[lIIllIIllIIllII]

Respectfully - while that's no doubt useful for your visiting family, weighing that up vs the social costs of taking a house off the market when it could be used by a family, in the midst of what I think is the worst rental crisis in Aus history, in which many families are forced to live in vehicles, it doesn't really stack up in a utilitarian sense.

The house isn't being lived in, rental income could easily pay for temporary accommodation, or it could be shared with roommates etc.

[trog]

> Respectfully - while that's no doubt useful for your visiting family, weighing that up vs the social costs of taking a house off the market when it could be used by a family, in the midst of what I think is the worst rental crisis in Aus history, in which many families are forced to live in vehicles, it doesn't really stack up in a utilitarian sense.

I don't disagree - I find it terrible that it's being kept off the market, especially as someone that is struggling with the housing crisis myself (my partner and I considered buying it, but my grandfather built it as a townhouse for him to live out retirement in and it's not really suitable for us with a young child).

There are complicating family factors for us but at the end of the day I would absolutely rather this house be on the market where someone could take advantage of it.

I think the reality is there are vastly more totally unused homes that are simply not being rented because they're just being sat on by (presumably mostly overseas investors).

[taskforcegemini]

what if another family member would take over soon but isn't of age yet, or is otherwise occupied but intends to take over later? I don't think families should give up inheritances, especially not for nothing. on the other hand there are corporations not renting out offices and apartments because appreciation will get them more money. this is what should be fought by laws, not the previous situation