13 April 2022

Dire warnings as Canberra's rental crunch worsens

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
New apartment building.

Canberra rents for apartments are the steepest in the country. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

Canberra’s rental crisis is deepening at a time when there is usually some recovery from the beginning of the year influx of new workers and students, and there are industry warnings that the situation is only going to get worse.

The latest data from SQM Research shows the ACT’s vacancy rate in March unmoved at a suffocating 0.5 per cent, and the number of vacant properties falling slightly. Rents continue to rise, particularly for apartments.

At the same time last year there were about 500 vacancies; this March they are down to just 350 – 28 fewer than in February.

In the past 12 months house rents have soared 16 per cent, and apartments 13.2 per cent. Over the past month, rents for houses dipped slightly (0.4 per cent) but the average rent is $765 a week. Rents for apartments rose 1.6 per cent with the average rent now $560 a week, the highest in the country.

The combined average rent in the ACT at $645 is also the highest in the country.

March vacancy rates

Real Estate Institute ACT President and Director of Property Management for The Property Collective, Hannah Gill said people were still coming into Canberra to take up work, mostly with government, and that was likely to increase in coming months after the Budget unveiled plans to boost the size of the Australian Defence Force, and Defence and security spending generally.

Compounding the situation is the imminent return of more international students to Canberra.

“In the last week I dealt with a lot of Defence and DFAT tenants,” Ms Gills said.

“We’ve already got significantly low supply, rents are going up, people aren’t inclined to be moving to pay more, and then you’re adding extra people to the market. It’s only going to get worse before it gets better.”

READ ALSO Completion of Nightfall caps Canberra’s biggest precinct development

Ms Gill said there was also no affordability in the market at all, and more and more people were forking out more of their income on rent.

She said the income to rent ratios were worsening, pushing many tenants into rental stress.

“We try to have tenants contributing no more than 30 per cent of their annual income,” Ms Gill said.

“What’s interesting is that for more and more, even with multiple occupants, the average ratio is now in the 30s. People are having to put more of their income towards the rent because there is no alternative.

“We’re getting 35 to 40 per cent ratios in properties you’d previously expect to have a 20 to 25 per cent ratio.”

March rents

While open homes have settled down somewhat after the “madness” of January, Ms Gill was still seeing very strong demand with groups of five to 10 people inspecting properties.

Houses remain in demand but there are just too few of them, and Ms Gill said investors were continuing to bail out of the market and realise their massive capital gains in the face of increasing costs. Those properties were going to owner occupiers or developers.

Ms Gill said investors blame legislative changes, land tax and the looming impact of having to meet minimum energy efficiency standards,

“Investors say they can’t afford 30 to 40 grand to reach minimum standards, they’re going to get out while the market is hot,” she said.

“Ultimately, when you’re talking about older houses in Canberra, the cost to bring these up to a minimum standard from an energy efficiency perspective could be tens of thousands of dollars – your typical mum and dad investor just doesn’t have that kind of money lying around.”

READ ALSO DOMA’s third instalment of Woden project to add 200 apartments

The only solution is a dramatic increase in supply but Ms Gill said there was no relief in sight in the short term.

The national rental market is also worsening, with tighter vacancy rates and exploding rents.

Managing Director of SQM Research, Louis Christopher said the data suggested Australia was still not at the worst point of the crisis.

“We were thinking at least regional Australia may have started to have some relief as people return back to the cities but that has not happened as yet. Many localities and townships are recording zero vacancy rates,” he said.

“It is likely homelessness will be increasing in this environment.”

But he said there was dearth of specific policy in the election campaign to deal with the issues surrounding housing affordability.

“Clearly, we are not going to resolve this overnight, but I do hope the various state and territory governments will ramp up their rental assistance packages in order to cushion the rental accommodation emergency we have here and now.”

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

What clown believes selling a rental property is good for the rental market?ABC April 2022 online:
Using its own Realestate.com.au data, PropTrack estimates that around 20 per cent of current transactions involve a landlord selling their property, while only around 8 per cent are bought by new investors on the other side of the transaction.

