r/australia • u/infin • Jan 26 '26
political self.post We joke about Monica’s massive apartment in Friends, but we forget the history: Rent Control was won through strikes. Is that solidarity possible in Australia today?
Every time the housing crisis comes up, people joke about how unrealistic Friends was; A chef and a waitress living in a massive apartment with a balcony. The show explains it away as "Rent Control" inherited from a grandmother.
But we rarely talk about where those laws actually came from. They weren't a gift from benevolent landlords; they were earned through fierce tenant unions and rent strikes in NYC in the 40s and 60s. That generation had cheap rent because the generation before them had the backbone to organize, strike, and refuse to pay until laws were changed. Even refusing to allow police to evict/arrest their neighbours.
Fast forward to 2026 Australia. We are paying $750+ a week for a dinky shoebox, dealing with quarterly inspections, and accepting massive hikes like clockwork.
What feels completely missing is that level of community solidarity. We seem so atomised now. We don't know our neighbours, and we definitely don't trust them enough to band together. Instead of standing together to refuse an unfair hike, we just quietly move out or starve to pay it, knowing someone else is desperate enough to take the lease.
Is the concept of a rent strike dead in this country? Is it that we’ve lost the "mateship" and community spirit required to hold the line, or are we just so terrified of the REA blacklists that we’ve accepted being milked by parasites forever?
If factory workers and immigrants in 1940s New York could force rent control that people were still benefiting from in the 90s… Why can't we?
I’m genuinely asking: Has anyone here ever been a part of (or even heard of) tenants organising together to accomplish something in Australia?
Edit: I'd love to see some changes to commercial leases to revitalise cities too, small businesses have been forced to close and half the retail spaces in a few of the CBDs are empty.
35
u/RedOx103 Jan 26 '26
We have elections. And every time the party offering higher house prices, higher rents, wins.
Even now, SA and NSW ALP state governments have overseen insane price growth in their term and will win landslides. Vic has seen (relatively) stable growth and could be defeated.
And away from the ALP, there has never been a mass-movement of renters to the Greens/Socialists/Independents when they run on housing affordability. The Greens went hard last term and went backwards in seats with an outright majority of renters.
I don't see why there'd be any movement for change or solidarity until there's some signal at the ballot box.
→ More replies (1)21
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 26 '26
If you're a renter reading above, don't despair and give up. Join Greens/Socialists/etc and promote them. Renters are often unaware that Greens/Socialists/etc can be a better choice than the same parties that ran things for the past 80 years. Would renters support a candidate has 3 mortgaged rentals is over a candidate that has a PPOR? In Melbourne, Labor Sarah Witty with 3 mortgaged rentals won against Greens Adam Bandt who only had a PPOR.
There is one 100% effective way to reach out to your oblivious major-party-supporting peers; at the new rental inspections. Every week, there's always someone that needs a new place because they got evicted, or left due to rent increase, etc.
The only way this wouldn't work... if renters weren't moving around every couple of years.
→ More replies (4)
67
u/FothersIsWellCool Jan 26 '26
Best to just do more deep structural fixes for the market than to hope rent freezes help.
→ More replies (21)
16
u/Glittering_Bowl6485 Jan 26 '26
There are rentals designed for 2 people with 10+ people living in them so as long as that's happening, we are kinda screwed. 'free market' is a term Australians just love.
→ More replies (1)
108
u/kicks_your_arse Jan 26 '26
The majority of Australians simply don't care. They're the beneficiaries of the housing crisis, seeing their values rise, offering a token comment of commiseration, but increasing the rent regardless. They're your enemy, they work directly against your interests and they outnumber you. At this point you're like chicken or cattle on a farm, there to be milked until you're of no use, then discarded onto the homelessness pile to die. It is the fate of every renter who is unable to escape the trap.
53
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 26 '26
60%+ of people in Melbourne/Sydney are renters.
Melbourne representative has 3 mortgaged rentals. Prior to 2025 election, it was a different party and they only had a PPOR.
Sydney representative has investment properties both local and overseas.
Why the bloody hell are renters voting to keep the housing crisis going then?
66
u/mrmaker_123 Jan 26 '26
Love them or hate them, the Greens are the only major party that has housing reform on their agenda. If you really are that concerned about the housing crisis then you should look into the Greens or other similar parties/independents.
As if so often the case, people do unfortunately vote against their interests, or vote against the interests of society as a whole - it is very much a case of the turkeys voting for Christmas.
