The development levy question.

The state government has got itself into a right royal quandary over it's imposition of a $ 20,000 cap on development levies for new housing estates.

Older people will remember the days following the end of the second world war when returning soldiers created a huge new housing demand - and this resulted in new estates with unsealed roads, a total lack of even the most rudimentary basic facilities or transport - and a wait years long for the installation of a telephone.

Development levies were supposed to remedy a repeat of that situation.

Unfortunately human avarice enters the equation. A $ 40,000 levy is simply peanuts when it is levied on land in a high value - high demand subdivision, but levied on a low cost " Greenfield " project like West Dapto is simply prices land way out of reach of the average battler.

Then there is the " thimble and pea " approach by many councils. They don't actually spend those levies to provide the facilities. The money is squirrelled away earning interest - and that interest is later spent on more fashionable suburbs.

It seems that the only answer is compromise. In exchange for building land being affordable for the battlers they may have to accept a lower standard of surrounding amenities - but where land will command premium prices and generate high demand higher levies would be appropriate.

At the moment the government has blinkers on it's eyes - and only sees a " one size fits all " approach !