That means about 12 per cent of properties being sold at the moment are moving from the rental stock to being owner-occupied. PropTrack said that would be roughly 50,000 a year if that trend is maintained.

But the ACT government keep doing things to make it better? Why is it still getting worse?

The rental market is OTT, not helped by the City Council grab for profits through the land tax on investment properties. Between the body corporate fees, rates and land taxes it is costly to help your family out. Having seen the varied standard of rental property and the associated overinflated rents, we decided to buy a townhouse off the plan for our daughter to live in. Yes, very lucky we could do that. By the time we paid all the fees and charges (stamp duty, rates, body corporate, land taxes, water supply charges etc) we have been just been covering our costs out of our superannuation. Our daughter is paying the mortgage through her rental payments. Only way to help our ‘kids’ to get into the housing market. We are not alone, several people I have spoken to are doing the same for their ‘kids’. Not everyone can do this, and it is not about making a profit. Just providing safe and affordable housing. When she can afford to eventually buy a home the townhouse gets sold with the money going towards her purchase. We are neither speculators nor interested in being multiple home owners. The City Council is not helping with the land tax.

Earthdog, you declare you have the wealth to support yourselves in retirement while assisting your children purchase property, as many of the generation do.
You then rail at ordinary costs of property purchase and taxation of wealth entailed in a land resource.
How do you think it is for people who cannot rely on parental wealth? Those who are also trying to build their own lives during low or declining real wage growth across a decade, but with no access to heritable wealth?
I am also amused to consider what sympathy you might get from parents who might have wished to help their children into the Melbourne or Sydney markets.

Yes most of your reply is correct. The current generation will have difficulty getting the money together given the existing economic conditions, which is why the ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ is required. You make it sound as if the current slow wage growth is a new thing. Certainly been a thing since I started working in the 1970s. My parents (on a single income with five kids) did not assist when I first bought a house in Brisbane in 1997 because they could not afford to. My wages were frozen for four years before I retired after 40 plus years of employment. Houses and units are created by either public money (social housing) or private funding (either for living in or investment). As for what Sydney or Melbourne parents thinks, they made they made their choice for where they want to live. I happen to know that some friends in Sydney are fretting for where their adult children, who can only afford to live at home, will live if they ever retire (still paying the Sydney mortgage) which will be in their early seventies. My complaint is about the land tax particularly when individuals have to do what governments do not, that is provide affordable housing or a affordable environment where people can purchase a property to live in. I accept that the other costs have been there and continue to exist no matter what the government. I am glad I amuse you given our current crop of crappy, self interested politicians, belligerent world leaders killing people in other countries, climate change, increasing poverty etc. Why don’t we all try to get along?

Sorry. Just to clarify, my last statement is “railing”. Can’t seem to fix the world I live in and I just get cross with why humans are so stupid.

I feel you are a little too resigned, Earthdog. Wages growth (wage-price index) tracked by the ABS since 1997 hit a new low in 2013 and has declined steadily since then. AWE (an older series tracking males it seems) in 2013-14 hit its lowest ebb of growth since WW2. Wages share of income has been declining for decades and productivity growth is poor.
Perhaps rather than resigning society to this we might change society, not dramatically, but to reduce evident corruption, misallocation of resources, and lack of planning for recognisable futures.

Several people, or the usual suspects, have written as if the vacancy problem were unique to Canberra, and land tax significantly responsible.
Several States have some land taxes on rented property. Canberra is somewhat ahead in removing senseless stamp duty in favour of the resource tax.
Three States currently have vacancy rates even lower than that of Canberra, so how does anyone even try to argue that it is a problem unique to Canberra? Only the four largest cities have higher vacancy rates.
Canberra’s vacancy rate has been lower than it is today. That was before land tax was introduced here.
Retail investors rarely manufacture new housing stock that would not otherwise have been built, even new builds. They compete for that which is built anyway and have tax advantages to out-bid potential homeowners.

