting of facts and short term thinking at the federal level.

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

This is my point though, I’m not against construction of large infrastructure such as the tram as long as the business case is solid. In this case it’s not, they are justifying the tram by the increased density along the route when it should be the other way around. Particularly when there were other options with far better returns.

And yes, whilst there will be a benefit to Canberra as a whole, there is a massive private benefit that will accrue from the large expenditure of public funds. They should have charged a precinct levy to fund part of it and seen how popular it was then.
And they should hurry up with the changeover from stamp duty to higher rates to enable more efficient usage of this type of inner city land. This can then help fund such large scale infrastructure projects.

If you look at the very early photos of Canberra, Northbourne Ave existed before the housing and buildings along it.

How does that fit in with your theory of how development works?

What other options that would actually change anything?

Were you actually trying to prove my point?

Take a look at those early photos of Northbourne Avenue or almost every other road in the ACT. Did they build them to the same standard and size that the exist now? Or did they leave a transport corridor through the area for future upgrades of the transport system (or mode changes) as demand grew?

Take a drive around most areas of Canberra, particularly river and creek crossings. Do you see the corridors for the extra bridge abutments?

eg. Tuggeranong Parkway/Drakeford Drive, Parkes Way which has just been widened, Monaro Highway etc.

If they wanted to construct the transport now, the BRT option had a far, far lower capital cost for almost identical benefits. If they wanted to wait 10 years for their infill development program to part fund the LRT as demand grew, they could have.

But no, 4 year political cycles don’t allow for that do they? We need the best, the sexiest, and we need it now dammit.

Watto23 said “Rates in Tuggeranong have not gone up as much as inner suburbs so the whingers from down south about the light rail probably need a bit of perspective in their lives.”

It is this lack of basic numeracy and closed mind thinking that hampers debate about the recent rate rises and their effects on residents in certain parts of the ACT. Reminds me of those who say that Clive Palmer pays for more GST than Joe Average, so increasing the GST will have a bigger effect on Clive Palmer than Joe Average.

The annual Land Rates of some suburbs (such as Forrest and Griffith 56%) may have risen a bit more as a base percentage (than say Kambah or Wanniassa 41%). But this is only because the land values of these suburbs have risen much much more than Kambah and Wanniassa over the same period.

However, as a percentage of its residents earnings and assets, the Kambah and Wanniassa rises are much higher per household. As a percentage of house values, the Kambah and Wanniassa rises are much higher. As a total amount of rates paid to Government per suburb, Kambah pays more in total land rates than any of these suburbs.

Yet despite paying more land rates in total than other suburbs, Kambah gets less facilities and worse infrastructure. Considering a large portion of ACT Revenue comes from Federal grants, which in turn come from federally collected taxes, this means Tuggeranong is providing more tax dollars to the ACT than Woden, Weston Creek or South Canberra but getting less returned to them via the ACT Government.

Effectively Tuggeranong (and to a lesser extent Belconnen) is subsidising other parts of Canberra through all the Federal and ACT government’s spending on infrastructure, transport, entertainment precincts, tourist and cultural attractions etc which are housed mainly around the centre of Canberra. All this expenditure and public assets, drive up the housing asset values for these inner suburb residents, making their rates seem to be rising as a higher percentage against the original charge. But only someone who doesn’t understand the broader picture and doesn’t have the ‘perspective in their lives that Watto23 claims others should’, would use this as an effective way to measure the hardship of rising rates.

By the way, I haven’t lived in Kambah for over 5 years, but I see the effect of Government policy on the area through increased Unemployment numbers, increased crime, increased mortgage default and increased bankruptcy.

chewy14 said :

This is my point though, I’m not against construction of large infrastructure such as the tram as long as the business case is solid. In this case it’s not, they are justifying the tram by the increased density along the route when it should be the other way around. Particularly when there were other options with far better returns.

And yes, whilst there will be a benefit to Canberra as a whole, there is a massive private benefit that will accrue from the large expenditure of public funds. They should have charged a precinct levy to fund part of it and seen how popular it was then.
And they should hurry up with the changeover from stamp duty to higher rates to enable more efficient usage of this type of inner city land. This can then help fund such large scale infrastructure projects.

Its a chicken and egg scenario though. build the high density first with no adequate transport solution or build the transport solution then build the high density residential. Given its most likely concurrent, I’m not sure its a bad way to do it. I’m under no illusion the light rail is suitable for Tuggeranong or even to Woden. I think extension to the airport, Kingston/Manuka/Barton and that is probably it. Its a solution to not building another satellite city where we don’t have that much available land left. So it aids the urban infill. From a big picture perspective it makes a lot of sense. I’m not sure whether the cost is right, but I’m also sick of government sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

I also think the rates should have been done quicker. I do note that politicians from both sides of politics at federal and state level, plus many economists have said the ACT policy deserves more recognition for being the kind of tax reform needed. Not just tinkering around the edges but real reform. There are always going to be losers when this happens though, but long term it gives people a choice of the style of living they want to have. The thing is living in a unit in the high density Northbourne corridor will probably attract the same rates as a larger block of land in the suburbs and that makes a lot of sense to me. Rate in Tuggeranong have not gone up as much as inner suburbs so the whingers from down south about the light rail probably need a bit of perspective in their lives.

chewy14 said :

This is my point though, I’m not against construction of large infrastructure such as the tram as long as the business case is solid. In this case it’s not, they are justifying the tram by the increased density along the route when it should be the other way around. Particularly when there were other options with far better returns.

