Should Australia Create New Cities or SEZ (Special Economic Zones) to Reduce Housing & Infrastructure Pressure on Major Cities?

Ldealhunter52 on 23/07/2023 - 11:30
Last edited 30/07/2023 - 10:07 by 2 other users

It seems to me that there is no vision or will from successive Labor/Liberal govts to create new cities to reduce rental/housing pressure and congestion in big cities.

There are so many potential sites to create new SEZ (special economic zones) with existing ports infrastructure, if govt offers incentives, special tax benefits and preferential treatment for foreign investment. Similar initiatives have been successful overseas boosting GDP and economy of the country overall, Dubai, Shenzhen & Johor Baru being the most successful examples.

Also, make it a condition on new migrant visas to live & work in these new cities/SEZs for at least 5 years before granting permanent residency. It will definitely reduce rental/housing pressure on big cities. Australia already has a similar Visa (subclass 491) under which prospective migrant has to work/live in a regional area for 3 years before being eligible for permanent residency and move.

I will probably be the first one to move out of big cities to avail cheaper land, open spaces, better infrastructure, if there are jobs.

Below is a list of locations with existing sea ports in Australia some of which can be established as SEZs and developed further for global trade and connectivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ports_in_Australia

Poll Options expired

  • 171
    Yes
  • 96
    No
Home & Garden

Comments

                  • ssfps on 24/07/2023 - 20:00

                    @dealhunter52:

                    hur dur i'm so scientific, facts facts
                    you probably listen to alex jones

                    Fully sick burn m8, is that what you post on /r/futurology?

          • mlburnian on 29/07/2023 - 21:48

            @dealhunter52: Please tell me what happened after the ice age? What caused the globe to warm up then?

    • cashews on 24/07/2023 - 18:33
      +1

      Sounds like you need to take a break from the internet..

  • Poor Ass on 24/07/2023 - 14:43
    +1

    Sounds like prison

    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 14:50

      No it doesn't. No one is forcing anyone to apply at a gunpoint. Why would we overcrowd our already overcrowded cities?

      Visa subtype 491 already exits.
      https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-li…

      • Poor Ass on 24/07/2023 - 15:24

        so they have to live and work there and no other choice for 5 years?

        • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 15:43

          Well, give me cheap housing and a job, I'll go. Probably most Australians who can't afford mortgage/rent in big cities will be willing to go too.

          It will make much more sense for new migrants though, since they won't have existing community attachments like most Australians have. Majority of immigrants tend to settle in the first city they live/work in as they get attached to the place and build community links.

          Under current 491 visa, they can apply for permanent residency after 3 years and move if they wish.

          • Poor Ass on 24/07/2023 - 15:56

            @dealhunter52: actually new migrants just stay within their communities and don't even bother to live anywhere else

            they always know someone here

            but I wouldn't say any city in Australia is overcrowded yet but it does get annoying to commute to and walk around at times

            Shenzhen is the correct spelling is one of the satellite cities you wrote of. Over there during Chinese new year it's dead as everyone just goes back to their own town for celebrations. I wonder if ya fantasy satellite city also do that.

            • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 16:31

              @Poor Ass:

              Over there during Chinese new year it's dead as everyone just goes back to their own town for celebrations. I wonder if ya fantasy satellite city also do that.

              Luckily, we don't have Chinese new year holidays and most people here don't have families living in country towns/villages that they like to visit in other holidays. Most people in my fantasy satellite city won't be temporary workers but actual residents of the area.

              • Poor Ass on 24/07/2023 - 16:32

                @dealhunter52: will there be a ban on gum or will it be filthy like the streets of Sydney?

  • KaTst3R on 24/07/2023 - 15:54

    preferential treatment for foreign investment

    You want foreign money but a lot of it comes from China. Then FIRB says no. You gotta choose your poison.

    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 16:39

      Problem with foreign money currently is that it's inflating already ridiculous real-estate prices in big cities. Which is pricing local population out of the market.