You seem to be quite confused between land tax and stamp duty. They are very different things.
Land tax (which is different to Rates and Stamp Duty) in other States is based on the taxable land value you own in that State. Hence the name land tax. In NSW, property investors do not pay any land tax at all unless they have more than $822,000 in taxable land value in NSW (not including house value). In QLD you do not pay any land tax unless that amount is over $800,000. The ACT system does not work similar to other States at all. The ACT govt absurdly charges property investors (of even small units) outrageous amounts of land tax, even if the land value (not including unit or house value) on the property is only assessed at $200,000. Canberra has the highest rents of any city in Australia and it has been that way for several years now, and it IS mainly due to the ongoing exorbitant land tax that investors have to pay the ACT govt (in addition to high rates and stamp duty). The ACT govt is not ‘ahead’ or progressive at all, and is actually regressive and backwards, as evidenced by the refusal of the ACT govt to start rejecting their awful socialist agenda of ever increasing taxes on people.

Odd, jorie1, how you suggest I may be confusing land tax with stamp duty then fail to point out where or how.
No, I am not in any respect confused but your reading needs improving. For the bulk of your comments, did you notice I wrote “Several States have SOME land taxes” [emphasis added]? Thank you for adding detail to prove the accuracy of my statement and lack of confusion thereon. I note you quoted NSW and Qld where thresholds are around $800k (as you say) but neglected to go on to Vic where the threshhold appears to be $300,000.
You did not address the substance of my post. Should I be surprised? There is simply no evidence brought forward that current rental vacancy in Canberra is either distinct from other capital cities (it sits right in the middle of the class) or that it is consequent on the fact of (an incomplete progression to) land tax rather than stamp duty.
Regarding your personal dislike of land tax, what do you consider the relative economic costs and benefits for government and society of stamp duties on land transactions compared with taxes on resource rental (land)? You may consult text books. In fact, I would prefer you did.

I’ve consulted plenty of text books in my life (as I have several degrees), thanks. Evidence clearly shows: 1. That the ACT has the highest rents in Australia, and 2. There are far fewer rental properties available in Canberra than there were a year ago (the rental vacancy rate in the ACT is the lowest it has ever been). I have provided you with the statistics for these things (which you continue to ignore). You seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the terrible reality of what the ACT govt has done (perhaps you work for them ?) and the fact that high land taxes (the ACT has the highest land tax in Australia) has contributed to the high rents and rental shortage we are seeing in Canberra, and that these bad ACT policies actively discourage property investors from investing in Canberra (hence reducing rental stock, which flows onto higher rents etc.)

I don’t have a personal dislike of land tax (I actually think the NSW and QLD systems seem fairly reasonable). I do however have a dislike of how the ACT govt has set up a terrible ‘land tax’ system in Canberra and they were told it was a very bad idea years ago and what the consequences would be (which we are seeing play out now – very high rents, rental shortage etc.) and I think it is a very badly designed (and implemented) policy.

It is difficult to see by how much more you could avoid reality, jorie1. I will fisk this one for you this time, although I could be briefer.
You have previously consulted text books yet still have no argument to present in response to my request. Noted.
Your point marked 1, highest rents: So? Was that under dispute, or relevant? We were discussing vacancy rates, where ACT is now in the middle of the pack of Australian cities. Regarding that new point, here is a hint: median income.
Your point marked 2: Yes, vacancy is lower than it was a year ago, and higher than six other years I pointed out, so obviously not “the lowest it has ever been”. Why repeat falsehood when you were proven completely wrong?
The rest is reiteration of your personal outrage about land tax, not only unsupported by any economic data or argument from you but contradicted by the fact that the lowest six years of vacancy rates since 2005 were all prior to introduction of that tax here.

