How to repair Australia's property sector

More immigrants will lower wages, raise the cost of housing, raise profits of banks and companies, raise the competition for health care and education, increase traffic congestion, increase carbon emissions and, most of all, will lower the standard of living for the majority (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16). Now can you please once again tell us why we need more immigration? That's right, "How to repair Australia's property sector", the sector that's too expensive for locals to afford, so bring in cashed up outsiders to do the deed.

Will someone please disconnect these book talking lobbyists from the mass media and Canberra? I reckon they would see our whole country turned to concrete and highways if it made them a buck (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).
I'd bet old Harry doesn't have holidays in the butchered coastal areas of Australia or live in a 5m x 5m box.

Harry getting desperate? Every sentence is aimed at stoking the public debate is his financial favour (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16). A classic rent-seeker if ever there was one.

"It is impossible to run a huge continent with 23 million people" (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16). Considering the continent is mostly uninhabitable desert, 23 million people is more than we need. Thanks for the infomercial, Harry.

This article should actually be titled 'how to reinflate/further distort the bubbly property sector, and make many other things worse in Australia' (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).

Geez Harry, the housing sector has just been put on a diet after the past decade of gluttony (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).

What do you mean by "improvement" for property? I would see a fall in prices of about 35 per cent as an improvement (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).

While it is understandable for a property developer company to hope for a big population, I am not sure whether Harry Triguboff is correct in stating, "the migrant intake must grow by at least half a million people per annum. It is impossible to run a huge continent with 23 million people." (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16.)
Australia has been doing well for so long. This fact alone means that it is possible to run a huge continent with 23 million or even less people.
One needs to be careful not to be too far off the mark.

More people means a smaller share of the nations wealth and resources. It means busier roads, smaller homes, fewer forests and rivers. Another 500,000 per year? Please no (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).

Harry, you might like to glance at the US (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16). They are a continent and have more immigration than us. They also have a slight housing issue.

Harry's thinking is clearly not rational for someone of his intelligence but in line with thinking associated with the past (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).

How about changing negative gearing so the tax deductions can only be used against the income from the specific asset (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).
That way the "investors" will hopefully stop trying to lower their tax at all costs, and start thinking about yield and what investment will give them the best risk weighted return over the medium to long term.
I've known a couple of people who've paid way over a reasonable price to get a negatively geared property, and a couple of years later are starting to realise that the "investment" is losing them a lot of money and they've seen the price fall by 10 per cent or so.
Some changes in the work practices of the building industry wouldn't go astray either. Productivity in the sector is abysmal for larger projects.

Interesting to see you have not changed Harry! Even better to see a virtual 100 per cent opposition to this get bigger at all costs philosophy (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).
Makes me smile in my old age!

Many years ago a close friend who ran an estate agency made similar complaints about low density zoning, and advocated the right of developers to build high rise where they chose, irrespective of local wishes (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16). He too decried the zoning actions of democratically elected local councils. At the time he was living in Vaucluse, one of the richest suburbs in Sydney, where low density housing is hotly defended and apartment building vehemently opposed.
I pointed out to him at the time, and in a published letter to the paper the next day, that the most suitable suburbs for high rise development were in fact suburbs such as his own – and other well ventilated suburbs close to the harbour, such as Hunters Hill and Tarronga Park. I also pointed out that the exclusive local golf clubs were ideal for development as areas of universal mass entertainment and recreation.
I recommend this response to anyone faced with similar demands that already environmentally poor areas be made even more uncomfortable by massive development.
I fear the result was that I was branded as a "communist" and barely spoken to by my one-time friend for many years. But I also heard a lot fewer diatribes about the desirability of high density development.
Sauce for the goose is not just sauce for the gander, sometimes it is the gander that needs it more. We have to remind people of that once in a while.
It might indeed be a good idea to increase the migrant intake by half a million people per year. High rise in the richer low density suburbs of our cities could readily house these numbers without the usual dislocation and disturbance of the rest of the population. Block prices would not serve as a great impediment if zoning allowed high rise in the more desirable localities. There are blocks in some of these areas which could easily house at least fifty households living in twenty storey apartment buildings, maybe with the odd minaret on top
Sometimes it is best not to get what you wish for.

So houses are now cottages (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16). Well I prefer a cottage with roses around the door to a high rise apartment that has light and views until another one is built next door.

Harry, good to hear and thanks for putting your position out there (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).
Options do exist for you and your "yes" men may not like to tell you that you may need to reinvent your model. Why not focus on quality instead of quantity? On replacing current/old with new and improved?
Australians are getting smarter about how we do business and add value. Plus, everyone knows that relying on mining and population growth are unsustainable business (economic) principles.
Simply, just stop and even reverse population growth. It's happening naturally (globally, slowly) so we should prepare and get our business models ahead of the curve.

Australia needs immigration because it doesn't generate the skills it needs itself... which in itself is a failure to run its own affairs (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 16).
As for the attitude that immigrants lower our living standards, well, it's immigrants that keep this country going... without them there would be no mining boom, little infrastructure and certainly poorer education and health care.
As for the housing market needing more stimulus? Yeah right!
When the bubble is near to bursting, keep pumping right?

It's refreshing to read all the switched on comments. Well done, people (How to repair Australia's property sector, May 18).