LIGHT RAIL/NEGATIVE GEARING Bus suggestion waste of time, money
THE Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure, Michael Ferguson, has reaffirmed the government’s position on light rail, a decision many in the community support.
However, he continues to procrastinate, wasting time and money suggesting fast transit buses might be an option for this corridor.
Surely he and his advisers are aware of the major road crossings involved along this route and the impact any high speed project might create at these junctions. Initially the vacant corridor was seen as a useful option for a safe area for bike riders to access the city.
Perhaps, with the number of walkers/runners and dog exercisers now using this facility, a viable and useful alternative would be to construct a separate track along the existing old rail line, thus allowing more freedom and safety for the many users.
John Pritchard Claremont
MYTHS PERPETUATED
IN his response to my Talking Point (Apr 28), Minister Ferguson clearly doesn’t like rail or me (May 2).
The only person perpetuating myths is Mr Ferguson, who continues to claim our 1067mm gauge rail track is unsuitable for passengers, despite its widespread use throughout the world.
Indeed, the Australian rail speed record of 210km/h was set by a Queensland Rail passenger train in 1998 operating on 1067mm gauge track.
I stand by my reference project that “Sydney Light Rail Stage 2 cost $176m for 11 km of new rail track, nine new stations, bridge works, electrification and signalling”. Since 5.6km of double track: 5.6 x 2 = 11.2 km of new rail track and associated infrastructure.
The minister’s preference for bus transit on the rail corridor is at odds with previous commitments from his
government, and his own modal analysis report, which quantified the wider benefits of rail compared with bus as 450 per cent.
Ben Johnston Hobart Northern Suburbs Rail Action Group Inc.
DIRECTION QUESTION
BEN Johnston, engineer and a foundation member of the Hobart Northern Suburbs Rail Action Group postulated on many aspects of light rail on the existing, unused train track between Hobart and Brighton.
One fact not referred in his postulations in the Mercury (Apr 28) is there being one set of railway lines which begs the question, would a light rail service operate in one direction? Stewart Edwards
Mount Stuart
BENEFIT FOR WEALTHY
ROD Force (Letters, May 2) opines that negative gearing is all about incentivising
the increase of supply in rental property.
What rot.
Negative gearing is about increasing the property wealth of the wealthy and (in Hobart) increasing the supply of tourist accommodation, through online short-term letting.
If negative gearing didn’t exist, house prices would be lower because demand would be lower and thus, young people may stand a chance of entering the property market.
There is a complete lack of logic to Mr Force’s argument in which he ignores the huge elephant in the room, for both Labor and Liberal; their complete abandonment of investment in social housing for the past thirty years. Mike Radburn
Sandy Bay
SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ADVICE
WHAT a pity that Rod Force (Mercury. May 2) did not heed Adam Bandt’s advice to Google it.
Had he done so, he would have learnt that, in fact, in 1987, the Hawke government restricted negative gearing to new housing stock only.
This was altered to include existing stock in 1999 by the Howard government.
ROD MISSES MARK
Marie Foley Hobart
ROD Force (May 2), is wrong to argue that negative gearing for residential property should be retained as an incentive to increase the housing supply.
Were this tax deduction only available on new builds, it may have that consequence.
As it stands there is no distinction between old and new, thus much (maybe most?) residential property investment is in existing properties. This creates two perverse outcomes. Firstly, as it makes existing residential property more attractive for investment it forces prices up and makes it harder for home buyers. (This has a flow on effect of forcing rents up.)
Secondly, negative gearing as an investment strategy only works if property prices continue to increase.
Hence it produces a cohort of people with a strong incentive to advocate for policies that will lead to ever increasing property prices. I would speculate this is a major factor in stoking the mantra of growth at all costs regardless of the consequences for our lifestyle. Let’s do a little thought experiment. Suppose overnight the Taxation Act were to be changed to prevent negative gearing on existing real estate. Property prices would plummet.
Lots of people would be able to buy their own homes and virtually all new residential property investment would go into new homes.
Phil Stigant West Hobart