That’s a clown suggestion right there. Shows absolutely zero idea of how this has happened. Armchair experts with no idea of the real world

Issues are twofold. Firstly land taxes are exorbitant compared to every other state so of course landlords are forced to pass on the cost to tenants. You can’t blame landlords as much as you can blame businesses for raising prices if their input costs go up.

Secondly from the supply side it is not a land problem as most are led to believe but the costs of building a home are immense. Construction costs are over $500k for the most basic cookie cutter house with issues in the supply chain rife at the moment. Build times are easily exceeding a year meaning families need temporary accommodation in the mean time.

We need more subsidies for the construction industry and tax relief for investors so the rental supply can be alleviated.

Well blow me down with a feather, Sam Oak thinks that the government should make policy changes that benefit Sam Oak.

If landlords could unilaterally increase rents as you claim, they would already be doing it. I would have thought you of all people would know they aren’t a charity.

More incentives to line Sam Oak’s pockets won’t result in any reduction in rents.

What really needs to happen is the Federal government needs to remove the current incentives and tax policies slanted to benefit investors that have driven up both property prices and rents.

Once that rebalancing occurs, prices will reduce over time allowing more renters to become buyers and freeing up market space.

On the supply side, state and territory governments need to make moves to more broad based land taxes to maximise the efficient use of land as well as ensuring that new greenfield sites are brought to market quicker and infill sites are provided the flexibility for a better mix of dwelling types.

Spot on Chewy – Sam Oak is for Sam Oak – the Land Guru Extraordinaire! Or so he thinks…….

Chewy, I’m speaking in the interests of all landlords and not just me personally. You seem to forget they are an integral part of the rental market unless you think rental services should be provided exclusively by the government.

Property ownership and management is not as easy as people seem to make it. Once you accumulate about 10 properties it starts to get really difficult to manage even with agents. There are all sorts of hidden costs, information asymmetry from tenants who cause damage, keep animals without your consent. There are far easier ways to earn passive income through a share portfolio but landlords are providing a valuable service to society people like you should be grateful for.

Landlords are integral to the efficient provision of housing for people who aren’t looking to (or cant) buy. The overall amount of the market that is needed for this purpose is the issue.

You act like having more property investors is inherently a good thing when it clearly isn’t. Particularly when they are competing so strongly with first home buyers and owner occupiers, forcing more would be buyers back into rentals.

Also LOL at you trying to spin their purely financial endeavours into some sort of benevolent service.

Thank Zeus for landlords. Such generous creatures.

Why is having more property investors NOT a good thing? Deterring people from investing in Canberra (which the ACT govt is currently doing) is actually causing a lot of the current issues. Basic economics shows that if you have limited supply, demand (and prices) go up. It is not correct to say that if there were no rentals, all those people would magically own their own homes. You must realise that not every renter wants to buy a unit or house. Some people are not in a position to buy a house and they may actually want to (or need to) rent a place and there are many reasons for this (e.g. they don’t have stable jobs, the banks won’t lend to them, they are new to town and would prefer to rent for a while, international students, people who are unsure if they will stay in Canberra long term etc.). I know a well-off person who could afford to buy 5 houses, but he prefers to rent as he doesn’t like doing any maintenance and wants a care-free life in a modern unit.

“Why is having more property investors NOT a good thing?”

Most of your comment is already answered in my previous comments so I don’t know why you just ignore them in your response.

Let’s spell it out further.

Rental properties and investors are integral to the property market for people who don’t want to or can’t buy houses. I’d already posted this.

But the current level of investors in the market is well above this base level. There are a large proportion of renters who want to buy but can’t because of the significant level of incentives given to investors that have priced them out of the market.

“Basic economics shows that if you have limited supply, demand (and prices) go up.”

Exactly. And because there is a limited land supply and investors are crowding out people who want to buy, increasing prices, we end up with the problems we currently have. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Investors aren’t significantly increasing property supply, they are just boosting prices and feathering their own nests (eg. Sam Oak).

Private landlords add no value – they are just economic rent seekers attracted by bad government policy & incentives. I wouldn’t look to one for cost effective suggestions to address housing market failure, they are part of the problem.