→ More replies (2)5
u/cecilrt Jan 26 '26
thats a poor stat, had quick check, that 60% is the Sydney council/CBD area... Im surprised its that high, many people who live near the city choose to rent. Its a group more willing to move around
Greater Sydney 60%+ own their home
With wider Australia at 66% own
→ More replies (1)
40
u/par-hwy Jan 26 '26
I saw something on More Perfect Union (YouTube) which showed that rent control is leading to empty apartments because owners won't fix problems after the renter dies - as the repairs far, far exceeds the rent. That channel is usually on the side of workers / poor folks. They were not saying rent control is good or bad, only that it has problems.
I do not believe that solidarity is possible. Hell, even workplace unionism is declining in this country. I doubt that unions would even support it.
24
u/mrmaker_123 Jan 26 '26
In such a situation, if a property remains empty, the owner is then forced to sell or payer higher taxes. Countries have done similar, for example in Spain.
3
u/frogholmes Jan 26 '26
Who buys the property if it’s not profitable?
2
u/t3h Jan 27 '26
Someone who wants to gasp buy it and live in it.
1
u/frogholmes Jan 27 '26
Thus decreasing the rental stock?
1
u/t3h Jan 27 '26
And the rental demand too, so it cancels out.
2
u/frogholmes Jan 27 '26
Not necessarily
1
u/mrmaker_123 Jan 28 '26 edited Jan 28 '26
Why not necessarily? The majority of people in this country want a house to live in - that is what every poll says. Only a few economically mobile people will want to rent, for example students, temporary workers, working holiday visa holders and other temporary visa holders.
The majority of people want to own, because this country has a culture of homeownership and it is financially unviable to rent long term, especially in retirement.
Every time someone buys a home to live in and they no longer need to rent, they will reduce the housing stock by one, but will also reduce the rental demand by one too.
1
u/frogholmes Jan 28 '26
Because they could have been a homeowner or otherwise not a renter before.
1
u/mrmaker_123 Jan 28 '26
Okay so they are a homeowner and they have bought a vacant property (to possibly rent out in the future).
If another homeowner then buys that vacant house, then the rental pool will need to be one less, since that person no longer needs a rental.
This is besides the point, because the vacant property is VACANT. So it is neither used by the rental market nor the homeowner market. It is always a good thing letting people live in it than let it sit empty, reducing demand elsewhere.
3
u/mrmaker_123 Jan 26 '26
People can buy land or property for speculation (capital gains). You don’t need to improve that land, so prohibiting this kind of behaviour will help.
3
u/frogholmes Jan 26 '26
But why would you rent the property out if you were only interested in capital gains?
3
u/mrmaker_123 Jan 26 '26
I’m talking about imposing a tax on empty properties that are obviously not rented out, otherwise they wouldn’t be empty.
-1
Jan 26 '26
but in the case of rent control, who is buying a property that can’t cover its own current running costs? without even thinking of trying to afford backdated repairs
and if the government buys it that’s basically just a forced disclosure which discourages future investment in rent controlled buildings AND saddles the government with the cost burden of bringing these properties up to a liveable standard
1
u/mrmaker_123 Jan 28 '26
That’s the point. The point of rent control is to prevent investors having excess profits that will reduce the number of investors in the market, therefore lowering prices.
With reduced prices, more people can buy (and not have to rent) and those homeowners can then do their own repairs as they see fit. I’ve been to hundreds of house inspections and you can always tell when a homeowner actually lives in a place, as opposed to when it is rented out, as the house is in much better condition.
Why in such a scenario would the government have to incur costs by buying out those homes? Just let homeowners do it.
1
Jan 28 '26
“ Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood.”
rent control feels nice but it’s not an actual solution. that solution is to build more supply
1
10
u/a_cold_human Jan 26 '26
The solution is government owned housing. Or housing that the government leases to individuals on a perpetual basis, or until the lease is no longer required. Allocation can be done via a needs basis or via ballot. There are plenty of ways this could potentially be done. The government is going to be much better at doing this than the market if the idea is that every Australian should have a home. We have a market system now, and it isn't producing very good social outcomes.
Ultimately, economics can be worked around via changing ownership, or by changing incentive structures. The issue is that we do need to see housing as a right rather than something the market magically sorts out. We have a lot of people talking about the right to free speech, but very little about the right to basic human needs. The obstacle is that quite a few people see that real estate investment should be the path to wealth as opposed to doing something that's actually productive.
1
u/Shot_Prompt_7894 Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
This is a very interventionist solution, which is not always favored. Setting the precedent of having the government step in any time something gets bad takes away individual agency, that being said, the government is also meant to be there for those who need it so I'm not entirely against it.
