Podcast: Power shifts but does strata matter?

Ah, the perils of trusting poll predictions immediately after an election.  While Labor have definitely won and Chris Minns is definitely the new Premier of NSW, the balance of power is still in doubt (at time of writing).

Does that mean that the Greens have regained considerable influence – something that we say in the podcast has slipped through their fingers? Apparently not.

A couple of independents have spiked their guns on that front.  In any case, the basic issues we take up in the podcast remain – rents, housing availability, short-term letting, embedded networks and dispute resolution.

By the way, if you are reading this in Victoria and Queensland, or anywhere else for that matter, apologies for being Sydney-centric this week. But the truth is that whatever happens here often follows changes in Victoria – like the ban on no-cause rental terminations – or Queensland, like the curbs on proxy farming.

And, of course, ideas flow in the other direction too with proposed changes to Queensland’s rental laws having been trialled in other states.

Meanwhile, back in the pod, with John Ibrahim and James Packer both getting involved in apartment development in Sydney’s Potts Point, we indulge in a fantasy “who would you invite to dinner?”

What it might be like if those two larger-than-life characters sat down with Building Commissioner David Chandler, we muse? It would be entertaining, if nothing else, a claim we often make about our podcast. You can be the judge of that yourself.

TRANSCRIPT IN FULL

Jimmy  00:00

So the election is done and dusted (actually, not quite, because they are still counting some votes).

Sue  00:07

Some of those votes seem to have taken ages as well, don’t they?

Jimmy  00:11

Yeah, well, it’s all the postal thing and remoteness and the size of early voting. They seem to be fairly confident about most of the results and the fact that there’s going to be a Labor government in New South Wales, for the first time in 12 years.

Sue  00:26

And nobody really saw the size of that victory, did they?

Jimmy  00:28

No, everybody was talking about a hung parliament, including the Greens, so we’ll be talking about the dent that has put in their plans, as well as all the other stuff related to strata. I’m Jimmy Thomson, I write the Flat Chat column for the Australian Financial Review.

Sue  00:45

And I’m Sue Williams and I write about property for Domain.

Jimmy  00:48

And this is the Flat Chat Wrap.

[MUSIC]

Jimmy

The people most disappointed after the election on Saturday, you would assume (apart from the Liberals), were the Greens, because they were hoping to have the balance of power. How does that make a difference to strata? Well, they were hoping to push through a change of policy on rentals, to ban no-fault evictions.

Sue  01:30

Absolutely. Were Labor not on side with that?

Jimmy  01:33

Well, it’s hard to tell what Labor were on side with and what they weren’t, because their first focus was to win the election. And they didn’t want to scare the horses with any talk of no-fault evictions being banned. For anybody who doesn’t get what a no-fault eviction is, at the moment in New South Wales, all you have to do is give a tenant notice that you are planning to end their lease. In Victoria, for instance, you have to have a reason for doing that.

Sue  02:04

Like, you were selling the property, or you wanted to renovate, or move back in.

Jimmy  02:09

And there are penalties for people who, if you gave that as a reason, and the tenants challenged it, and went to Tribunal, and it was then discovered that you’d been lying to the Tribunal when you said that was your reason, then there are very severe penalties. And it has been noted by some people, that the result (because you can still have a no-fault eviction in the first term of a lease)…It gets to the end of the lease, and you can say “okay, we don’t want to continue this lease.”

Sue  02:42

In Victoria?

Jimmy  02:43

 In Victoria. People are saying, well, what happens is, it means people are getting kicked out after six months of every lease.

Sue  02:50

And it’s interesting, because I think the property industry in New South Wales particularly, kicked up at the idea of no-fault evictions, because they were saying “oh, it’s real anti-landlord legislation; it really limits what landlords can do.” Well, it certainly does limit what landlords can do, if landlords want to get rid of tenants, just to hike up the rent to take advantage of rent increases, with tenants who maybe wouldn’t be able to afford such a massive jump. But really, there are a third of people in this country who rent and suddenly, they’re being chucked out of their homes after maybe six months, or maybe after a year, or sometimes after ten years, with no reason, whatsoever.

