smh.com.au
Melbourne Build-to-Rent Boom Bypasses Public Park Funding"
Thousands of build-to-rent apartments are being constructed in Melbourne without contributing to public parks due to a planning loophole, costing councils millions and sparking calls for legislative reform from inner-city mayors.
- How are build-to-rent developments in Melbourne impacting public open space funding, and what are the immediate consequences for urban planning?
- Melbourne's build-to-rent boom, with 6001 completed and 18,885 more apartments planned, is bypassing public open space levies, costing councils tens of millions of dollars. This is because the levy applies only to subdivided properties, while build-to-rent developments typically have a single owner. Mayors are calling for legislative changes to address this loophole.",
- What are the main arguments for and against changing Victoria's planning laws to force build-to-rent developers to pay the public open space levy?
- The loophole allows build-to-rent developers to avoid paying for crucial public open space, impacting urban planning in high-density areas like Macaulay. Councils rely on these levies to fund new parks, and the lack of contribution from this burgeoning sector creates a significant financial shortfall, with Melbourne City Council alone potentially missing out on millions. This is especially challenging in areas transforming from industrial to residential, requiring expensive retrofits.",
- What long-term implications for urban development and community well-being may arise from the current lack of public open space levy contributions from build-to-rent developers?
- The current policy gap favors build-to-rent developers, who benefit from land tax discounts and avoid open space levies, potentially leading to insufficient green spaces in densely populated areas. Future development planning needs to integrate solutions to ensure equitable contributions from all developers, balancing the need for housing with community amenities. This could involve a revised levy system, potentially incorporating alternative metrics to address the single-owner characteristic of build-to-rent developments.",
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introductory paragraphs emphasize the financial losses incurred by councils due to the loophole and the negative impact on public open spaces. This framing immediately positions the reader to sympathize with the councils' concerns and view build-to-rent developers in a negative light. While the developers' arguments are presented, they are given less prominence and are presented later in the article.
Language Bias
The article uses language that often portrays the developers' actions negatively, describing the situation as a "loophole" and referring to developers "taking advantage" of the system. Words like "appalled" and "extraordinary" are used to describe residents' reactions, amplifying the negative tone. More neutral alternatives could include phrasing like "regulatory gap" or "unintended consequence".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the concerns of councils and residents regarding the lack of open space levy contributions from build-to-rent developers. However, it gives less weight to the developers' arguments about the economic impacts of additional levies and the contributions they already make through other taxes and payments. The perspective of tenants, who ultimately bear the cost of any increased levies through higher rents, is largely absent.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the issue as either build-to-rent developers contributing to open space levies or cities lacking vital green spaces. It doesn't fully explore alternative solutions, such as exploring different funding mechanisms for public parks or adjusting the levy structure to accommodate the build-to-rent model.
Gender Bias
The article features several male council members and developers. While female council members are mentioned, their quotes are shorter and less prominent than those of their male counterparts. There's no overt gender bias in language, but the relative prominence given to male voices could subtly reinforce existing power imbalances.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a loophole in Victoria's planning laws that allows build-to-rent developers to avoid paying levies for public open space. This results in insufficient funding for parks and green spaces in rapidly developing urban areas, negatively impacting the quality of life for residents and hindering the creation of sustainable urban environments. The lack of green spaces in densely populated areas contradicts the goals of sustainable urban development, affecting the well-being of residents and the overall sustainability of the city.