And yes, whilst there will be a benefit to Canberra as a whole, there is a massive private benefit that will accrue from the large expenditure of public funds. They should have charged a precinct levy to fund part of it and seen how popular it was then.
And they should hurry up with the changeover from stamp duty to higher rates to enable more efficient usage of this type of inner city land. This can then help fund such large scale infrastructure projects.

If you look at the very early photos of Canberra, Northbourne Ave existed before the housing and buildings along it.

How does that fit in with your theory of how development works?

What other options that would actually change anything?

I think the new Electorate Boundary shift of Kambah out of Tuggeranong (Brindabella electorate) could have a heavy impact on the election results in the new Woden/Weston Creek (Murrimbidgee electorate).

The ABS SA2 Unemployment Rate for Kambah has Doubled since 2008 and there has been a 28% increase in Newstart numbers for Kambah over the last 18 months. Considering the Suburbs population is decreasing at the same time, these should be pretty concerning statistics for the ACT Government. When you see car window cleaners at Kambah intersections and increased crime you know something bigger is happening.

But these events usually wouldn’t matter because Stanhope/Gallagher/Barr have strategically ignored the Kambah, Wanniassa areas for years (because these areas had no impact on overall ACT Election results).

Kambah with its high Blue Collar and working class demographic normally votes Labor (more so than other parts of Tuggeranong). But the job losses mentioned above, a 41% hike in Rates, reduced bus services and continued lack of Government investment in this pocket of Canberra, makes me expect a big voter shift to Liberal. This would have mattered less if the 16,000 residents of Kambah were part of Brindabella but now they are in Murrimbidgee, so I expect an extra Liberal seat than most analysts.

It will be very interesting to see what happens at the election, but I am hearing a new level of ACT Labor complaints amongst our Kambah neighbors and fellow parents of our schools kids and weekend kids sport. I have never voted liberal in my life, but I have seen Labor ignore my region for too long and expect to change how I vote.

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

I think the issue is the $700-1000 million dollar price tag when the business case shows there are better options available.

And I hardly think it’s selfish when the government will spend such a large amount of money that will accrue a large private benefit to a small number of residents.

There are huge benefits to all of Canberra. Its going to be high density along that route, which means we don’t keep building urban sprawl and most Canberrans then don’t have to become NIMBY’s because a new multi story development is being built next door. It means less demand for car parking in the city during business hours. It means more housing so easing pressure on housing.

Is it all worth the price tag? I don’t know, the benefits I listed are hard to cost and depends on your POV. The issue I have right now is burying your head in the sand, building new roads and putting more buses on the road, just because its cheaper doesn’t fix the problem. In fact it costs us more in the long term, because we pay for some vague politically driven solution that stills costs money and does nothing. So where is the real waste? A cheap politically driven solution that doesn’t fix the problem or an expensive solution that does help fix the problem but may be excessive for now?

Infrastructure costs money, people living in cities pay rates to have infrastructure. If you don’t want to pay rates and taxes to live here, the country is often cheaper, had less services and probably suit people who find governments that spend money to improve the city a bad thing.

This is my point though, I’m not against construction of large infrastructure such as the tram as long as the business case is solid. In this case it’s not, they are justifying the tram by the increased density along the route when it should be the other way around. Particularly when there were other options with far better returns.

And yes, whilst there will be a benefit to Canberra as a whole, there is a massive private benefit that will accrue from the large expenditure of public funds. They should have charged a precinct levy to fund part of it and seen how popular it was then.
And they should hurry up with the changeover from stamp duty to higher rates to enable more efficient usage of this type of inner city land. This can then help fund such large scale infrastructure projects.

I have to disagree with John about the impact of the leader vote. While the leader gets lots of votes, it looks to me that the vast majority come from other candidates from the same party. Thus Barr’s leader vote in Kurrajong will primarily come at the expense of votes for other Labor candidates and the same will happen with Hanson in Murrumbidgee. We just need to look at the popular Gallagher in Molonglo at the 2012 election. Labor’s total vote was 40%, just 1% above the average across the ACT. With a 40% vote in 2016, Kurrajong will only return 2 Labor MLA’s with 2 Libs and 1 Green rounding out the 5. Ginninderra produced 3 Labor MLA’s in 2012 with only 40% of the vote, but that was only because of Greens preferences. The inner city produces more Green votes than the outer suburbs so they will get 1 MLA and no preferences will flow to Labor. The Libs only need 33% to get 2 quotas, which is 4% less than they got in Molonglo as a whole last time so its hard to see their vote dropping to 28% which is where it would need to be for 3 Labor and only 1 Lib.

