If Albanese said he was cancelling the stadium and diverting all the money into building public housing, would you oppose that because Tas like rest of Aus does not need the government to create more jobs, particularly in construction?
Still hoping for a follow up! I live in Brunswick in Melbourne and our local council has socialist members opposing new buildings and greens wanting some buildings tension and it would be good to know which policy is correct!
Hi Simon. This debate shouldn't be about construction jobs, but about the best way to provide more housing.
Broadly speaking, I'm on the YIMBY side of this debate - we need more public/social housing *and* more private housing, with higher density. But it's necessary to take account of local conditions, environmental impacts and so on.
Ah thanks! I thought that was the case from reading your other writings.
Recently I've noticed people calling themselves "YIMBYs" - there was a recent article about this in the Age - who want councils to relax zoning rules to make it easier to build houses and apartments, essentially asking for government action to create more jobs in construction.
From what you've written, it sounds like councils should push back against these "YIMBYs" and if anything make zoning laws even more restrictive, as we don't need more jobs in construction, EXCEPT for projects that are public housing?
If Albanese said he was cancelling the stadium and diverting all the money into building public housing, would you oppose that because Tas like rest of Aus does not need the government to create more jobs, particularly in construction?
Not sure if this is meant seriously, but I'll answer it that way.
I would support it because we need more public housing, even if that entails shifting workers away from other parts of the construction sector.
Still hoping for a follow up! I live in Brunswick in Melbourne and our local council has socialist members opposing new buildings and greens wanting some buildings tension and it would be good to know which policy is correct!
Hi Simon. This debate shouldn't be about construction jobs, but about the best way to provide more housing.
Broadly speaking, I'm on the YIMBY side of this debate - we need more public/social housing *and* more private housing, with higher density. But it's necessary to take account of local conditions, environmental impacts and so on.
Ah thanks! I thought that was the case from reading your other writings.
Recently I've noticed people calling themselves "YIMBYs" - there was a recent article about this in the Age - who want councils to relax zoning rules to make it easier to build houses and apartments, essentially asking for government action to create more jobs in construction.
From what you've written, it sounds like councils should push back against these "YIMBYs" and if anything make zoning laws even more restrictive, as we don't need more jobs in construction, EXCEPT for projects that are public housing?