It’s almost entirely absent from our political dialogue, but the issue of who owns the commons and how they’re to be used (and by whom) is at the core of almost all the major debates between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, and even those advocating democracy versus those trying to expand the American oligarchy.
The commons is the stuff we all use or is necessary to life: the air and water, the public roads and schools, the police and fire departments, the airways that our planes fly over and through which we send radio and TV signals, outer space, and our oceans.
The commons, in aggregate, are one of the major stores of the wealth of a nation.
One of the main reasons people throughout history have established governments is to protect and regulate the commons.
I feel the reason people focus on YIMBYISM is because time and energy here advocacy for a change actually feels like it’ll get rewarded with outcomes. It feels like low hanging fruit and most defences of bad faith local planning decisions fold like a chair. If we were to talk about class, where do we start, which parts have the low hanging fruit to address inequalities? Most challenges to the status quo here regardless of merit require a lot of time and energy to change, even if they are more effective at addressing inequality. I also think discussing class isn’t as concrete or specific òa topic as discussing housing supply
Supply can be tackled at every level. It’s also relevant in all states as well. Also I’m pretty sure each state govt in has the agency to override local government(?), making time & energy pushing for change here more productive.
I realise you were talking about more than just land tax but to use your example of Land tax, it’s more complicated, it’s gets politicised at the level where there is agency to make the change (the state government), there isn’t a 3rd party that can undermine any states hesitation to commit to land tax (federal govt has no agency here beyond carrot incentives). Chris Minns immediately politicised the former NSW premier’s transition to land tax as a “family tax”, this only works because the general public has a very poor understanding of how they would benefit from a land tax (I remember seeing a survey on opinions on land tax, most were indifferent). I also think this could improve if there was a dedicated group for advocating for producing education material on the actual benefits.
I still think there’s allot of value in advocacy for land value tax, Singapore style public housing, etc. But I think we’re seeking outcomes it’s unwise to exclusively focus our time and energy advocating for these when there’s other low hanging fruit right in front of us.
At least that’s the way I see it. Either way I think any effective solution to Australia’s housing and rent affordability problem will probably be best addressed by a confluence of different solutions, it’s just that supply is the easiest lever to pull
Another approach to the problem: https://hartmannreport.com/p/are-we-at-peak-commodification-of?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Quote:
It’s almost entirely absent from our political dialogue, but the issue of who owns the commons and how they’re to be used (and by whom) is at the core of almost all the major debates between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, and even those advocating democracy versus those trying to expand the American oligarchy.
The commons is the stuff we all use or is necessary to life: the air and water, the public roads and schools, the police and fire departments, the airways that our planes fly over and through which we send radio and TV signals, outer space, and our oceans.
The commons, in aggregate, are one of the major stores of the wealth of a nation.
One of the main reasons people throughout history have established governments is to protect and regulate the commons.
I feel the reason people focus on YIMBYISM is because time and energy here advocacy for a change actually feels like it’ll get rewarded with outcomes. It feels like low hanging fruit and most defences of bad faith local planning decisions fold like a chair. If we were to talk about class, where do we start, which parts have the low hanging fruit to address inequalities? Most challenges to the status quo here regardless of merit require a lot of time and energy to change, even if they are more effective at addressing inequality. I also think discussing class isn’t as concrete or specific òa topic as discussing housing supply
Supply can be tackled at every level. It’s also relevant in all states as well. Also I’m pretty sure each state govt in has the agency to override local government(?), making time & energy pushing for change here more productive.
I realise you were talking about more than just land tax but to use your example of Land tax, it’s more complicated, it’s gets politicised at the level where there is agency to make the change (the state government), there isn’t a 3rd party that can undermine any states hesitation to commit to land tax (federal govt has no agency here beyond carrot incentives). Chris Minns immediately politicised the former NSW premier’s transition to land tax as a “family tax”, this only works because the general public has a very poor understanding of how they would benefit from a land tax (I remember seeing a survey on opinions on land tax, most were indifferent). I also think this could improve if there was a dedicated group for advocating for producing education material on the actual benefits.
I still think there’s allot of value in advocacy for land value tax, Singapore style public housing, etc. But I think we’re seeking outcomes it’s unwise to exclusively focus our time and energy advocating for these when there’s other low hanging fruit right in front of us.
At least that’s the way I see it. Either way I think any effective solution to Australia’s housing and rent affordability problem will probably be best addressed by a confluence of different solutions, it’s just that supply is the easiest lever to pull