Jimmy  03:28

I think the no-fault eviction thing is a bit of a blunt instrument. I think it’s the one thing that everybody shakes their head in horror, at the very mention of the words, but there has to be some kind of rent control. I think the government has to be able to say to landlords “look, yeah, you can put the rents up, but by no more than the CPI.”

Sue  03:52

Because at the moment, it’s open slather isn’t it?

Jimmy  03:55

 Yes and they’ve gone crazy, absolutely crazy.

Sue  03:57

And if somebody challenges your rental increase, you can say “well, it’s a similar rent for a similar property, in a similar location.” And if someone takes you to NCAT or VCAT, you’ll lose the case, only if you can’t prove that it’s a reasonable rent. That could mean a 10% increase, or a 20% increase. We’ve seen 50% increase in some areas, because of rents getting completely out of hand.

Jimmy  04:23

If you have every property in your area going up all the time, then there’s going to be no argument against a rent increase. I get a lot of emails from people saying “oh, my rents’ being put up by 15%. I thought the limit was 7% or 10%.” Well, no, there isn’t any limit. The limit is, what is a reasonable rent for a similar property in your area. And if everything else is going up, then yours is probably going to go up, too. Is that fair? Well, it’s exploitative, and it’s all part of the problem we have in this country, where rental properties are seen as primarily an investment tool, rather than a way of accommodating people.

Sue  05:04

People’s homes…  And that’s what we’ve seen; one of the problems now, with such a big housing shortage for renters, is that because of the interest rates going up, a lot of investors came out of the property market, so there are a lot less homes for rent available.

Jimmy  05:05

Yes, and so until we can shift that view of rental properties to something more akin to housing people, with the opportunity for people to make some profit on their investment. I mean, if there was no benefit in investing in property, then people would just put their money into stocks and shares and the property wouldn’t be there. I mean, it’s so weird; there’s so many moving parts in the equation. You know, you’ve got negative gearing as well,  as a significant factor.

Sue  05:50

But build-to-rent, hopefully, will even the playing field a little bit. I mean, there’s a lot of built-to-rent projects in the pipeline. So at the moment, they’re kind of a really tiny fraction of the rental market, but they are a steadily growing percentage. So hopefully, that will help make it a lot of fairer for a lot of renters as well, because rents aren’t able to go up; they’re only allowed to go up by CPI.

Jimmy  06:18

That’s fair enough. I mean, I think the government could step in and say “look, we’re in crisis and for the next two years, rents can only go up by the amount that your mortgage has gone up by.” So if your mortgage has gone up by 5%, then, okay, you can put your rent up by 5%. That makes perfect sense to me and is very fair. But we are so scared in this country, of doing anything that sounds even vaguely like socialism, that people are always trying to find work-arounds for these things, when there are some mechanisms that would work perfectly well. Just looking at the whole point of a new government coming in… I was thinking about the last time strata law changed, which was in 2015. And that was at the beginning of the Liberal government’s second term. So they’d spent their first term looking at strata law and thinking what needs to be done to fix it. It took them four years to come up with a plan, but it was a radical reform of strata law. I think the new government needs to start right now, looking at the current strata law, and looking at it in the context of how we all live and how many people are moving into apartments and things like that, and start reforming, or start looking at the reforms that need to be made, so that they’ve got something ready for before the next election. Something that they can put through Parliament, that changes the strata law in the ways that it needs to be changed.

Sue  07:57

And let’s hope the new Labor government see strata as important as the last Liberal government. It’s good that we had a couple of real main players; people like…

Jimmy  08:07

Anthony Roberts, Victor Dominello…

Sue  08:11

They were really quite committed to improving strata and I think they realised how important strata was.

Jimmy  08:17

I think they also realised how bad it was, that they’d inherited from the previous Labor regime.