For Hanson, the question is whether he can get the total Lib vote in his electorate up to say 43%, which is probably the point at which a 3rd Lib starts to become possible. Even if he did, a Green vote of 10% would have them on level pegging for the last seat and any Labor votes above 33% would likely flow to the Greens. Woden did not vote as strongly for the Libs as Tuggeranong did last time, so there’s a good chance the Libs will only get 2 in Woden.

With regards to leader votes winning 3rd major party seats in their electorates, 3 Labor in the inner city is a fantasy and 3 Liberal in Woden is no better than even money.

chewy14 said :

I think the issue is the $700-1000 million dollar price tag when the business case shows there are better options available.

And I hardly think it’s selfish when the government will spend such a large amount of money that will accrue a large private benefit to a small number of residents.

There are huge benefits to all of Canberra. Its going to be high density along that route, which means we don’t keep building urban sprawl and most Canberrans then don’t have to become NIMBY’s because a new multi story development is being built next door. It means less demand for car parking in the city during business hours. It means more housing so easing pressure on housing.

Is it all worth the price tag? I don’t know, the benefits I listed are hard to cost and depends on your POV. The issue I have right now is burying your head in the sand, building new roads and putting more buses on the road, just because its cheaper doesn’t fix the problem. In fact it costs us more in the long term, because we pay for some vague politically driven solution that stills costs money and does nothing. So where is the real waste? A cheap politically driven solution that doesn’t fix the problem or an expensive solution that does help fix the problem but may be excessive for now?

Infrastructure costs money, people living in cities pay rates to have infrastructure. If you don’t want to pay rates and taxes to live here, the country is often cheaper, had less services and probably suit people who find governments that spend money to improve the city a bad thing.

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

MERC600 said :

But the tram. This is one thing that has got most of the City talking.
It is being seen as a very expensive white elephant that will require continuing monies to keep it rolling.. And where will they find that ? Rates ?
Mr Barr is going to have to work very hard to get the voters on his side, especially in the South.

That is the standard Liberal stance to anything that is infrastructure and costs money. Yet lately they have failed to offer alternatives for public transport. There is no city in the world where cars work well without decent public transport. Buses rarely offer decent public transport. So the real alternatives are lightrail, rail or Bus Rapid transit (this involved building bus only roads, so likely to cost not much less than light rail).

Back to the topic, I think Tuggeranongites will vote Liberals enough for there to be 3 seats in Brindabella. They don’t like the fact that light rail isn’t coming to Tuggeranong, but as a resident I’m amazed at the level of selfishness and lack of thought, from my fellow Tuggeranongites. Light rail will never be a good option for tuggeranong except as a system within Tuggeranong. We really need a rapid connection to the city. Also for now Light rail will help ease pressure on car parking in the city.

So I think the Liberals will gain at least 11 seats, maybe 12, but I can’t see another party other than Labor and the Greens winning the other 13. As I said on the other post, Chic Henry joining the Liberals, removes any chance of that 5th seat going to the Motorist party and being a liberal friendly seat.

I think the issue is the $700-1000 million dollar price tag when the business case shows there are better options available.

And I hardly think it’s selfish when the government will spend such a large amount of money that will accrue a large private benefit to a small number of residents.

G

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

MERC600 said :

But the tram. This is one thing that has got most of the City talking.
It is being seen as a very expensive white elephant that will require continuing monies to keep it rolling.. And where will they find that ? Rates ?
Mr Barr is going to have to work very hard to get the voters on his side, especially in the South.

That is the standard Liberal stance to anything that is infrastructure and costs money. Yet lately they have failed to offer alternatives for public transport. There is no city in the world where cars work well without decent public transport. Buses rarely offer decent public transport. So the real alternatives are lightrail, rail or Bus Rapid transit (this involved building bus only roads, so likely to cost not much less than light rail).

Back to the topic, I think Tuggeranongites will vote Liberals enough for there to be 3 seats in Brindabella. They don’t like the fact that light rail isn’t coming to Tuggeranong, but as a resident I’m amazed at the level of selfishness and lack of thought, from my fellow Tuggeranongites. Light rail will never be a good option for tuggeranong except as a system within Tuggeranong. We really need a rapid connection to the city. Also for now Light rail will help ease pressure on car parking in the city.

So I think the Liberals will gain at least 11 seats, maybe 12, but I can’t see another party other than Labor and the Greens winning the other 13. As I said on the other post, Chic Henry joining the Liberals, removes any chance of that 5th seat going to the Motorist party and being a liberal friendly seat.

I think the issue is the $700-1000 million dollar price tag when the business case shows there are better options available.

And I hardly think it’s selfish when the government will spend such a large amount of money that will accrue a large private benefit to a small number of residents.

I think the real issue is the $4 to 6 billion dollars (same licence to exaggerate) that Canberrans personally waste on cars when there are clearly cleaner solutions that don’t accrue such large public damage to such a large number of people who will have to pay to clean up the mess the cars and roads will leave.