      I got no problem if someone from overseas wants to invest in a new city. Govt will get stamp duty from land sale and GST from house build. That's roughly about $60k for each new house. Not to mention number of direct and indirect building industry jobs it will create and the income tax from those jobs. You really need to weigh up pros & cons of investment.

  • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 16:43

    Might as well just give the nation away.

    Tell me, have you ever asked why no non-White nation pursues the model of growth you have placed in the poll?

    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 16:46

      Tell me, have you ever asked why no non-White nation pursues the model of growth you have placed in the poll?

      Because probably none has a low birth rate and an ageing population. Not to mention housing/rental crisis to boot.

      Technically, it is that non-white country though if you're willing to acknowledge it's indigenous population.

      • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 17:19

        "Because probably none has a low birth rate and an ageing population. "

        Japan, Singapore, South Korea, China, Thailand, Taiwan..

        And you think importing millions addresses the housing crisis?

        Oh my gosh! Thank you for your brilliance champ!

        • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 18:36

          Japan and South Korea have already relaxed their immigration processes for permanent residency.

          China still has 1.4 billion people last time I checked and they have 103 million people still between 18 - 25 age group.

          Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand don't have ageing society yet.

          And you think importing millions addresses the housing crisis?

          Yes it does. At least, into new cities rather than already overcrowded 5 cities. If you think any govt, whether Liberal or Labor, will just stop immigration, you're way to naïve to even have this conversation with. This whole post was started because we know it won't happen and if this is going to happen how to tackle the issue of overcrowded cities with overpriced housing.

          • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 19:42

            @dealhunter52: "Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand don't have ageing society yet"

            It appears you only know how to make wrong statements. And look I don't have time to correct all of them, but we can start with your reference to Thailand's aging above..

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/713667/thailand-forecast…

            • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 19:57

              @LVlahov: Australia has 20% higher population above 65 compared to Thailand (16% vs Thailand's 13%).

              https://www.statista.com/statistics/242569/age-distribution-…

              I wonder how many of those that make that 13% in Thailand are pensioners from West, who decide to retire and buy a shack in Thailand. I personally know 2 guys who went and married local women half their age, while their daughters are older than their wives.

              • LVlahov on 24/07/2023 - 20:39

                @dealhunter52: I didn't hear you admit that you were wrong about Thailand aging.

                And Thailand is forecast to be at 16% in 2025, in two years time.

                So it is in fact, aging, despite your claim otherwise, and the two nations are very close in their rate of aging, with Thailand at most 2 years behind.

                Your anecdotes are uninteresting, and your absolute desire to fill Australia with other people, rather than find alternatives that don't replace the Australian people, or damage its environment is notable.

                As everyone should observe and understand, the highest priority for people on the left, is population replacement, no matter the cost to the environment, inequality or anyone else.

                • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 20:58

                  @LVlahov:

                  your absolute desire to fill Australia with other people, rather than find alternatives that don't replace the Australian people, or damage its environment is notable.

                  Aren't you getting late for you KKK meeting and don't forget the pointy hat? While you're at it, please take first flight out of the traditional aboriginal land.

  • CowFrogHorse on 24/07/2023 - 19:24

    I know of two SEC in Sydney, but to keep this simple i will focus on just one, the Sydney CBD. The gov has pumped $3B on the tram and another $20B on the metro to the city and another BIllion or two on Central station.

    Please explain to me why spending $25B to keep the CBD alive is a smart move ? Just how many jobs has this $25B saved ? It would be cheaper to give each person employed there a million to retire and close the place down. Every job saved is costing tax payers over a million dollars each and of course will never be repaid.

    • dealhunter52 on 24/07/2023 - 19:30

      Spending 20 billion in Sydney or Melbourne is just a waste in my opinion. We need more population centres and this money could have been spent to encourage people and businesses to move there and reduce housing/rent pressure and congestion on big cities.

    • Wasabi Ninja on 27/07/2023 - 12:04

      I assume the businesses there generate profits that the government taxes more then income tax. Get rid of the worker ants and there’s no GDP.