“Historically, the social challenge of unequal access to housing was solved with public intervention to offer non-market housing at lower regulated price to first time buyers and renters.”

Evidence shows that investors are NOT outbidding first home owners for properties in Canberra. Investors are not buying investment properties in Canberra and, as a result, there is a low supply of rental properties in the ACT. Evidence clearly shows investors are selling their rental properties in the ACT and the rental vacancy rate in Canberra is the lowest it has ever been. Go take a look at some house auctions – it is foreign buyers, not property investors buying up houses.

“Basic economics shows that if you have limited supply, demand (and prices) go up.”
I was referring to rental properties. If supply for rental properties is reduced; demand (and prices ) for rental properties go up. As we are clearly seeing…

jorie1, may we have a reference for your “Evidence … that investors are NOT outbidding first home owners” please?
“the rental vacancy rate in Canberra is the lowest it has ever been”
Tripe. Look it up.

“Evidence shows that investors are NOT outbidding first home owners for properties in Canberra”

Patently false.

“Investors are not buying investment properties in Canberra and, as a result, there is a low supply of rental properties in the ACT.”

Except if this was true, it would mean renters are buying those properties, and hence the effect on the rental market is minimal.

The vast majority of investors aren’t adding to the overall pool of properties, they buy existing dwellings.

“Go take a look at some house auctions – it is foreign buyers, not property investors buying up houses”

What? You realise foreign buyers can also be investors right?

“I was referring to rental properties. If supply for rental properties is reduced; demand (and prices ) for rental properties go up. As we are clearly seeing…”

Except as I’ve already said, investors aren’t adding to the overall pool of properties, so your point isn’t true.

The limited supply in the ACT exists for all dwellings, so as investors are competing with owner occupiers, they exacerbate the affordability and availability issue.

Assiduous, do you not see that private landlords step in and ‘fill the void’ of the lack of social housing? The ACT government does not provide nearly enough social (public) housing for everyone – it provides very little housing at all – and social housing is a very expensive cost to the ACT government (buy land, build houses, maintain houses, repair houses, do property inspections, check tenants, conduct evictions etc.). The ACT govt loves that private landlords are housing people so that the government DOES NOT have to. Plus the government also taxes the private landlords huge amounts, so the ACT governments benefits THE MOST out of everyone from the private rental industry. The ACT govt get their taxes and don’t have to house as many people. It’s a winning scheme for them. I don’t understand why you cannot see that the government wants this system and loves it. They want you to blame and attack landlords, but if you open your eyes, you’ll see it’s the ACT government who benefits the most

Date 6 March 2022
‘According to Domain’s monthly Vacancy Rates Report, Canberra’s vacancy rate sits at 0.5 per cent, its lowest since Domain records began in 2017. This is down from 0.7 per cent in January and 0.8 per cent in February 2021.’ 6 Mar 2022

For the most part, renters are NOT the ones buying up properties. I’m not sure why you keep saying that they are. Most renters (as reported in many news articles) have said they are not buying properties, will never be able to buy properties, and that they will be life long renters (for various reasons including they don’t have funds, do not have a deposit, do not have long-term stable employment, banks won’t lend to them, cannot obtain mortgage, single parents etc.). You seem to have this wrong assumption that every home is sold to a ‘renter’ – it’s just simply not true.

“For the most part, renters are NOT the ones buying up properties. I’m not sure why you keep saying that they are.”

Other than investors, who exactly do you think is purchasing property?

“Most renters (as reported in many news articles) have said they are not buying properties, will never be able to buy properties, “

Link some evidence of this then. In reality, the opposite is true.

You seem to have the wrong assumption that investors are NOT pricing renters out of the market when the opposite is true.

