- June 10, 2024
- Posted by: legaleseblogger
- Category: Related News
Speed-Dial AI Lawyer (470) 835 3425 FREE
FREE Legal Document translation
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
## The Value of Residential Land in Country Towns
In many country towns, the value of residential land on the outskirts is between $500 to $1000 per square meter. This is significantly higher than the value of rural land nearby, which is typically valued at $10 to $50 per square meter. The stark contrast in land values presents an opportunity for towns to address their housing shortage by allowing more construction.
### AI Legalese Decoder: A Solution to Navigating Complex Legal Jargon
In this situation, the AI Legalese Decoder can assist individuals and organizations in navigating the complex legal language often associated with land zoning and building regulations. By utilizing the AI Legalese Decoder, stakeholders can easily decipher and interpret the intricate legal terms and requirements related to constructing residential properties in country towns. This tool can streamline the process of understanding and complying with regulations, facilitating the development of much-needed housing in these areas.
Speed-Dial AI Lawyer (470) 835 3425 FREE
FREE Legal Document translation
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
## Valuation Disparity in Residential and Rural Land
A stark contrast in property valuations exists between residential land on the outskirts of country towns and rural land zoned properties. The former is valued at an average of $500-$1000 per square meter, while the latter comes at a mere $10-$50 per square meter. This valuation gap highlights the abundant availability of affordable land in rural areas, presenting a potential solution to the housing shortage crisis in towns.
## Leveraging AI Legalese Decoder for Property Investment Insights
The AI Legalese Decoder offers a unique solution for investors and developers looking to capitalize on the valuation disparity between residential and rural land. By utilizing the AI-powered platform, users can efficiently decode complex legal jargon, contracts, and property regulations, allowing for a streamlined analysis of investment opportunities in different locations.
Additionally, the AI Legalese Decoder can provide valuable insights into zoning laws, development restrictions, and potential growth prospects, enabling investors to make informed decisions about property acquisitions and development projects. With its advanced algorithms and natural language processing capabilities, the AI Legalese Decoder revolutionizes the way real estate professionals navigate legal complexities, unlocking new opportunities for strategic property investments.
Speed-Dial AI Lawyer (470) 835 3425 FREE
FREE Legal Document translation
****** just grabbed a
I was born and bred in Byron Bay. That town has gone to the dogs. Any efforts to develop new housing is met with endless protest by locals, because more housing = more people = an even busier town/overwhelmed infrastructure.
It’s a harmful cycle of local residents not being able to afford housing, new housing developments being proposed, and those developments being protested because locals don’t want the town to get busier, and don’t want to see natural habitats leveled.
I moved to Melbourne because it all got too depressing.
The maths is off. He says it’s $1m for a hectare of residential land and the proceeds to say it’s $1000/sqm.
If the maths is done properly, there really isn’t a large difference between the rural land and the residential land. Unless of course the residential land maths was wrong as well.
If the example of country towns is Byron (as per the tweet when you click) then you have to wonder about the agenda
It’s hardly a typical example of what regional house prices look like in this country.
Country towns are fantastic, apart from the lack of services, transport, increased cost of goods, and lack of employment options.
Also, if we keep building on arable land the way we have for the last 20 years, where do people think our food will come from?
Small towns are notoriously full of people that own multiple pieces of land and business’ within that area. Restricting supply benefits them…
We didn’t need more urban sprawl.
We need to make medium density the minimum density councils are allowed to zone.
Australia would have to be one of the most expensive places in the world to build infrastructure, which is why governments don’t want infinite sprawl anymore.
Yeah but how about the cost of infrastructure to develop rural land? Roads and especially sewer costs are huge, especially if the 1) topography doesn’t allow for gravity drainage along non private land 2)there is sufficient capacity in whichever wastewater treatment plant you’re hoping to drain to.
There’s some very real reasons it’s not just a matter of “there’s cheap land let’s build houses there”.
rural land is rarely suitable for low density residential development, it needs more infrastructure
Planning reform is the best (and easiest) fix to the housing crisis. Minns and Scully have been great on this.
This is pure ignorance
You can buy a 700 sqm house block for $70k, but rural land has min lot sizes more like 100,000 sqm so you’d need $5M to buy it.
It’s cheaper per sqm for a reason.
Cost of rural-zoned land
Plus cost of persuading/bribing/paperwork to council to rezone the land to allow you to live on it/build on it.
Equals cost of residential-zoned land.
Its so easy to buy then lobby donate for rezoning
Bullshit.
The zoning is what drives the value of the land, yes, but the capital coming in to our towns is not from within our towns. We have interstate and foreign investors snapping up all of the residentially zoned land.
Without additional regulation to limit the commercial use of residential property, this will only reduce the amount of farmland available to Australians and convert large portions of food producing regions into greater opportunities for investment to keep the scheme going.
The status quo enables people outside of these communities to maximise the extraction of value from those communities with minimal investment in them. It is the opposite of circular economics, a major contributor to inflation and the greatest limiting factor in the economic development of the country.
Or we could stop importing unsustainable amounts of people
Sustainably develop using native population growth
Canberra land is over $1100/SqM lol
Any change to those planning controls would mean rural land for agriculture would become impossible for farmers to buy at a realistic rate. Sure – people might celebrate the short economic boost of their land being up-zoned and housing being created but the long term implications would be the loss of productive farmland being lost to residential development. Of course residential land needs to be found but wholesale rezoning has another bag of implications.
Yes, we should keep building outwards, further and further away from services, while tearing up our zoning laws and ignoring the need for DA’s. This totally isn’t the cause of the problems we’re facing today.
Thanks Peter, right wing think tank shill, glad to see you back at it again.
Besides this, his point is pure dishonesty. It’s specifically that the rural land is zoned for agricultural use only that sets it’s value at $10sqm.
Yes let’s build more bullshit developer estates with zero amenities
A lot of the land in Victoria around Melbourne are our water catchments. Can’t develop there
So we should destroy the bush around every city?
More city density, not urban sprawl please. Sprawl destroys habitat and is a leading cause of declining koala numbers.
On a floodplain?
Yeah but they don’t want that. Densify cities to the point they don’t work.
Sounds more like propaganda from property developers who want to keep crowding people into this country so they can keep bulldozing our native landscapes to make more shoddy apartments and cookie cutter housing developments.
The solution to our housing crisis is simple but it means investors might lose money bcause property prices go down.so nobody wants to do it
Weird how he forgets to say who would be responsible for paying to have power, water, sewerage, roads etc. connected to all those hypothetical new suburbs on “cheap” land
Be careful with that though. You end up with a bunch of derelict houses because it’s cheaper to throw another tickytack box on newly developed dirt if developers have already plumbed and electrified the area.
Also..
Utilities are hard in rural areas.
Peter Tulip usually pushes for building higher density in the city, now he’s pushing for building in the regions where houses haven’t been built before… are people really unable to connect the dots that he’s just in favour of BUILDING and it’s as simple as that?