Sue  08:22

But hopefully, the Labor government will continue to work on improving the situation and look at what the Liberal government has done; look at the inquiries they’ve held and look at all the reviews that have taken place and start acting on the basis of those. Rather than sort of starting all over again. You know, it takes forever.

Jimmy  08:40

It’s not that bad that it needs a complete rewrite, but there are areas that need attention.

Sue  08:45

Presumably, they’re going to be on side with David Chandler, as well; with his work.

Jimmy  08:48

Well, they’ve said as much. When we come back, we’re going to talk about the areas that they could be looking at to improve things, without having to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That’s after this.

[MUSIC]

Sue  09:07

Jimmy, what do you see as the big challenges of strata?

Jimmy  09:10

I mean, it’s one of these things that you get from management handbooks on how to be a millionaire and stuff, but the challenges are actually opportunities. One of the first challenges we see is the shortage of rental properties, compared to the demand for rental properties. And one of the areas that this government has steadfastly refused to look at, is Airbnb and the other short-term holiday rentals. This is an opportunity. And I know that at this point, the probable New Customer Services Minister,  Yasmin Catley, has in the past, been quite outspoken about Airbnb and its effects in her areas and hopefully, she will continue to see where the problem lies there. Even just looking at the issue; which as I say, the previous government just refused to do. They brought in the register and all the rest of it… We’ve been looking at what they’re doing in Scotland, which is to require licences for all the Airbnb places, which means they all have to comply with local planning laws.

Sue  10:22

Which isn’t unreasonable, is it really?

Jimmy  10:24

Not at all. The planning laws are there for a reason. And it allows local authorities to control the number of properties that are being used for holiday lets in their area, which is surely the way it should be. I mean, it’s not a case of one-size-fits-all.

Sue  10:38

And also making sure that they’re safe for people to go and stay in; proper fire regulations…

Jimmy  10:43

And it’s all very well; they brought in this thing saying that if you’ve got an Airbnb, (and I’m using that as a generic term), you must have these notices on your bedroom doors and you must have fire and smoke alarms and heat sensors. Well, who’s inspecting that? Nobody; there’s no money in local government to go and inspect that. There’s no money being put in by the state government, to put inspectors in. It’s all done on trust. And the thing about Airbnb and the people who use it a lot, is that there’s an element of collusion there. You know, it’s like the people who turn up and they say “oh, here’s the building that you’re going to be staying in,” and the host meets them outside the building and says “actually, it’s this building next door, but we’re not allowed to have Airbnb.” The Airbnb guest will go along with that, provided the property is in reasonable nick, and they’re comfortable and they’re not getting harassed. So there is an element of collusion between the guests and the host. The guests are not going to write to the council and say “oh, I checked into this place, and there was no escape map on the door of the bedroom.” It’s all cosmetic, basically. This whole registry thing is purely cosmetic. It makes the government look like they’re doing something, when they really don’t want to do anything.

Sue  12:10

I mean, it’s a good idea in principle, having a register. It’s similar to being licenced, but it means it has to be enforced and that’s just not being done.

Jimmy  12:20

Well, there’s nobody to inspect it. There’s no desire to create an inspection regime. And it’s all done on a grace and favour basis; that if you have a really bad experience, it’s one way that you can get back at the host. But, for the people who live around those places, it doesn’t make any difference. That’s something that they really need to have a good hard look at. And look at the numbers; you know, it’s been proven beyond any doubt, that where there is a lot of Airbnb, residential rents go up disproportionately. They don’t need any other argument for that.

Sue  13:00

It leads to a real hollowing out of our cities, which is horrible. Local people can’t afford to live there anymore. People who perform the essential services of cities can’t live there; they live miles and miles out. They have to commute in. And when the public transport system seems to be failing abysmally in Sydney at the moment,  that’s really hard.

Jimmy  13:21

It was kind of ironic, I suppose (or maybe emblematic), that while the Liberal government was being voted out of power, the trains in Sydney just ground to a halt. Everybody on some lines were being taken to Lidcombe and then… Yes, told to get off the train.