  • pogichinoy on 24/07/2023 - 19:38
    +1

    Sounds like a ponzi scheme! Take my money!!

  • BusMan247 on 25/07/2023 - 00:48

    The problem in my eyes is that the policy makers are self serving. Between the too many govt employees with high incomes, who are also big wealthy property owners who get asked to make policy which can help normal people.. it will never happen.

    Make the decision makers have normal wages and then let’s see policy become super fair for the average person.. which I thought was what democracy was.. oh.

  • Goremans on 25/07/2023 - 06:40
    +1

    remove tax 'breaks', incentives, and foreign investment for residential housing.

    Either wages go up substantial or house prices go down. I vote the latter

    • dealhunter52 on 25/07/2023 - 18:27

      That could work too. But if we're still going to get 300k - 400k more people every year, they will need more housing. It won't be a permanent fix.

  • morebunnings on 25/07/2023 - 09:24
    +1

    They kind of already do this in QLD with Priority Development Areas. The Maroochydore CBD is an example of this.

    https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/economic-development…

    https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/economic-development…

    • dealhunter52 on 25/07/2023 - 18:30

      You need these developments at least 100 - 200 km from existing city to fix housing and congestions. Otherwise you only going to get urban ghettos.

  • kl2999 on 25/07/2023 - 09:33

    This reminds me the movie In Time where people have to live in zones and categories by how rich they are. Haven't we learn from the movie? the poor will always complain and the rich will always be greed.

    • dealhunter52 on 25/07/2023 - 12:34

      Great imagination you have there. This has nothing to do with rich or poor. Most Australians, whether rich or poor, will willingly move to a new area with better infrastructure, cheap housing , open spaces etc. Only limiting factor is lack of jobs, govt can create with tax breaks and incentives for businesses to move there.

      I would be first one to move where my kids can have a decent backyard at least. There will heaps of people like me who can't afford >$1 million townhouses on 200m2 land in Sydney.

  • belongsinforums on 25/07/2023 - 16:00

    where the hell is shenzen?

  • Carlin on 25/07/2023 - 16:56
    +1

    Let's stop the fake student visas loophole first

  • Ryk on 25/07/2023 - 23:19

    Eden

  • Thaal Sinestro on 26/07/2023 - 05:38

    Australia could create new cities (or smaller satellite cities on the edge of existing cities), but lets be honest: they would never be special economic zones like Shenzen, rather just dormitories. All Australia can do is knock together lots of low quality (yet still really expensive) housing. Creating high tech manufacturing, low tech manufacturing, software engineering business, and intellectual property creating industries is beyond us. Australian citizens invest their money in housing which guarantees a 10% ROI due to the government's horrible growth policies; they won't invest in innovative new industries which may fail. Foreign investors would not be interested in such projects since everything is so much dearer in Australia than in other nations: land, electricity, wages, the cost of government regulation. I remember Kaufland pulling out of Australia for these reasons, and they are just a food retailer.

  • mskeggs on 26/07/2023 - 12:19

    Having read more of the comments here, it seems this is mainly about housing costs, and trying to build demand outside of capital cities so that congestion. And scarcity issues in capital cities are reduced.

    I agree these are real and important issues. I just think giving a tax break that will definitely reduce tax income in the hope it fixes these specific issues is a bad way to attack them.

    • dealhunter52 on 26/07/2023 - 12:42

      I would assume temporary tax breaks or incentives from new industry/businesses won't affect existing revenues from existing industry/businesses. If anything, Govt will have additional revenue from stamp duty, GST and income tax in the new growth area.

      Well, it seems to be a pipedream anyway as we all know nothing will happen. We can't even get better infrastructure within existing cities without big cost blowouts and massive delays.

