17 September 2024

Is vertical living about environmental sustainability or simply a cash cow?

| Carrie Steffen
Join the conversation
15
New apartment building.

Does the government need to do more to meet the needs of residents of our vertical suburbs? Photo: Michelle Kroll.

“Since downsizing from my house in Evatt to an apartment in the city, I’ve loved the convenience of having amenities at my fingertips and a vibrant social life, but…..”

That “but” threatens the ACT Government’s goal of shifting Canberra’s growing population into strata-titled properties.

Given the limited land available for single family homes and the government’s emphasis on environmental sustainability, densification makes sense. It is reported 89 per cent of new homes through to 2030 will be multi-unit dwellings.

New residents and many downsizers aim to be near a town centre, close to employment, transport, shops and services.

Those of us who live here already refer to them as “vertical suburbs”. These vertical suburbs are already outstripping the sprawling suburbs in the number of homes and population.

The cost to build and maintain infrastructure and services in the suburbs is considerable. Is it a surprise the government is densifying inner cities, where infrastructure already exists, and nudging people into high-rise complexes?

READ ALSO Should the ACT appoint a strata commissioner?

Think of the financial incentives to the ACT Government. A cluster of 11 high-rise apartment complexes in Belconnen contains 3200 units and is home to 6000 people within an area of 0.56 square kilometres.

In contrast, Evatt, a suburb covering three square kilometres, has 2070 houses and a population of 5500. Evatt is serviced with green areas, playgrounds, cycle paths, a school, medical centre and has an extensive road network. The same investment is not being made for Canberra’s vertical suburbs.

The ACT Revenue rates paid on an apartment is only about 30 per cent less than for a house of similar size. Rates on my 100 square metre unit is $2453 compared to $3614 for a house. But there are almost 100 units also paying rates.

A group of 17 apartment complexes in the city centre has formed the Partnership of Executive Committees in the City. These individuals represent 3302 units who together pay rates of more than $6 million, plus an additional $2 million paid in land tax on units that are rented. Yet, there is no specific investment or new amenities provided to service the needs of those owners or residents.

The low priority of the ACT Government towards the Canberra strata community suggests that concern about environmental sustainability is not driving the break-neck pace of high-rise developments. Instead, it indicates the impetus is tax revenue and builders’ profits. It is irresponsible for the ACT Government to continue this densification without dealing with the consequences.

READ ALSO Government plans big land release for community facilities across ACT

This is where the “but….” comes in. Prospective buyers are put off because of:

  • Building defects. We need government to re-institute independent, government-employed building inspectors and certifiers. We need an industry ombudsman to adjudicate disputes.
  • Poor management. We need standards for strata and facilities management, including compulsory qualification and training for managers.
  • Sustainability. We need assistance to be able to meet the government’s electrification goals as many complexes will need to replace gas infrastructure, install EV charging stations and erect solar panels.
  • Disputes. We need a better system within, or in addition to, ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) to resolve conflicts between owners, owners corporations and developers.
  • Short-term rental. We need for owners corporations to be able to manage an unregulated business that disrupts regular tenants and adversely impacts on cost and amenities in our complexes.
  • Crime and homelessness. A humane solution is needed to help Canberra’s homelessness and more police presence is needed to reassure Canberrans that their city is safe for everyone.

All of these are feasible by a government that is responsive to the needs of its expanding population of owners of strata-titled properties and residents of our vertical suburbs.

Carrie Steffen is writing on behalf of Partnership of Executive Committees in the City, which comprises 17 strata-titled buildings representing more than 3200 units in Canberra’s city centre.

Join the conversation

15
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

There are several streams of problem areas here: one major issue is dealing with defects. For some reason the developers seem to think they are not responsible … a pie in the sky attitude as far as I’m concerned; then there’s the lack of compulsory training for strata managers, many of whom make it up as they go along; there’s also the ‘cash cow’ element of government overcharging on rates, etc. Many apartment dwellers these days have downsized, which would seem to go some way to help the government with the housing shortage — yet they are treated appallingly. Another article on combustible cladding is further evidence of this. (RiotACT 22 September)

Not everybody wants to live in a shoebox, and not everybody cares to live in the city. It’s the usual ideology being pushed, rather than getting on with running and maintaining the territory, by Labor and the greens.

Peter Strong11:59 am 20 Sep 24

Well said! Bring on the Strata Commissioner. One with teeth and resources.