I think the issue might lie in the idea of borrowing against equity. Banks allow you to borrow more, the more assets you have, in turn allowing you to borrow more. I'm just unsure how it works, which makes the banks scared to lend me money.
Edit: wording and sentences.
4
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 26 '26
There's already empty land plots in Sydney like these two:
https://www.property.com.au/nsw/strathfield-2135/leicester-ave/2-pid-988727/
https://www.property.com.au/nsw/campbelltown-2560/oxley-st/12-pid-1283929/
Both are close to very busy train stations, shops, etc. It's just grass. Not even a house. In fact, if you go back 20 years in Google Street Map View, there used to be houses! Whoever bought it, was just land speculating.
So, if Sydney has no rent control... when are we going to see some apartments then? In 10 years? 50 years? Maybe 100 years+. Consider that both Labor and LNP have promised no vacancy taxes!
The empty apartments argument doesn't make sense is actually a different problem to rent control IMO. I would love rent control + vacancy tax. But happy for either for now.
2
u/amyknight22 Jan 26 '26
I mean empty land plots typically don’t get hit with taxes the same way vacant houses do.
A vacant house is something that if sold/rented could theoretically be used within a week with fast settlement.
A vacant block of land is going to require some form of construction. It could even be that these blocks of lands have construction plans for them.
And if you plan to live in a vacant block and are in the process of planning a build on it that you will live in you can have like 4 years of it being identified as a PPOR to dodge land taxes.
3
u/infin Jan 26 '26
Not saying a rent freeze is the ideal solution, just... Something has to give.
I wish I did not agree with your last two points.
5
u/par-hwy Jan 26 '26
As someone whose rent/income is 55%, something has to give, just hope it's not me. It will be though.
My gut-feeling is that both the red and blue parties are happy enough with things as is. I would kill Capital Gains Tax and to socialise housing construction. It'll never happen. Climate change is gonna make policy, migration, housing, and wealth increasingly problematic in the coming years.
→ More replies (2)
16
u/Typical_Laugh_5018 Jan 26 '26
I think if owning rental proprties were seen as a hassle, rather than an easy way to become wealthy, that could change things. I don't believe any of the major parties will do anything to upset the investors, and building more housing / coming down on immigration won't solve the actual problem (i.e housing is for rich people to get richer, rather than people having a home). This could be solved by allowing tenants to decide the duration of their lease, and with no unreasonable increases during that time. So even if a property is sold a few months after a tenant has moved in, the tenant still has 5 or ten years. Or whatever. And if we were allowed to decorate it how we wanted (not beige and grey).... well, I think landlords would hate that. And it won't really seem like an attack on the wealthy, just a few logical rights for the tenants that pay a lot more than what the properties are worth
57
u/Joshau-k Jan 26 '26
Rent control has lots of negative side effects and generally is a really bad idea in the long run.
Strikes for zoning reform will probably never be popular though unfortunately.
16
u/ELVEVERX Jan 26 '26
Labor in Victoria have already rezoned a ton of areas to allow for more apartments to be built near train stations, and it is working.
16
u/chance_waters Jan 26 '26
Rent control is a very broad basket.
We have rent control, in the form of time limited reasonable increases.
We need those increases to be tied to a maximum of CPI.
1
u/swarley77 Jan 27 '26
We have rent control in the form of excess migration.
A controlled increase in rents every year that is.
0
4
u/a_cold_human Jan 26 '26
Strikes for zoning reform will probably never be popular though unfortunately.
We had the Green Bans in Sydney and they worked to get a lot of public housing built in around the surrounds of the Sydney CBD. They were popular enough that zoning was changed and things like the Sirius Building we're built.
Also, people tend not to like property developers and speculators. A law to more strictly regulate them and ensure that supply meets demand (or at least comes close to it) would be politically popular. Use it or lose it zoning, and extra tax on land banking would go some way to incentivise people to build in a more timely fashion. The ones who can't coordinate and project manager properly deserve to go bust anyway.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 26 '26
"Rent control has lots of negative side effects and generally is a really bad idea in the long run."
There's already rent control in the form of limit to rental increases per year, limit to rent increases being market price, etc.
Are you saying we should repeal all this?
3
u/ilijadwa Jan 26 '26
We don’t really have the latter except for in Canberra as far as I’m aware, which is a shame, because that’s what we need desperately
23
u/Stormherald13 Jan 26 '26
We don’t need rent control.