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-25/nsw-premier-chris-min…

  • SydBoy on 26/07/2023 - 14:28

    @Bargainian 5 year condition you spoke about is not good enough because the government should make it at-least 10 year for any new migrant to live outside Sydney & Melbourne as minimum before they can move out to Sydney & Melbuorne. these two cities are over crowded and don't need new migrant keep getting in here (I am also migrant also). The reason i say this is because government had condition on some visa holder to stay regional cities i think for 2 to 4 year before giving PR and every single migrant straight away move to Sydney or Melbourne after they finish their time in regional area so 5 year is too less for someone to settle for long-term and hence 10 year is far superior term and also allow migrant to bring their family i.e. parents with them so they don't feel isolated in regional town.

    Also, those migrant should get all the right as citizen except for the voting .. .!

    • dealhunter52 on 26/07/2023 - 14:45

      The reason i say this is because government had condition on some visa holder to stay regional cities i think for 2 to 4 year before giving PR and every single migrant straight away move to Sydney or Melbourne after they finish their time in regional area

      I think you're talking about subclass 491 visa. Yes, currently new migrants need to live 3 years in regional areas before they can move. Reason for them leaving regional area is simple, lack of jobs and infrastructure. That's the whole reason for this post. If govt builds new cities along the coast with incentives for businesses to move there, why would anyone move back to crowded Sydney and Melbourne, where they can't afford to buy housing.

      Many people like me will actually move out of Sydney/Melbourne to new area for open spaces, less congestion, cheap decent sized lots, if there are jobs and industry.

      allow migrant to bring their family i.e. parents with them so they don't feel isolated in regional town.

      They can come for visit but not to stay permanently because it will be a non-starter and cancel any benefits of getting young skilled workforce. Our healthcare is already crumbling with long wait times and we don't need to make it worse with additional elderly population. If someone can't live without their parents, they shouldn't be migrating in the first place in my opinion.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 26/07/2023 - 17:29

    Yes, but they won't as that wouldn't push up their inner city investment property prices quite the same as packing another 1 million people into the city. Also, they'd have to spend on infrastructure and public transport to rural areas which also isn't going to happen.
    Then there's the greens…they'll make it all but impossible.

    • SydBoy on 26/07/2023 - 17:35

      Your statement " They can come for visit but not to stay permanently because it will be a non-starter and cancel any benefits of getting young skilled workforce " clearly means you looking at migrant as young slaves who comes here to pay tax and separate from their families… For your benefit…. !

      • OzzyOzbourne on 27/07/2023 - 09:33

        Think you replied to the wrong person

        • SydBoy on 27/07/2023 - 14:26

          Sorry, that correct… It was for OP.

    • dealhunter52 on 26/07/2023 - 17:48

      Unfortunately, that's the bitter truth. Last new city that was announced was Canberra, in 1913, in good old days. When things used to get done without bureaucracy and red tape. If Canberra had been founded on the coast, I bet the population would have been double what it its today. Australians love beach life but some at the time thought inland city will flourish. Still better than nothing, I guess.

  • svoncrumb on 26/07/2023 - 17:41
    +1

    There should absolutely be a cost of owning homes that are not principle places of residence. Each adult can have one - so 2 in a typical family if you must have your holiday home. Then you're taxed and I don't care how high they tax it. If you're not a resident then you are not residing, therefore you are taxed also.

    • dealhunter52 on 26/07/2023 - 17:54

      Good luck with that. When ministers themselves own multiple dwellings, why would they do that. Talk about vested interests.

      Labour minister Michelle Ananda-Rajah was caught on live TV defending negative gearing, while owning multiple properties. She owns 7 in total, including her primary residence.

      • svoncrumb on 26/09/2023 - 09:59

        I know nothing is going to happen. I hope the next generation don't suffer through it like they do in the US, where a landlord owns the entire building. What a shit future.