Governments across Australia have abdicated their social responsibility for housing due to the drive to neoliberalism. Yet today we spend $60 billion a year on tax breaks and subsidies to vested interests that just make housing more expensive. Currently 35% of Australians rent when it could easily be 5-10%. That’s a lot of unnecessary property management, and moving of houses. The government is there to serve the people, neoliberalism is trickle down economics – a proven failure.

The funniest garbage is the clowns who say ‘good the investors are out’. What gooses. The investor walks away with millions in profit.

Dumped ours cos of the land tax. Made 7 figures profit so couldn’t care less

jorie1, that was pretty funny.
To my first request, for evidence that investors are NOT [sic] outbidding first home owners, your reply is, ….. nothing.
To my second point, you resorted to five years (apparently equalling “ever” or all time to you) of information from Domain who are not even mentioned in the article. The name on the research in the article is SQM. Might it not have been worthwhile looking up SQM who offer data going back to February 2005? Vacancy rates in Canberra were at or below 0.5% in 2011, 2010 and all the period 2005 to late 2008. Indeed, they were 0.2% to 0.3% throughout February 2005 to December 2007, i.e. about half the current vacancy rate, including 0.0% – 0.1% in June-August 2005.
Your claim that the vacancy rate is the “lowest it has ever been” is utterly false, or as I correctly put it at the time, tripe.
Oh, and did you notice that all of the periods I have noted with lower vacancy rates were prior to introduction of a land tax in the ACT? What do you imagine you are using for arguments? You like comforting shibboleths?

Yes oiledpengu, “clowns” like chewy and phydux thinks it’s just a market where investors and owner occupied compete to buy a finite stock of established houses. Never mind the rental market is something completely separate. Investors are mainly buying townhouses and apartments while owners occupiers are looking for detached dwellings. The rental market is necessary for international students, itinerant workers and those who do not want to buy a house in Canberra (and I’d say the majority actually don’t). I know family friends who have had to buy a house here but only because it was cheaper than renting. They don’t plan to stay in Canberra more than 2 years before moving back to Sydney. The issues of the rental market are to do with the lack of investors and have nothing to do with the housing market those “clowns” kept trying to distract your attention with!

Meaning the buyer is now the owner of an apparently valuable property (or several of several not so valuable). No change occurred to the housing stock. It was the status of a renter which changed to owner (possibly through further transactions down the line).
Neither your rationale nor your profit is material to this, except to the extent it may highlight the market distortions inherent in current Federal taxation.

That’s a goose comment right there. We have labor in power for over 20 years. Who’s fault are the exorbitant rents?

You excel yourself, S Oak. Now you say that dwelling purchases in the market do not impinge on the stock of purchasable dwellings provided only that an investor buys it. Magical.
A third of properties rental listings in Canberra on Allhomes today are houses, not apartments or townhouses etc (I excluded studios). People also buy dwellings, in which to live, which are not houses. You have advocated them doing so yourself where they cannot afford a house, yet grant that investors compete there too. No competition? Don’t be silly.
Neither chewy14, that I have noticed, nor I has limited our comments by dwelling type so you lack even that bare thread on which to hang your absurdities.
Please point out the post, any post, in which I have ever opposed private investment rental. Oh, you crashed again. My arguments are principally around your self-serving claims on Federal tax structures and various people’s fatuities around ACT land tax.
No, don’t let your attention be distracted by knowledge; it is bad for self-centred belief.

Of course landlords are going to charge high rents, as they have to keep paying the exorbitantly high land taxes (that keep increasing every year) and exorbitant rates that just keep going up and up. If you want landlords to be charitable (not make any profit) – then you need to give them tax exempt status like other charities receive. The ACT government has created this situation (landlords selling up, low rental supply, highest rents in Australia) and was warned about this years ago. Instead of making the ACT more landlord friendly and actually encouraging investment in Canberra which will lead to more rental properties and lower rents – the ACT government decides to go the other way and attack landlords (introduced anti-landlord laws, increased regulations, higher land taxes etc.). You reap what you sow ACT government. And if you keep introducing more terrible laws and punish landlords, even more landlords will sell up, and you will have even fewer rental properties.