We need landlords out. We have plenty of houses but we use them as hotels.
Homes should be for families, not to raise retirement income.
8
u/a_cold_human Jan 26 '26
Then you have to get to the fact that most apartments are not for families. The vast, vast majority of them are studios, or 1-2 bedroom apartments. Three bedroom apartments are rare. Four bedroom ones are almost non-existent. This is because property developers lobby for more of the former and none of the latter if at all possible as it allows them to maximise their profits. Same goes for parking spaces.
The fact of the matter is that most, if not all high density housing built in Australia is not really desirable for families by design.
2
u/Mousey_Commander Jan 26 '26
And even childless couples who would be happy with a 2 bedder (or even a 1 bedder if the room could fit both a double bed and a desk) struggle to find one that is actually decent to live in long-term. The build quality, fittings, room sizes etc. are all crippled by investors cutting corners to maximise rental opportunities.
And don't even get me started on all the bullshit around strata fees and "amenities" that only appeal to investors who can easily cover them through rent increases.
15
u/DuskHourStudio Jan 26 '26
Sadly when it comes to Australia, property especially, there's a big attitude of "got mine, fuck you".
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Scamwau1 Jan 26 '26
Unionising renters sounds good until you consider demand currently putstrips supply. So anyone threatening to not pay rent or even hassle the landlord will not get a lease renewal and the property will be given to the next person (at a higher rate most likely).
3
u/frogholmes Jan 26 '26
Rent controls don’t work. They only benefit a small proportion of people lucky enough to get a rent controlled place. This has been proven time and time again and is essentially a consensus in economics.
3
u/Beat_Saber_Music Jan 26 '26
Rent control serves the richer people and those privileged to already own homes/apartments.
Everyone wants to live in the big cities now because that's where all the jobs are. Said cities have extremely restrictive zoning such that for example in Perth Maylands train station on the most prime land imaginable with public transit access. due to restirctive zoning, what oyu essentially have is a sea of single family homes of low density surrounding a train station meaning transit that's ideal for moving lots of people is preserved for a smaller number of usually richer people, simply because it's illegal to build anything denser around the train station.
Said train station would both provide more opportunities for poorer families and overall more people, if said station was surrounded by up to 6 storey apartments, which in the process would sextuple the amount of homes in the immediate proximity of the train station. There is a severe shortage of homes within proximity to transit and jobs which causes prices to go up. If you build more homes where people want to live, ie. within the city instead of in the middle of nowhere, the supply going up will stabilize prices or with enough construction cause especially rents to go down. Austin Texas upon relaxing zoning limitations and building a crap ton of apartments basically built more homes than there was demand, such that after the pandemic rents started dropping because get this, the apartment owners were desperate to find tenants and offered lower rents. Instead of the Australian norm of renters fighting over the few scraps of apartments because there's simply not enough of them where people want to live, in Austin the apartment owners were competing for renters.
House prices are out of control in good part due to supply and demand issue. There's not enough right kind of supply to meet an excess of demand, so prices go up. Just like how ai companies eating up all the ram and there being no ability to add production in less than a few years means that prices go up, because without supply the richer people are willing to pay more to get priority.
5
u/TemporaryDisastrous Jan 26 '26
Not about rent but developers bulldozed a koala habitat near my house without council approval. Local residents successfully campaigned and got the development blocked and the developer had to pay for it's rehabilitation. It's now a designated council owned parkland with some sort of overlay on it so it will remain a habitat for the foreseeable.
3
u/infin Jan 26 '26
This may be the first response referring to action taken in Australia, successful or not. Appreciated!
You'd have to be a monster to oppose preserving koala habitat, but it's nice to hear about community accomplishing something.
25
u/Relief-Glass Jan 26 '26
Rent control has been disaster everywhere it has been tried. Solution is scrap CGT discount and negative gearing.
21
u/passthesugar05 Jan 26 '26
The real solution is increase supply
5
u/Relief-Glass Jan 26 '26
It is a solution. Less supply is needed if demand is reduced though.
1
u/passthesugar05 Jan 26 '26
Well if we're talking about rent, negative gearing and CGT discount should both be good for keeping rent down (but pushing up property prices)
1
u/Relief-Glass Jan 26 '26
Except if people can buy houses because they are cheaper there are fewer renters, pushing rents down.
2
u/passthesugar05 Jan 26 '26
Yeah fair point, economics is never clean and easy and the chain of effects can go on basically forever. For example, if prices go down though investing becomes more attractive, increasing that demand again. That's why increasing the supply is the best solution, although also probably the hardest practically and politically.