Sue  13:37

 Thrown to the wolves.  Make their own arrangements. What do you do when you’re stranded?

Jimmy  13:44

There were no buses and you can imagine that the Uber surcharges were going through the roof. It’s one of the things I’m sure Premier Minns will be looking at this morning; what am I going to do about this transport system? Because it’s really falling apart.

Sue  14:04

What else do you see?

Jimmy  14:05

I think this government has an opportunity to fix the relationship (or should I say, non-relationship), between Fair Trading and the Tribunals. Tribunals are getting clogged with cases that shouldn’t be there. And the Tribunal was set up as a low-cost option for people to resolve their problems. It was supposed to be basically, lawyer-free, and that very quickly fell apart. And while it’s still in the documentation, it says you can ask to have a lawyer and the other party… If you ask for a lawyer, they can ask for a lawyer. The fact of the matter is, people are turning up without lawyers, or are asking if they can have lawyers and the members are saying please, get one, because the members of the Tribunal are tired of having to explain strata law to people who turn up. Partly, their dispute is because they didn’t understand strata law and they feel that they’re being hard done by, but the other party is saying “well look, that’s what it says in the law,” but they don’t believe them, because they’re in conflict with them. This is something that should be sorted out at Fair Trading. There should be a mechanism in Fair Trading geared towards getting a resolution, rather than a definitive answer. Fair Trading is geared towards sitting two people down, then getting them to agree to disagree.

Sue  15:33

But coming up with some kind of solution; mediated.

Jimmy  15:36

And that’s fine for some situations, but there’s a lot of situations where people just don’t understand that they are on the wrong side of the law, and to have to go and hire lawyers and go to the Tribunal. Getting somebody to tell them what they should have known before they even set foot in the place is a ridiculous waste of time and money, for everybody. There has to be a middle stage, where they can go and somebody can say “hey, look, you’re in the wrong here, as far as we can tell. If you want to go ahead and take it to a Tribunal, that’s fine. Bear in mind you’ve been told you’re probably in the wrong, so the costs will be awarded against you.” That would make people stop and think, before they go off on their bush lawyer adventures at the Tribunal. It’s that middle stage that’s missing. Now that used to be; do you remember it used to have the paper adjudication?

Sue  16:36

Oh, yes.

Jimmy  16:37

You’d send in your forms, and somebody would flick through them.

Sue  16:40

What happened with that?

Jimmy  16:40

People were getting their cases rejected, with no explanation. It’s just like they were being told ‘no, this is not valid; you don’t have a case here.” And they were getting angry and frustrated, because they felt they were being shut out of the system. So that was taken away, so that you went straight to the Tribunal, because that’s where most of them were going, anyway. You’d get the adjudication and you’d say “oh, I’ve been rejected. Well, I’m going to appeal.” So all it was doing was delaying the inevitable. What you need is something in the middle that says “hey, he’s right, you’re wrong. Either accept it, or expect to have the costs against you, when you go to the Tribunal, because if the member agrees that you’re in the wrong, then the other people can have all their costs paid by you.” I think that would sort things out. A little panel; a strata lawyer, a strata manager, and a former chair of a committee, who can sit and just very quickly go through cases and go “well, the law says this.” That would be a really  cheap and quick option, wouldn’t it? And efficient. Absolutely. And this is the kind of thing new governments should be looking at doing.

Sue  17:53

Being a bit more innovative and free-thinking.

Jimmy  17:56

But now they can’t do it, because I’ve suggested it and people will say “oh, this government is being run by Jimmy Thomson, and we can’t have that.”

Sue  18:02

That wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

Jimmy  18:04

Well, in my dreams (and yours).

Sue  18:06

You could sit on the conveners panel.

Jimmy  18:10

There’s a woman going around, calling yourself the ‘strata ombudsman.’ I could be her; I could actually have the job. Somebody could give me it, if you’re listening.

