Land Resumption - Is It Impossible to Ever Truly Own a Home?

The possiblilty of land resumption / compulsory aquisition has long terrified me.

When the government can do this to people, is really possible for anyone to truly own their own home?

What is the point then?


  • They have to pay for it though.

    • that doesn't matter much if you do not want to leave.

      and exactly how much do they have to pay - how do they value it?

      what if it is worth more to you than money?

      • +2

        from what I've read i the past, compulsory acquisitions never pay what the properties are worth - not even close.

        and 'what if you dont want to move' = stiff shit apparently..

        its all wrong.

        • its all wrong.

          And it's perfectly right for infrastructure serving hundreds of thousands of people to be delayed or cancelled due to people who don't want to move?

          FWIW, I do think that the process of determining how much a property is worth for the purposes of compulsory acquisition can be improved and higher amounts of compensation can be paid out. However, to say that they are wrong is narrow-minded.

          If individual contracts had to be reached with each individual owner involved, this would simply just create an incentive for people living there (or investors) to extort the government (i.e. the taxpayers).

        • Well, that's just not the case.
          While they may not pay what it is worth to you, they should pay exactly what it is worth between a hypothetical reasonable buyer and seller.
          There is a reason why this happens - sometimes individuals have to give something up for the rest of society.
          However, no-one should ever be deterred from buying a house because of land resumption.
          Maybe check with local councils and planning before buying anything to see if there are any major infrastructure projects planned for nearby.

        • A bit misleading, with LNP and some greased hands, you can turn a 1M property into 10M that the government will buy at. Lazy good people get less than market value and whine. Am I wrong?

  • +3

    They pay for the acquisition. Watch the Castle bro.

    • -6

      have you watched it bro?!

      it didn't matter to the characters that the government was going to pay for the acquisition.

      they weren't just houses.
      they were homes.

      and the characters did not want to leave their homes.

      that was one of the main points of the movie bro!
      or did you see a directors cut where they just accepted the offers and moved out!?

  • +13

    I try my hardest to come up with stupid af forum topics but I keep getting beaten.

    • surprise it's not government scammed me with land
      classic bait and switch
      sell me land then buy it back

  • -2

    Frankly i think govt should own all the land and just lease it to people, plenty of places do this and homes are actually affordable

    • That's exactly what it already does. A property title is a title, not direct ownership of the land. It's a piece of paper, a contract with the state, that leases its use. And land tax is its rent.

      • I do not pay land tax on any of the properties I own.

        • What a bargain!

          Are these land properties, though?

    • affordable

      Define affordable. What's more "affordable", something you pay $100 for today that's worth $0 in a year or something you pay $100,000 for today that's worth $101,000 in a year?

  • Is It Impossible to Ever Truly Own a Home?

    My grandparents were forced out by the Nazis.
    Aboriginals were forced out by the British.

    Ownership is kept by force.

    But does that mean legal ownership of a home is moot? Of course not, if you follow the logic that someone could take something from you — then why bother living? At least in the legal sense you get paid.

    Life is about enjoying life, risks exist, most of us get used to that before we turn 18.

    • Research private vs personal property.

      All private property is kept by (fear of) force, nowadays usually by those with the monopoly on "legitimate" force - states, and those who support them.

      Personal property is kept by respect of use and/or occupation and requires no force unless challenged by others that don't respect personal property. In such cases force may also be used but this is a contingency rather than the norm, and usually a local issue.

      The former requires power, the latter mutualism.

  • obviously not? let me refer to your links as evidence

    btw if you think its fkd up out govt can take our land, get your fingers warmed up for some angry posts when china takes it all, lock stock tha farkin lot mate

    • I'd like to suggest not following the links, it's not worth your time

      • i didnt, i was pointing out the question was answered before the post was posted :D

  • If that's all you've got to worry about when buying property you've got it pretty easy.

  • Government can put you in jail if they want to. What's the point in life then?

  • +1

    Compulsory acquisition is quite unusual, and you could certainly select a property where it would be very unlikely.
    I guess in Sydney in the last half a century, maybe hundreds of homes, but not thousands. I think the Westconnex was the biggest project for a long time, and it acquired 36 homes, according to google.

    So that is something like 1 in 100,000 odds. You'd be 6 times more likely to die in a car crash. Not something I'd lose any sleep over.

  • you could certainly select a property where it would be very unlikely

    What should I be looking for please?

    • +1


    • +1

      House on wheels?

    • +1

      Very unlikely for an apartment to be resumed. If you want land, housing in most estates outside Inner suburbs would have very little reason to be resumed.
      Don't buy next to a main road, hospital or other infrastructure that might need to expand.

  • The possiblilty of land resumption / compulsory aquisition has long terrified me.

    Being terrified of this is like being terrified of sharks whilst walking on the beach.

  • Watch "The Castle"

    • it's a movie. people don't win those cases in real life

      • -1

        Yeah, because compulsory acquisition serves the community as a whole.

        And people do win sometimes, and sometimes it's detrimental to the community.

        Case: The much needed East-West link in Melbourne. Currently you have to drive around or through parts of the city to drive between the two biggest population centres in Melbourne, the East and the West. There is one road (the Westgate Freeway), which is always congested and at a stand still in peak hours, every single day. But a small group of homeowners protested compulsory acquisition, a fight which became a political issue in the state elections. The Labor party won, having backed them, and the entire project was cancelled, at a cost of $1b to the tax payers (for having nothing built).

        That East-West link became the North-West link, which is already served by the rarely congested Western Ring Road, and serves a much smaller population base.

        The protests against compulsory acquisition helped save about 20 houses, but set Melbourne traffic flow back 20 years. They'll build the East-West link anyway, at some point, under a different name, because it's needed.