Exactly jorie! So many sound and rational voices are being drowned out because it is so easy for the left wing to paint a picture of landlords as evil and greedy. In reality, landlords care about their tenants and look to secure long and stable lease contracts and find tenants that maintain and look after their assets.

Agree! Landlords are actually small businesses that need to be supported not exploited.

100 percent agree, I sold two rental properties recently because got sick of the ACT Government gouging me with landtax, rate hikes and then giving me less rights over my property. Have now invested the money elsewhere away from this greedy corrupt wasteful government.

Good on you, noid. Now there are two properties either re-rented or in the hands of owner-occupiers. I trust your new investments will go well.
You didn’t just sell as a precaution because prices are flattening in the major cities and interest rates are rising soon, did you?

Seems obvious to normal people that making landlords suffer equals higher rents. Likely those who make these stupid decisions aren’t renting

Using its own Realestate.com.au data, PropTrack estimates that around 20 per cent of current transactions involve a landlord selling their property, while only around 8 per cent are bought by new investors on the other side of the transaction.

That means about 12 per cent of properties being sold at the moment are moving from the rental stock to being owner-occupied. PropTrack said that would be roughly 50,000 a year if that trend is maintained.

To understand a huge part of the problem, go do a search for whole properties on AirBNB. There are currently over 300 available in Canberra, you can very quickly fix the housing situation by banning AirBNB. Obviously, it is not the whole problem but getting 300+ properties back on the market would go a long way.

I’m sure the tourism industry would love that, forget about “DiscoverCanberra”. Buy a house here or leave town!

Gordon Williamson5:09 pm 13 Apr 22

Who would have thought that the “legislative changes, land tax and the looming impact of having to meet minimum energy efficiency standards” would have deterred investors from having rental properties in the ACT?

Fewer investors = fewer rentals available = increasing rents.

Spot on Gordon, classic case of left wing intervention in the market to punish investors thinking it’s in the interests of the tenants. Imagine if you raised taxes and regulations of businesses thinking it is interests of the consumer. Mess around, find out is what’s happening at the moment!

Where exactly have these properties disappeared to when the investors left?

Did the investors pick them up and take them with them?

Chewy – how dare you have a challenging view to Sam Oak – really? Tread lightly and softly my friend……..

Lanaman, it’s not even my view being commented on. Gordon is expressing his views and anything contrary to the idea that landlords are evil should be completely ignored. Apologies for exercising our freedom of speech in this country!

Chewy, you seem to think there should not be a rental market or investor class whatsoever in Canberra. Forget that the majority of Canberrans are here temporarily for work and study. You won’t be satisfied until international students are forced to buy up the housing stock for their 3-4 year degrees because it is cheaper than renting!

“Chewy, you seem to think there should not be a rental market or investor class whatsoever in Canberra.”

You seem to make a lot of stuff up.

Hey, can I play too? Making stuff up seems fun

You seem to think that the government should hand cash over to landlords to do nothing.

You won’t be satisfied until new homebuyers are completely unable to ever purchase a property because the investor class have completely taken over, solely interested in lining their own pockets along the way.

Gordon Williamson9:53 am 15 Apr 22

It’s not so much the existing houses being taken out of the market (although there is some suggestion that ex rentals are being bought by owner occupiers), it’s the fact that Canberra’s population increases by about 5,000 people each year which increases demand for housing (including rentals) So if the government is not providing significant extra rental stock – which it is not – then the only way it will be increased is by more investors providing it.

Finagen_Freeman4:05 pm 13 Apr 22

Supply and Demand.
Supply houses to first time home owners.
Demand speculators and multiple home owners stop buying up stock.

Jerzy Balowski5:54 pm 13 Apr 22

Couldn’t agree more, unfortunately, the speculators and investors are represented by powerful lobbyists, while prospective buyers have to rely on a politician’s honesty

If the Investors stop buying, there will be no further houses to rent.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.