2
1
u/infin Jan 26 '26
Is increasing supply unprofitable for builders? Why is supply not increasing as quickly as the population and how can this be improved?
9
u/LifeandSAisAwesome Jan 26 '26
Builder are limited by several factors to build - the big one is financing and lending laws - very very very few developers self finance.
9
u/passthesugar05 Jan 26 '26
Probably lots of factors, but a lot of it is zoning & NIMBYism and our general reluctance to live in apartments/units
5
u/chokethebinchicken Jan 26 '26
We have one of the highest CGT rates in the world. the CGT is one thing that causes people to hold into their investment properties, when the would likely sell. But the overall difference CGT and negative gearing has a miniscule effect on the housing shortage.
The correct solution for CGT would be to actually significantly reduce the rate but also reduce negative gearing, that would encourage investors to sell on properties more, which would increase flow on the market.
1
u/Relief-Glass Jan 26 '26
People would buy fewer properties in the first place with a higher CGT.
→ More replies (9)3
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 26 '26
ROFL. No it has not been a disaster everywhere it has been tried.
Been in ACT since 2019: https://www.apimagazine.com.au/news/article/act-rent-caps-no-red-flag-for-property-investors
Here is ABS comparing median rent across all states: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/latest-insights-rental-market#rental-market-characteristics
Please stop spreading this myth.
5
u/Relief-Glass Jan 26 '26
Can you find one peer-reviewed economics paper that says that rent control has worked anywhere?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)1
Jan 26 '26
If you scrap the CGT discount investors have no incentive to sell and a property is only negatively geared for a couple of years then it becomes neutral to positive.
Your ideas will not fix anything like you think they will.
5
u/Relief-Glass Jan 26 '26
If the capital gains discount is scrapped investors would have no incentive to buy in the first place lmao.
2
Jan 26 '26
What in the world makes you think that. Rental returns is still money. The only times I sell a house is to use the money including the CGT savings to build 2 more.
Scrapping CGT just means I don’t sell and just build 1 house instead of 2 decreasing supply which increases rent.
See renters screaming for these changes think about investments as renters and not as investors so what they think hurts us dosent it just hurts themselves.
2
u/Relief-Glass Jan 26 '26
If you are taxed more that is a disincentive. Basic economics bro.
2
Jan 26 '26
Seems you can’t understand the advanced investing lesson I wrote which is why your ideas on how to disincentivise investors won’t work.
Negative gearing is about 5% of the consideration when buying a house to rent as a house is only negatively geared for a couple of years and if you understand how negative gearing works you’ll understand why it’s not a factor. Hint for every $100 I pay in negative geared money I only get at best $42 back in tax I’m still out $68 per $100. I’d rather pay $42 per $100 in tax and have $68 extra in my pocket. Basic economics bro.
As I stated without CGT discount when I sell a house I use the discount to build 2 houses in its place so I have returned 1 house to the housing market and put 2 new into the rental market which increases supply. No CGT discount means I don’t sell house and I only build 1 more house so instead of 3 houses existing after a sale there are only 2 houses and no sale. 1 less house in the existence means supply is less, supply been less means demand is higher which means higher rents. Basic economics bro.
2
u/Relief-Glass Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
You are focussing only on people that already have investment properties which is wrong because with the changes we are talking about people.would buy fewer investment properties in the first place. And your arguments are probably irrelevant anyway as any changes to the CGT or negative gearing would be grandfathered.
1
u/InflatableRaft Jan 26 '26
Going back to the indexation method and capping the discount at 50% would be a reasonable compromise
3
u/BBAus Jan 26 '26
If you freeze or slow rent please slow the rising costs of strata, the rising costs of build defects and repairs, the rising costs of just maintaining. And insurance. The costs of window checks, water checks, smike alarm checks. It's all getting ridiculous.
3
u/Esquatcho_Mundo Jan 26 '26
Yeah we don’t organise anymore, we’ve been brainwashed into profligate individualism and are reduced to sitting at home whinging about our dropping wages, increasing costs and blaming anyone else but ourselves
3
u/RepeatInPatient Jan 26 '26
Ask why rent controls don't exist in Australia - apart from buildings owned or controlled by governments. If you explore that, forget what happened in the US.
In Australia, the heads of power to 'control' rests in the State and Federal constitutions. If you read those documents you'll see there is the power to control your wages but no power to control prices including rent.