Sue  18:20

Well, that would be good to have a strata ombudsman as well, wouldn’t it really?

Jimmy  18:23

Well, the Strata Ombudsman’s office could run the dispute panel.

Sue  18:29

Yes, absolutely. Oh, well, that sounds great!

Jimmy  18:32

I’ll talk to Mr. Minns. We’ve got  two Minn’s now, haven’t we? We’ve got John Minns…

Sue  18:39

Who’s the strata person.

Jimmy  18:42

He’s the Property Services Commissioner.

Sue  18:45

We’ve got Chris Minns…

Jimmy  18:50

Chris Minns is the Premier.

Sue  18:51

Oh, sorry. I’ve got them around the wrong way!

Jimmy  18:54

John Minns is the Property Services Commissioner.

Sue  18:56

Because John Minns said that he was always been confused for Chris Minns, which confused me.

Jimmy  19:01

They’ll just have to get rid of him now, or get him to change his name. I wonder if he has minions in his office?

Sue  19:08

Very funny. Okay, anything else Jimmy; anything else you’d like to see changed?

Jimmy  19:12

Things I’d like to see changed include the whole thing about embedded networks and contracts being decided at the first AGM of strata buildings.

Sue  19:25

Appalling; you go into your first AGM…

Jimmy  19:26

You’ve got no idea…

Sue  19:28

Nope, and suddenly the developer, or the building manager he’s appointed for the purposes, says “okay, we’ve got this great contract here. It means you’re going to save a bit more money on your electricity bills, or your internet bills, or your sewage bills. I recommend that we just sign.”

Jimmy  19:50

“Just standard practice.”

Sue  19:54

Yes. So everyone signs and then you get saddled with bills that go up exponentially, and you realise that the reason that the developer and the strata manager have agreed to this, is that maybe the building was built on a deal with the developer….

Jimmy  20:10

In Queensland apartment buildings, you get a contract for twenty-five years.  That got the infrastructure for free. And the strata manager goes along with it, because if they don’t, they’ll never get a contract with that developer again. Strata managers (obviously), make a big chunk of their money from managing buildings… They also make a big chunk of their money from going into new developments and setting up the payment system and the bylaws, and all the rest of it. So I mean, that’s a big chunk of business for them to lose, by doing the right thing. That’s not a choice they should have to make. The simplest thing to do is what they did with strata managers when they changed the law back in 2016, which is to say, okay, you can only have a contract for one year, and three years at a time after that. Because right now, you can get a building services manager with a contract for 10 years. I mean, who gets a contract for 10 years in any job, anywhere? I’m talking about the real world, not Queensland.

Sue  21:14

That’s right; ten years is ridiculous.

Jimmy  21:18

I think they have to say all contracts are limited to an initial period of one year, until you can sort out what the terms are… Until the committee has been elected.

Sue  21:31

And they can get their head around what’s happening with the new building.

Jimmy  21:34

And do the figures and all the rest of it. In fact, that would be the way; all contracts limited to one year, but with the incumbent contract holders having first and last refusal on the new contract.

Sue  21:50

That sounds fair.

Jimmy  21:52

So right, get that done, Yasmin.

Sue  21:54

Anything else? Is that the whole list?

Jimmy  21:57

That will do.

Sue  21:58

It’s not a bad start.

Jimmy  22:01

Okay. We’ve given them their marching orders; they know what they need to do. We’ll leave them alone for a couple of weeks and see if they’re going to. It sounds like Courtney Houssos is going to be the Fair Trading Minister. Yasmin Catley is going to be the Customer Services Minister.

Sue  22:17

And I think Eleni Petinos is still fighting for her seat, isn’t she?

Jimmy  22:20

14% swing against her. But she had Scomo out, campaigning for her.

Sue  22:27

That probably wouldn’t have helped would it?

