Category: Behind the Byline

When the Big Decisions Hit Home: Why Kiama Needs a Stronger Voice

Watch WIN News and local experts and the community’s thoughts here

Johnny Greer is a local who always has his finger on the pulse and recently brought the latest very scary development on the Akuna St Kiama proposal by Level 33 who own the land in question to the community’s attention. See cut and paste of his Facebook post above

In September I wrote a blog post about the Level 33  current ( as of September  2025)  DA proposal that was going to the Land and Environment Court in December See here to get your head around how this mess evolved

Note this dot point in the article

  • 14 August 2024: The Federal Court matter Nicolas Daoud v Kiama Municipal Council was finalised. Under a Deed of Release, Council paid Daoud a settlement of $1 million. Council also disclosed legal costs of $3.73 million (excluding settlement), bringing the total cost of the case to $4.73 million, equal to 16.9 percent of the $28 million sale price (Kiama Council, Agenda of 20 November 2024, Item 14.1 p.146 and Item 15.8 p.604).

Yes you read it right we are still in the Land and Environment Court – what is it going to cost this time.?  We cant afford to have working CCTV cameras but we can employ barrister after barrister.

Now to the big picture

After months of watching the decisions being made for Kiama and reading the growing frustration on social media, I’ve been thinking about what a strong Community-Led Democracy would actually look like here.

Many of these decisions aren’t local at all. They’re being shaped by people in Sydney working to meet targets, not by the people who live with the consequences. When planning becomes about numbers instead of neighbourhoods, it’s no wonder people feel ignored.

That’s why the idea of Community-Led Democracy matters more than ever. It’s about making sure decisions about Kiama are informed by the people who call it home, not handed down from somewhere else.

It’s easy to say we need a stronger voice in local democracy, but what would that take? Who would have the time, energy, and expertise to lead it?

Because this kind of engagement takes work. It needs people who understand that politics isn’t shouting from the sidelines; it’s the art of the possible. It means knowing where power sits, which levers matter, and which ones are simply there to wear you down.

A strong Community-Led Democracy would have residents who understand planning laws and how they shape what gets built and what doesn’t. It would have people who can connect the dots between local, state, and federal systems, who know when to push, when to partner, and when to walk away from a dead end.

It would need leaders who see consultation as the start of the process, not the box you tick at the end. It would need transparency that isn’t forced by public pressure but offered as standard practice.

And maybe most of all, it would need a council that recognises the value of the crowd, that understands the collective intelligence sitting in our community is its greatest asset, not a threat to be managed.

I’m curious. What do you think a strong Community-Led Democracy looks like in Kiama? Who are the people who could lead it, and how might the rest of us support them?

If this sparks a thought, I invite you to revisit my earlier post  “When Advocacy Turns Dangerous: The Moment You Can’t Stay Silent” because real democracy often begins with the courage to question, even when it’s inconvenient.

Please Note: I believe elected councillors are essential. What I’m advocating for is a stronger partnership between council and community, not a replacement.

#Kiama #CommunityVoice #LocalDemocracy #CivicEngagement #PlanningMatters #Accountability #AkunaStreet #Level33 #CommunityLedDemocracy

Are the CCTV Cameras Working? What Hindmarsh Park Reveals About Council Promises.

When a local parent shared their experience at Hindmarsh Park on our Community Facebook page, it inspired me to take a closer look at Kiama Council’s CCTV policy and what it says about how public spaces are meant to be protected.

The parent had gone there to celebrate their daughter’s fifth birthday, only to find both public barbecues in a shocking state. One was coated in melted plastic. The other gave off a strong smell of sewage when turned on. They ended up abandoning the facilities and using a portable BBQ from home.

Their post asked the obvious question:

“Are Council doing daily inspections of these facilities or leaving a multimillion-dollar new park to deteriorate?”

It’s a fair question, especially when Council’s policies promise proactive monitoring and deterrence through CCTV.

Kiama Council’s CCTV Policy outlines a clear set of objectives: to promote community safety and crime prevention, protect residents, visitors, and Council assets, deter vandalism and antisocial behaviour, and provide footage to NSW Police when required.