Vertical living is a cash cow. Sadly Baaaa and the sheep who vote for him don’t have any respect for the people who pay the ridiculous rates, land tax and strata fees. Vote Baaa & the rat OUT!!!!!!

@flapdoodle
While I can understand your stance against Barr – many Canberrans agree with you that he has totally lost touch and the plot, however, to say “… the sheep who vote for him don’t have any respect for the people who pay the ridiculous rates, land tax and strata fees” is totally disingenuous. Many of those same people who choose to vote Labor, also ‘pay the ridiculous rates, land tax and strata fees’ – however, they exercise their right to vote a certain way because there might be a bigger picture (whatever that could be in the case of Labor) for which Labor appeals to them.

Just because a majority don’t vote the way you do, it doesn’t mean they lack respect for any other Canberran. It’s called representative democracy for a reason.

Thanks for your reply. I struggle to understand what the ‘bigger picture’ might be. Labor runs the unions who run the schools and have succeeded in brainwashing the majority of voters. The Canberra I was born in and loved is gone.

@flapdoodle
OK – I understand now. Your definition of ‘brainwashing the majority of voters’ relates to anyone who doesn’t vote the same way you do.

If things are terrible for Owner Occupiers, it is vastly worse for tenants. They should have a say in governance of strata titles, esp given they pay multiples more in rent to their LL than their LL pays in BC fees to the admin and sinking fund.

Hence, they should be allowed to attend and vote at AGMs.

Recommend an amendment to the UTMA to allow for two votes per apartment. Owner occupiers get both, but if it is rented the LL and Tenant get one vote each.

Given that many tenants only stay for 6-12 months, their interest is often related to their short-term benefits, rather than the long-term sustainability of the apartment and the complex as a whole.

Additionally, you underestimate the cost for landlords in the ACT, with rates and land taxes higher than anywhere else in Australia, as well as those body corporate fees. I suggest you broaden your knowledge before voicing an opinion.

Having been both a tenant over some decades as well as a landlord, I can see all perspectives and have given my vote to a tenant on those occasions where I see that they’re sufficiently responsible to consider all needs, rather than just their own. This is usually a long term tenant who cares about all aspects of their community.

@Les Norton
I have to admit, that’s one of the more ‘left field’ suggestions in favour of tenants I’ve seen.

“… given they pay multiples more in rent to their LL than their LL pays in BC fees to the admin and sinking fund”
Well, it may come as a surprise to you, but the tenant pays those ‘multiples more in rent’ for the right to occupy the premises risk free. Other than consummable utilities, the tenant has no overheads or encumbrances such as rates, taxes, BC fees – all of which must be met by the landlord.

Some landlords are able to get white collar welfare assistance from the ATO in the form of negative gearing, but even they must meet the aforementioned costs.

Perhaps if you, the tenant, contribute to the BC fees (say 50/50), you may then have a case for a vote. I wonder how many tenants would agree to that?

While I have sympathy for the sentiment of tenants having voting rights, it would require upending an enormous amount of law to do so. However, I imagine it would not be difficult to legislate to allow tenants to attend AGMs and have speaking rights but not voting rights, and to ensure that notice of AGMs and minutes from AGMs are circulated to all tenants. Tenants often have valuable insights into what the actual issues are in a complex that land owners do not, and their input would be valuable.

Fiona Carrick2:32 pm 18 Sep 24

I am advocating for a new Independent Housing Commissioner who would address the growing complexities and challenges relating to housing to protect the rights of residents and owners. The Commissioner would report directly to the Legislative Assembly ensuring greater accountability.
The Commissioner would support residents and owners by providing education, reducing disputes, providing regulatory services and delivering reports to the Legislative Assembly recommending fair practices in the housing sector.
The Commissioner would focus on rental, strata, retirement villages and building regulation and compliance. It would use the resources currently in Access Canberra for compliance functions so bureaucracy is not duplicated.
Fiona Carrick
Independent Candidate for Murrumbidgee
See https://www.fionacarrick.com/housing-commissioner

Yes. More bureaucracy is the answer to everything. Said. No one. Ever.

Well, given that there’s no climate emergency, it has to ultimately be about cash cows (and 15-minute city type control, which you forgot), even if some trusting people are building them with the environment in view

Vasily M, your incomprehension of reliable knowledge goes some way to explain the absurd convolutions of your longer posts. Maybe you think the devil dunnit.

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.