Jimmy  22:28

It would in that area; Miranda. In the Shire, basically. She’ll be back, but I don’t know if she’ll have a ministry, or a shadow ministry; maybe. She’s got friends in high places, obviously. John Barilaro, her mate (whose car she vomited in the backseat of);  he’s gone, completely. And his seat has also gone to Labor; Monaro has gone to Labor. It’s a big cleanout. When we come back, we’re going to talk (briefly), about two very prominent and not uncontroversial people, who are getting into the property development game. That’s after this. Interesting stories over the weekend… Two people whose names are quite well-known are apparently (one of them definitely), involved in property development in Sydney; in Potts Point, actually. One of them is John Ibrahim, who has achieved even greater fame than he had before, thanks to the TV show ‘The King of the Cross.’ He is talking about developing…. Is that whole run of buildings called ‘The Mansions,’ on Bayswater road?

Sue  23:56

I thought ‘The Mansions’ was the one at the end. A series of really beautiful terrace houses, with huge high ceilings and big courtyards at the front. Previously, they’ve been restaurants, or they’ve been nightclubs.

Jimmy  24:12

On the ground floor.

Sue  24:14

Yes, on the ground floor.

Jimmy  24:15

Low-rent rentals up above.

Sue  24:18

Are they? They’re not offices?

Jimmy  24:20

Some of them have been offices, yes. I mean, they’re kind of under -utilised, I think it’s fair to say. I think there’s been yoga studios and various things like that up there. Mr. Ibrahim owns all of those properties (or one of his companies does), and he is planning to redevelop. I think it looks like, from the pictures I’ve seen, they’re keeping the frontage, but they’re putting two storeys on top.

Sue  24:49

And creating all apartments. The local Facebook page for the area is already organising a counter lobby, to get it stopped.

Jimmy  25:06

I’ve got to say, I get a wee bit tired of people who just say “no, no, no, no, no.” Look at the Minerva theatre; what’s happening with that?

Sue  25:19

I think it’s still stuck in planning.

Jimmy  25:20

Stuck in planning…. It’s empty, it’s under-utilised.

Sue  25:24

The developmers plan to create a small theatre space there, and lots of art spaces and a hotel. The local people will say “no, no, it should go back; revert to being a big theatre,” which is kind of hard. It’s right in the middle of  lots of apartments. I mean, nobody’s going to be particularly happy about lots of customers coming out all at once at night.

Jimmy  25:47

That’s the next thing; the same people who are demanding that it be a theatre will be saying “oh, don’t have a bar in there, because it makes people drunk and they’re noisy when they come out.” I mean, I want to protect the ammenity of areas as much as anyone else. I love old buildings being repurposed, so from the street front it still looks like you’ve got those lovely old arched terraces, but behind them, there’s modern apartments. I mean, I don’t see the value in keeping crappy old buildings in a crappy state.

Sue  26:23

The Bourbon and Beefsteak; there’s been a huge campaign about that as well, but that’s now going ahead. That’s becoming luxury apartments, as well. They’re retaining some elements of the facade, I think, but not all elements, because it’s kind of fallen into wrack and ruin.

Jimmy  26:38

One of the arguments against that development is that there’s no provision for affordable housing. I think somebody needs to say rather than “oh, there’s no affordable housing,” say, here’s a proposal… Here’s an organisation that will come in and buy ten apartments in the building… Obviously, the ones that aren’t luxury, and rent them out to essential workers, for instance, at a reasonable rent. This is the problem; nobody who’s complaining, saying “there’s no provision for this,” is saying “oh, here’s a phone number; call these people, because they can do that.” I think property developers, they like to present themselves as being responsible and caring people… When they go into these joint developments, they are looking at “there’s a big chunk of my apartments that I’ve sold already.” It also makes it an attractive proposition, for people in the area to be able to go and live in in a luxury apartment, but to be able to say “hey, we’ve got lots of firies and police officers and nurses and people like that in our building.

Sue  27:43

So it becomes a real community, not just  people from the same demographic.