The accompanying Street Surveillance Code of Practice commits to annual audits, clear signage, and transparency about where and how cameras operate. These are good principles on paper, but they depend entirely on follow-through.

❓If CCTV is installed near Hindmarsh Park or the surrounding main street, was it operating when the vandalism occurred?

❓Has Council reviewed any footage?

❓Are inspections of new facilities being carried out daily, as they should be?

❓If the cameras weren’t working, or if the footage wasn’t checked, it raises deeper questions about accountability and maintenance, not only of the park but of the systems meant to protect it.

Hindmarsh Park is one of Kiama’s newest public investments, designed as a safe, family-friendly space. Incidents like this undermine public confidence and point to a gap between what Council says it does and what residents experience on the ground.

It’s time for Council to confirm whether the CCTV systems are operational, whether inspections are happening as promised, and how it plans to prevent future incidents. Policies don’t protect public spaces; people and accountability do.


#KiamaCouncil #HindmarshPark #CommunitySafety #CCTV #PublicAccountability #CloverHillDiaries

Get the Lowdown on Kiama Council’s Akuna Street Dilemma and How We Got Here?

Kiama Council is again facing the courts over the Akuna Street site, with mediation between Council and developer Level 33 collapsing in August. A three-day Land and Environment Court hearing is now scheduled for 10–12 December 2025.

This is no ordinary block. It is the largest redevelopment parcel in Kiama’s town centre, sold to Level 33 for $28 million in 2022. For years, it has been a decaying eyesore, attracting vandalism and complaints. What gets built here will set the tone for the town centre for decades.

Many will remember that this is not the first time Akuna Street has been at the centre of developer disputes.

From Daoud to Level 33, a site with history

  • 2016 to 2018: Developer Nicolas Daoud, trading under Traders in Purple, pursued a mixed-use proposal including a supermarket and apartments. When Council refused a final extension to secure approval, the sale collapsed.

  • 28 June 2022: Council ran a new selective tender process for the Akuna Street land. Both Level 33 and Traders in Purple (led by Charlie Dowd) put in bids. An alternate motion to negotiate with Traders in Purple was debated but lost. The tender was awarded to Level 33 Property Group Pty Ltd with settlement terms of 42 days (Kiama Council, Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting, 28 June 2022, Item 20.1, pp. 36–37).

  • July 2022: Within weeks of that decision, Nicolas Daoud’s company filed Federal Court proceedings against Council, alleging breach of contract and misleading conduct.

  • Late 2022: Level 33 completed the purchase of the Akuna Street site for $28 million.

  • 14 August 2024: The Federal Court matter Nicolas Daoud v Kiama Municipal Council was finalised. Under a Deed of Release, Council paid Daoud a settlement of $1 million. Council also disclosed legal costs of $3.73 million (excluding settlement), bringing the total cost of the case to $4.73 million, equal to 16.9 percent of the $28 million sale price (Kiama Council, Agenda of 20 November 2024, Item 14.1 p.146 and Item 15.8 p.604).

Why the DA is stuck

The state government planning panel has already said Level 33’s design does not fit the site rules. The main problems are simple. The building is too big, too bulky, and it blocks views.

Council’s Director of Strategies and Communities has been clear on this point. The design is not in step with what Kiama has agreed should be built in the town centre.

Could this have been avoided?

Looking back, there are two lessons.

  1. With Daoud and Traders in Purple:
    Clearer timelines, a stronger dispute-resolution process, and more transparency could have avoided the Federal Court. Instead, councillors were left making rescission and tender decisions midstream, which frustrated both sides.

  2. With Level 33:
    A design-led settlement, shaped by independent review and supported by a planning agreement for things like streetscape, laneways, and heritage, could still produce a better outcome. Mediation is designed for compromise. If used well, it could save years of delay and large legal bills.

What a VPA could do for Akuna Street

A Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) is a tool that lets Council and a developer agree on public benefits as part of a development approval.