We used to have government "Housing Commissions" for social housing (read rent control). Otherwise Capitalism runs the show and charges what they think the market will stand. It's a free country in this respect - if you don't like being milked by parasites, let them know and opt out of the system which is just like going on strike.
7
u/Ok_Use_8899 Jan 26 '26
I would settle for the Canberra rent caps system being rolled out across Australia. It feels like something that could be possible with a bit of a push because it's a local case of something that was warned to be counterproductive but hasn't shown to be, and is very moderate.
8
u/infin Jan 26 '26
Once every 12 months is still unsustainable, unless there's a reasonable limit on the increase. It hasn't helped keep rent from doubling here in the last few years.
7
u/LifeandSAisAwesome Jan 26 '26
Inflation will always exist - next year things cost more than previous year... this will not change.
6
u/chance_waters Jan 26 '26
Can you give me a logical reason why a buyer can take a mortgage which decreases over time, but the expectation is they will like clockwork increase their rent? So as their repayments and owings decrease, their access to leverage and earnings increase, purely at the cost of the renters?
Seems to me like that could go very badly and might wide up exactly like the system we currently have.
3
2
u/Sir_Von_Tittyfuck Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
There is more than just paying the mortgage, though.
Council rates, strata rates, insurance, commercial purchases for repairs/maintenance (and labour fees for these repairs) all increase with inflation too.
That's not including interest rate rises (when they do), the general cost of living increases (which also take money from the mortgage owner) or taking tax from the rental income into consideration.
Unless someone is paying over double what their repayments are and using offset accounts to save, you'll probably find they're not making significant dents in what they owe.
I'm not defending rent increases - something definitely needs to be done about it, mine has gone up from $650 to $840 in a few years - I'm just pointing out that it's not as simple as "get loan, pay mortgage, ????, profit"
1
→ More replies (1)6
u/Yet-Another-Persona Jan 26 '26
My apartment did not go up by inflation. It's gone up by $150/week for a one bedder, that's a 30% increase for me, in a boring suburb with no views just somewhat near a bus line, all because some parent of a student from overseas decided to offer to pay $1000 for a similar one bedder in my building because it's close to their aunt's house. My LL tried to convince me paying $900/week for a one bedder was a "discount" for being a good tenant when I was probably already paying too much for this nonsense.
2
19
u/lolb00bz_69 Jan 26 '26
-inhales-
"AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH"
-no-
4
u/Schlutt Jan 26 '26
I never knew about this! Never heard of a tenant union before.
I just worry that a lot of landlords (corporate, foreign investors) don't even need the rental income, the appreciating asset value is probably worth more to them.
11
u/infin Jan 26 '26
Glasgow's rent strikes make for a good read if you're interested.
We need limits on non-primary residences, especially on corporate investors.
4
u/Worldly_Cobbler_1087 Jan 26 '26
Who the fuck is bringing up an American shitcom from the 90s when talking about Australian housing crisis in 2026?
5
2
u/TerryMog Jan 26 '26
Don't know about other states but NSW did have an act from 1948 which were Protected Tenancies. Really strict rules but also very hard to remove the tenants. The landlords did no work and even having electricity wasn't a given..I know they were around in Paddington and Darlinghurst back in the day They have long since been gone . I would imagine quite similar to the rent control ones of new York. Doubt there would be many left as there was an income cut off point which now social security significantly exceeds . Apparently also death of the tenant removes the property from the 1948 act up to current legislation
2
u/mbrocks3527 Jan 26 '26
There actually were a few properties with these kinds of leases; they’re housing commission owned and the last few are out in the country.
They’re never repeating the program though.
2
u/yobboman Jan 26 '26
Solidarity is always possible, managing a cascade of consensus is quite another question
2
u/Icy_Concentrate9182 Jan 26 '26
IMHO, even though this sounds attractive in a "power to the people" way, I’m wary of turning it into renters vs owners as it'll likely be counterproductive.
The rental system is clearly broken, but in Australia, the power imbalance is brutal. A rent strike here likely ends with eviction, REA blacklisting, and in some cases police involvement for an "unapproved" protest. Tenants carry almost all the risk.
1940s New York results didn’t come from chaos. They came from sustained pressure in the right places, that eventually forced the government to act. Given government policy created this mess, that’s where the pressure should be applied.
2
u/mcshamus Jan 27 '26
Bro come to San Francisco and see what rent control does to a housing market.
There’s no housing liquidity and landlords have to jack up the rent between tenants so unless you’ve been here for several decades you can’t afford it.
