Showing posts with label tenancy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tenancy. Show all posts

Saturday, 10 September 2022

Quotes of the Week

 

Lend Lease, Stocks and Holdings, Parkes Development and L.J. Hooker all bought land in the Gosford and Penrith areas soon after publication of the Outline Plan. (Sunday Australian 5 March 1972) The inability of local and state government services to keep pace with the rate of subdivision by these developers was contributing, according to the Sunday Australian (5 March 1972) to the escalating price of blocks. In 1970 the average price of vacant land in Sydney was $7,240 per acre, in 1971 $8,969, and by 1972 had risen to $11,802 an acre. (Financial Review 28 July 1972). The beneficiaries of rising land prices are clear enough. According to the present Federal Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr T. Uren, MHR) the poor in general and young couples in particular are the ones who suffer.”

[Leonie Sandercock, (1974) PROPERTY, POLITICS AND POWER : A HISTORY OF CITY PLANNING IN ADELAIDE, MELBOURNE AND SYDNEY SINCE 1900]


To Juanita, there was an urgent need for answers to the problem of rehousing old and low-income people in their own neighbourhoods. This was already occurring in Darlinghurst and it was time it was also taken into account by planners in Kings Cross. Juanita’s reaction to Paul Strasser’s projected Parkes Developments’ proposal marked the beginning of the end of her ‘soft’ editorial policy. She was outraged when Parkes offered to buy her home for what was an extraordinary amount of money for a small terrace in 1973—$200 000. She refused, and she recounted later to the Sydney Morning Herald that she had come under ‘all sorts of unimaginable pressures’. ‘I began to realise that if I was getting into so much trouble—owning my own house and a newspaper—what hope would a pensioner have?’ But the experience was a catalyst for her to also embrace a more formal presence in the Victoria Street power plays. She formed the Victoria Street Ratepayers’ Association and became its secretary. Through this tactic she was able to stall Parkes’ twenty-eight-storey development, as well as gaining another lever against overdevelopment on the west side. With this delay, the Parkes’ plan would ultimately lapse.

[Peter Rees, (2004) KILLING JUANITA, p.78]


REASONS FOR DECISION

1 The appellant (“Hometown”) owns and operates a residential land lease community in Lennox Head, New South Wales (“Community”). The Community is governed by the Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act, 2013 (NSW) (“Act”).

2 On or about 4 November 2020, Hometown acquired the home located at site 4 of the Community from a former home owner for a purchase price of $207,500. It refurbished the home and marketed it for sale.

3 On 5 March 2021, Ms Bullivant entered into a sale agreement to purchase the home at site 4 from Hometown for a purchase price of $260,000.

4 On 6 March 2021, Ms Bullivant entered into a site agreement (within the meaning of the Act) with Hometown in respect of the home at site 4 in which she agreed to pay $192 per week.

5 By application filed 28 July 2021, Ms Bullivant sought orders from the Tribunal pursuant to section 157(1) of the Act asserting, in summary, that Hometown, as operator comply with its obligation to set fees for the site at fair market value and compensation for the difference between fair market value and the site fees charged by Hometown under the site agreement since its inception.

The Decision of the Tribunal

6 In its decision of 21 December 2021, the Tribunal found, in summary, that Part 10 of the Act and, in particular, s 109 applied to the sale of the home at site 4 to Ms Bullivant and that the site fees charged by Hometown exceeded fair market value. The Tribunal held that fair market value of site fees for site 4 was $164.40 and ordered a reduction of the site fees under the site agreement to that amount (subject to the term of the site agreement providing for a 4% annual increase in site fees). The primary member found that section 109(6) applied to the site agreement entered into between Hometown and Ms Bullivant and made orders for the reduction of Ms Bullivant’s site fees

[Civil and Administrative Tribunal, New South Wales, Hometown Australia Lennox Pty Limited v Debra Bullivant [2022] NSWCATAP 161 (17 May 2022)]