A VPA can include:

  • Streetscape works, laneways, and public spaces

  • Contributions to affordable housing or community facilities

  • Heritage protection or conservation works

  • Design commitments that go beyond the bare minimum rules

Why it matters here:

  • When Council sold Akuna Street to Level 33, there was no chance to negotiate a VPA, because VPAs can only be tied to development approvals, not land sales.

  • Now that a DA is on the table, a VPA could still be used to settle the dispute and guarantee public benefits.

The win–win would look like this:

  • Council secures design improvements and commitments to protect views and heritage.

  • Level 33 gains certainty of approval without the risk of court.

  • The community finally sees the site cleaned up and used, with a development that gives something back.

The bigger picture

There has been talk of Kiama as a possible Transport Oriented Development (TOD) site, with six-storey buildings near the station. But here is the reality.

  • Kiama is not on the official TOD station list. The mapping covers Sydney, the Hunter, the Central Coast, and some Illawarra stations, but not Kiama.

  • Train service is a barrier. With only one train an hour south of Kiama, the service falls well short of what TOD is meant to be built around.

  • Community concerns remain. Without upgrades to the rail line, higher-density housing risks creating congestion and frustration rather than better liveability.

So for now, the rules that matter are Kiama’s own Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan, which set expectations for height, scale, and streetscape.

The six-storey question

In November 2023, Council approved Local Environmental Plan amendments that raised height limits in parts of the CBD. This means six-storey buildings are now possible in selected locations.

On top of this, the NSW Government’s Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy, which took effect in February 2025, encourages mid-rise housing near transport hubs. On paper, Kiama fits.

But in practice:

  • Land is limited. Only a small amount of R3-zoned land is available within 800 metres of the station.

  • Lot size rules apply. Kiama’s Development Control Plan requires a minimum lot width of 25 metres for residential flat buildings.

  • Costs are high. Construction expenses, compliance reforms after the Opal Tower, and levies that can take up 40 percent of costs make apartments hard to deliver in most regional towns.

  • Community concerns are strong. Overshadowing, traffic, and loss of character remain front of mind.

That is why analysts say Kiama, Byron Bay, and possibly Shell Cove are among the very few regional towns where six-storey projects might actually happen. High land values in these places make it viable where others cannot.

The upshot is that six storeys may be allowed on paper, but the real opportunities are narrow. Without land assembly, high-quality design, and community support, most sites will not reach that height.

Where to from here?

The worst outcome would be to let the Court decide in December, which would leave the community with little say in the outcome.

The best outcome would be for Council and Level 33 to come back to the table, work towards a design that fits Kiama’s principles on size and scale, and guarantee public benefits through a planning agreement. That is the common-sense path.

But here is what we cannot ignore. By November 2024, Council had already spent $4.73 million on the Daoud litigation. That is close to 17 percent of the $28 million sale price. Nearly one-sixth of the community’s return on this land has already been whittled away in legal costs and settlement payments, before a single brick has been laid.

This raises serious questions:

  • How much more are ratepayers willing to lose on court battles?

  • Why is a developer pushing ahead when both Council and the State have concerns about compliance?

  • Should Council bring in independent negotiators to prevent more losses and protect the community’s interests?

The community deserves straight answers  and a future for Akuna Street that does not drain our finances any further.

Thanks to everyone who shared questions and comments on this post. I’ve added extra detail to help answer those and keep the community in the loop.

#KiamaCouncil #AkunaStreet #Level33 #TradersInPurple #KiamaPlanning #CommunityVoice #LandAndEnvironmentCourt #BulkAndScale #ViewSharing #SixStoreys #KiamaDevelopment #PlanningTransparency #IndependentNegotiators

Councillors Can Advocate, CEOs Must Remain Impartial

There’s been a lot of chatter on social media about council staff appearing in photos with candidates. This post is aimed at providing clarity: councillors can openly advocate for the candidate they believe will best serve their community, but council staff, including the CEO, are required by law to remain impartial and avoid any appearance of endorsement.

Councillors are elected to represent their community, not to toe someone else’s line. Their role is to exercise independent judgement and advocate for the candidate they believe will deliver the best outcomes for local people. That’s both their democratic mandate and their duty under the Councillor Code of Conduct.