Jimmy  27:49

This knee-jerk of saying “no, no, no; you can’t do it, because you haven’t done this.” Well, come up with a solution. Don’t just sit there saying “no,” and expect people to fix it.

Sue  27:59

I mean, sometimes people will complain, and then the developers will come back with a better design, and that’s part of the process; that’s a good thing. Maybe they haven’t explored all options.

Jimmy  28:10

Well, I think that’s the likeliest thing. And there’s also the ambit claim, that this building is going to be five metres above the permitted height for that area. Okay, well, obviously they’ll go in and say “okay, we’ll  take that five metres down,” but they still get their development in.

Sue  28:31

Who’s the other developer coming to the eastern suburbs of Sydney?

Jimmy  28:34

According to the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, Jamie Packer has arrived back in Sydney, and he’s got his eyes on an apartment redevelopment in Potts Point.

Sue  28:49

Wow, I wonder which one that one is?

Jimmy  28:50

Well, is he on the on the phone to Mr. Ibrahim, maybe? I don’t think so.

Sue  28:58

That would be kind of an interesting collaboration. Can you imagine David Chandler going along and inspecting the development? I’d love to be a fly on the wall there.

Jimmy  29:07

I have never met Jamie Packer.

Sue  29:10

I’ve shared a lift with him. He takes up a lot of room.

Jimmy  29:15

I have met John Ibrahim  many times. Actually, I’d love to be the fourth person at a table, with David Chandler, James Packer and John Ibrahim, because that would be the most entertaining conversation you’re ever going to hear. In many ways, they are very similar people. They get things done, and that is not a slight on any of their characters, but they have a clear vision and they push, and they know when to push, and they know when to pull back and that’s why they’ve all been very successful at what they’ve done.

Sue  29:54

Sure. It’s kind of interesting with James Packer though, because you kind of think he would be interested in a really big development, when you look at Barrangaroo. I wonder if there’s a big old apartment building in Sydney in the eastern suburbs, that he’s looking at redeveloping completely.

Jimmy  30:14

 Like the Piccadilly Hotel, which has been lying empty for years and years and years. It’s on a prime site, on Victoria Street.  It’s a big site; an iconic frontage, which would probably have to be retained, and I hope it would be; beautiful art deco frontage. It’s just lying dormant at the moment. If I had squillions of dollars, and I wanted to be a property developer, that’s where I would be putting my money.

Sue  30:50

But presumably, the site is problematic, because why hasn’t it been developed before? I think there’s been a number of development applications put in, but they’ve all been rejected. It’s hard, because it’s in a suburban street, a residential streets. It’s got next door neighbours in houses. 

Jimmy  31:07

There might be a height restriction on that, as well, which makes it not worth developing, unless you do it in a very clever and inventive way. And, include a fair chunk of affordable housing, I would say. We’ve given them an agenda and we’ve seen some opportunities that are happening for property development. I think nobody should be too quick to reject any proposals, whether it’s luxury or not,. You know, those luxury apartments; somebody moves into a high-end apartment, they’re probably moving from something down the scale and it just has a domino effect. I don’t think we should be just knee-jerk rejecting anything at the moment and I think we should give this new government a chance. I am very hopeful, that they’re going to come in with some good ideas. We’ve seen Courtney Houssos around a few strata events in the past year or so and I think she’s going to hit the ground running.

Sue  32:11

Okay, let’s hope so.

Jimmy  32:12

Let’s hope so. All right, Sue, thanks for giving up your time again, to come and talk to us on the podcast.

Sue  32:19

Thank you for having me, Jimmy.

Jimmy  32:20

And thank you all for listening. We’ll talk to you again soon. Thanks for listening to the Flat Chat Wrap podcast. You’ll find links to the stories and other references on our website flatchat.com.au. And if you haven’t already done so, you can subscribe to this podcast completely free on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favourite pod catcher. Just search for Flat Chat Wrap with a W, click on subscribe, and you’ll get this podcast every week, without even trying. Thanks again. Talk to you again next week.