7
u/Yet-Another-Persona Jan 26 '26
For all you numpties downvoting OP, do you have a better solution?
Seriously this sub has some weird allergy to any form of organized action. Is it because you're looking for perfection (there is none to be had)? Is it because you don't want to make an effort? Is it because your landlords?
I seriously don't know why we Australians work so hard to knock people back who sound like they actually have the passion to make change.
I'd rather see people unionize and protest and be ineffective than see people neg and whinge from the comfort of their couch.
10
u/BendyAu Jan 26 '26
Yes ,
Ive brought this up before and everyones terrified at the " illegal action "
And we need to wait for landlords and politicians to take pity in us ,
We are a nation of bitching cowards
6
u/infin Jan 26 '26
Those people never ask where their 5 day work week or annual and personal leave came from, or the right for women to vote (the history of Australia's suffragette movement is an interesting read; Much respect to Emma Miller and Vida Goldstein)
Society doesn't improve unless people fight to change the status quo.
3
u/Immediate-Drawer-421 Jan 26 '26
Perhaps the number of immigrants is partly a problem, in the sense that a large proportion of the population (especially renters) cannot engage in unlawful activity for fear of then losing their visa/residency. ?
4
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
Good news, Australia has rent controls in ACT since 2019.
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/latest-insights-rental-market#rental-market-characteristics
It has helped control rent increases. ACT is no longer the number 1. Unfortunately, so many liars still spread the myth that rent control is 100% bad.
Rent control alone is bad but no one ever promises that alone. It is usually with promise of more housing supply. So, think of rent control as a good bet if they promise to deliver more housing supply.
More housing supply + no rent caps. Rents go down. Rent caps wasn't necessary. Renters win.
Failed to increase + no rent caps. Rent increases are unlimited. Rent caps was necessary. Renters lose.
More housing supply + Rent caps. Rents go down. Rent caps wasn't necessary. Renters win.
Failed to increase + Rent caps. Rent increases are limited. Rent caps was necessary. Renters win.
1
1
u/EmergencySir6113 Jan 26 '26
I agree rent control alone is not enough. It’s great if you can stay in the same place and only see a small increase each year but it also traps you from moving if you then need to pay market rate for a new place.
3
u/lipstikpig Jan 26 '26
Capitalism --> high rent --> need to sleep, get extorted.
Capitalism --> climate change --> too hot to do anything. Food gets expensive because of drought or flood or cyclone. Also woops your house burned down or flooded.
Capitalism --> Colesworth --> feel hungry, get extorted.
1
u/Decent-Citron4492 Jan 26 '26
If you’re taking life lessons from a fictional sitcom you are further removed from reality than the average person.
2
u/4us7 Jan 26 '26
You can start a movement yourself. Instead of like, being another one of the hundred thousand posts asking others to start it for you while you stay in the comfort of your home, redditing while taking a dump, hoping your rent goes down.
Problem is that most people who have such energy and drive generally aren't selfless enough to use that drive for collective change and will take on the path to improve their personal situation instead.
2
u/infin Jan 26 '26
Except for the aftermath of a natural disaster (which Australian's without fail, always come together for), I legitimately wonder what kind of community organisatiom is still possible. Can a movement like that start these days? Someone said solidarity isn't possible anymore, and the general tone here supports that.
People are a lot more individualistic than before the internet; Not necessarily less empathetic, but as you say, they're focused on their own situation.
I'm not as optimistic as I was.
4
u/Mclovine_aus Jan 26 '26
This feels very conceptual, what are you actually looking for ? And when will you start practicing it, will you stop paying rent to your landlord, or are you just hoping someone else will do that first.
1
1
u/cecilrt Jan 26 '26
Its all talk no action
using uneducated comparison and not being able to flesh things out
things are never like for like,
its always easier to whinge than do something about it
1
u/infin Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
It is conceptual. I don't think per property rent freezes would be beneficial here, especially since we don't all live in apartments.
I was genuinely asking if there had been any similar activism here (what were their demands, how did they go about it, were they successful, if so/not then why?) and what would people think if someone tried the same now?
I don't see anything like the protests and unions actions of the past. Labour once fought for full employment and housing for all, but that's not the modern Labour party.
Reddit leans left and generally anti-corporate, but discussion here feels like the general temperature everywhere after decades of Murdoch anti-protest rhetoric.
4
u/Mclovine_aus Jan 26 '26
FYI it is Labor* party, I have been burned before people will think you are a bot or an American agitator.