  • Dack Smith on 26/07/2023 - 17:56

    Build it in the Simpson desert please

    Australia is becoming overcrowded and the infrastructure is not keeping up

    Stop these stupid (profanity) brainless ideas or shove it up the arse of those who agree and love this plan

  • Cave Fire on 26/07/2023 - 19:23

    It's been tried so many times before. When you try to mono culture an area, weird things start happening. Crime spikes and they turn into ghost towns. If you are blaming "immigrants" also wrong there. Housing crisis is artificial due to people withholding supply. On the other hand, releasing too many would also crash the market. There are plenty of failed cities you can claim, so I would look at Barabba, nsw

    • dealhunter52 on 26/07/2023 - 19:39

      It's been tried so many times before.

      No, it hasn't been. At least, not along the lines of what I'm suggesting. When was the last time a new city was developed in Australia? You will have to go all the way back to 1913 when Canberra was first announced.

      When you try to mono culture an area

      I'm not suggesting monoculture or anything of sorts. Many Australian will willingly move to new area, if there are jobs available. Also, we have most diverse demographics of immigrants with UK at top followed by India/China, NZ, South Africa etc. People here think everyone comes from 3rd world. Most of these immigrants are skilled professionals as Australia has one the strictest intake criteria.

  • Kiro on 27/07/2023 - 07:02

    they did that post WW2, when people from europe had nothing and wanted to leave th devastated towns and villages they once called home.

    if you look around you will see fibro houses that will tell the story of cheap affordable living with mass production. its a big circle but we do eventually have to start it again with affordable living.

  • Wasabi Ninja on 27/07/2023 - 12:06

    Historically every country has to make new cities at some stage. Who knows when that will happen in Australia. They’ve certainly got the land to set up a Nevada desert type city. It will require pumping water from the top end into Central Australia though.

    • dealhunter52 on 27/07/2023 - 12:29

      Since Australia doesn't have big Inland rivers, new coastal city would make much more sense in my opinion. Even Murray-Darling river system faces frequent droughts.Also, Australians love to live near coast considering our 5 biggest cities are all near the water.

      It would make much more sense to develop existing towns like Port Kembla, Port Macquarie, coffs Harbour, Bowen, Mackay etc. Encourage industry/businesses to move and people will follow.

      • Wasabi Ninja on 27/07/2023 - 13:13

        There’s a whole third of Australia over west that should be as busy as the east coast. If it’s about opening up new cities. You could fit Vic, NSW, Qld and ACT into Western Australia.
        Leave those towns with some rural feeling to them. They’re only a stones throw from a major city.

        • dealhunter52 on 27/07/2023 - 13:30

          I'm not saying develop all those towns I mentioned. Even if one is developed into big city will help.

          Maybe West coast being too dry and remote puts off people. But towns like Bunbury and Busselton can be developed though. Heard lot of new migrants are moving to Perth due to affordable housing and abundant jobs.

          • Wasabi Ninja on 27/07/2023 - 13:35

            @dealhunter52: That’s the point. They’re remote because there’s been no development for 200 years. There’s loads of water in the north west. They’ve talked about pumping down south for decades.
            The way I see it is the east is already expensive. But if you could buy a 1000sqm block in a new city for $100k you’d be laughing. I drive from Perth to Karratha a few times a year. Litterally nothing all the way. Not even the equivalent of the towns you mentioned really.

            • dealhunter52 on 28/07/2023 - 20:13
              +1

              @Wasabi Ninja: Geraldton would be a prime candidate if they want to develop mid north coast. Roughly 4 hours drive from Perth and home to one of the best beaches. Could be advertised as the Gold coast of the west.

  • imnotgoingtopayrrp on 27/07/2023 - 13:44

    I thought the new western Sydney airport was going to be the spark that ignites the flame of development in the west? That is the goal with the 24hr operations and the direct rail link.

    • dealhunter52 on 27/07/2023 - 14:16

      There's not much land left for urban sprawl in Sydney. We're already pushing to the national parks in South, North and West. There's some land in the South West but if it's going to be developed by private developers, who like to maximise their returns by selling small 250m2 lots for $700k with narrow streets and no green open spaces, who would want to live there? Town planners and local councils have their head in the sand and are just looking at all the dollars rolling in and don't care whether the land is in flood prone area.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join