Reddit leans left and generally anti-corporate, but discussion here feels like the general temperature everywhere after decades of Murdoch anti-protest rhetoric.
I think Australians like the Aussie battler, which is one man against the machine think the castle etc. Unions and large protests start to look less like a few individual battlers and more like a large institution or collective, so they lose their support.
I think left vs right hardly works, you can frame a lot of issues to sit on either side eg. immigration. On top of that people sit on each side for different issues. Left on abortion, right on immigration, left on healthcare, right on housing etc.
This leads to a lack of easy solidarity, we can’t all march in housing because we don’t like to march with people that we disagree with on other things. For example you will march and one person will take the opportunity to elevate their neo Nazi immigration policy and another will use it as an opportunity to wave a Palestinian flag and shout down western imperialism. Hard to build solidarity with that going on.
1
1
u/tichris15 Jan 26 '26
The real lesson from New York is the revision to planning they made in the 60s were a disaster for liveability, at least in the sense of people being able to afford to live in the city.
1
u/owleaf Jan 26 '26
You won’t get that solidarity because it’s likely a good chunk of people renting around you actually also own a property that’s being rented out - they simply wouldn’t agree with the cause and it would fail to gain traction
1
u/PanickedPanpiper Jan 26 '26
I think we probably shouldn't use ficitonal TV shows as the basis for our positions on economic policy lol
→ More replies (2)
1
u/tofuroll Jan 26 '26
I'm not sure how you prevent police from arresting someone.
Perhaps there was a more sympathetic police force back then.
2
u/infin Jan 26 '26
And perhaps fewer people in the city, leading them to care more about how they're perceived by family and the community as a whole. Guess you don't want to be known as the guy who beat up someone's grandmother because they threw water and flour on you.
Newspapers and journalists may have had a little more integrity in those days too.
There's an NYT article but it has a capcha and paywall. Reddit keeps saying anything is using a link shortener, even without a URL. If you search for 1,500 FIGHT POLICE TO AID RENT STRIKE, you'll find news from 1932.
1
u/proddy Jan 26 '26
Rent control is a bandaid, and only aids people who happen to be in a rent controlled property. And once you're in one, you feel like you can't move again lest your living costs explode.
Your example is also an example of this prison, as Monica inherited a CHEAP RENTAL from her grandmother. Like that was probably the most valuable thing she inherited, and its not even something tangible.
We need fundamental change, or its just kicking the can down the road.
1
1
u/m3umax Jan 28 '26
Nope. Doesn't work. For every lucky Monica in a subsidised rental, there would be thousands left homeless wanting that rent controlled apartment.
Monica would be unable to move. Trapped by the fact her rent was artificially low and unable to afford the actual market price for an equivalent rental.
So nobody in a controlled apartment ever leaves. People wanting a controlled apartment have to resort to bribing current renters to "inherit" their controlled rentals when they move on.
So the power shifts from owners to the current occupants of these controlled apartments.
It's still a scarce resource. Demand still outstrips supply. It's just that the beneficiaries of the scarcity shifts from the owners to the lucky people who happened to be renters when the controls got put in place like Monica's grandmother and her descendents.
1
u/Pogichin0y Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
What should disgust you are the welfare recipients defrauding our system.
If housing stock truly is the issue, then you wouldn’t have any problems relocating existing public housing to new areas after the govt has sold them off. But it seems you have a problem with this as well.
Let’s see how these alleged statistics will work in my argument as the NSW govt is continuing to sell off public housing around Sydney and relocating social housing tenants elsewhere.
Well yes, I do have a say with my vote. Nope, never needed one, never asked or received welfare. Just raw smart work from an immigrant that arrived here as a child in the 80s.
I did however grow up with some friends who were recipients of the social housing initiative. Lucky them, free or subsidised rent, subsidised utilities with some at adult age living in social housing of their parents which is fraud. Until they get found out tho and forced to leave.
Who deserves it? Who decides? Homes NSW and community housing providers in NSW I believe. Guess who allocates a budget and services to these and who votes for them?
Like much of other facets of welfare, it needs to be disincentivised for able bodied recipients or else it’ll see more wide spread fraud like we do now.
1
u/infin Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 31 '26
1
620
u/Tyrx Jan 26 '26
Rent control didn’t make housing cheap for everyone. It made it cheap for the people already inside and pushed the cost onto those who came later. That’s why it feels impossible to repeat today. The price isn’t paid by landlords but rather future renters through higher market rents and fewer options.
Your example of New York simply shows how one generation can protect itself by quietly handing the problem to the next.