It is important to note that this freedom applies to councillors, not to staff. The Local Government (General) Regulation 2021 and the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils set clear rules for council staff, including the CEO (or General Manager):

  • Council staff must remain politically neutral.

  • They cannot use their role or resources to support or oppose a candidate.

  • Appearing in campaign photos, advertisements, or promotional material could be seen as giving improper support.

If a CEO was photographed with one candidate in a way that looks like an endorsement, it could be considered a breach and undermine trust in the election process.

The recent newspaper photo of senior council staff member Ed Paterson standing with Liberal candidate Serena Copley is a case in point. In reality, council staff should know better. The rules are clear. In this photo, it is clear Ed was happy to pose, and the end result is a public image that looks like endorsement. Whether or not that was his intention doesn’t matter, it crosses into territory the regulations are designed to prevent.

This is the key distinction. Councillors are elected representatives. They carry a mandate from the community, and that includes the right to say openly who they believe will deliver. Staff, on the other hand, are employed officials. Their role is to serve whichever councillors the community elects, without showing favour.

The principle is simple:

  • Elected councillors must be free to advocate.

  • Employed staff must remain impartial.

When those lines blur, the credibility of the whole system is at risk.

#KiamaCouncil #LocalGovernment #CouncilAccountability #CommunityVoice #ElectionIntegrity #Councillors #CEOsMustRemainImpartial

At Kiama Council Spin Comes Before Community

“Supporting local sport for 40 years 👏”

That is how Kiama Council captioned its post about the Illawarra Academy of Sport’s 40th Anniversary and Athlete Awards Night. But read on and you will see the focus was on Council itself, not the athletes.

The photo description says it all: “Photo features < insert council representative name > pictured with award recipients.”

The athletes, the very reason the event exists, remain nameless. Their achievements are blurred into the background while Council congratulates itself on “partnerships” and “commitment.”

I have been reporting on Council for two years now. First as the civic journalist for The Bugle and now as a citizen journalist on my blog. Again and again I have seen the same pattern: Council communications that elevate itself while sidelining the community.

This post is not an isolated slip. It matches what we have seen with legal fees, developer contributions, and financial reporting – moments where the message was shaped to protect the organisation rather than inform or celebrate the people it serves.

The real question is this: who is directing the communications team to think this kind of content is acceptable? These are trained professionals with the skills to put the spotlight where it belongs. So why are they continually pushed to produce material that centres Council instead of the community?

It would have taken five minutes to get the names of the winners. Instead, the communication team kept the spotlight on Council and left the athletes as faceless extras in their own story.

This is not community celebration. It is spin. And the community sees through it.

When our community turns up to honour athletes, we expect them to be the headline, not the footnote.

#KiamaCouncil #CommunityFirst #CouncilSpin #SportsAwards #Accountability

Creative Accounting or Community Gaslighting?

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I’ve been digging into Kiama Council’s legal expenses and what I’ve found is confusing, frustrating, and frankly concerning.

Here are the comparisons that matter:

Council Population (approx.) 2023/24 Legal Costs Spend Per Resident
Kiama 23,400 $3,369,000 $144
Port Macquarie–Hastings 50,560 $250,000 $5
Shellharbour 76,200 $858,000 $11

Kiama, with the smallest population, spent by far the most on legal bills. At $144 per person, Kiama’s costs tower over Shellharbour ($11) and Port Macquarie–Hastings ($5).

A pattern of costly errors

This blowout is not an isolated issue. Council’s financial reporting on major risk areas keeps needing “fixes” after the fact:

If developer levies can be overcharged, and legal costs can be double-counted, what confidence can the public have in any top-line figure?

Meanwhile, “Other Legal Expenses” jumped from $204,000 in 2020/21 to $3.3 million in 2023/24 — a sixteen-fold increase in three years. In the same period, total legal expenses rose from $416,000 to $3.37 million.

Where Council points… and where the money actually goes

Council is very happy to outline where Land & Environment Court (LEC) costs are spent — case lists, updates, outcomes — and it is true that LEC matters account for around 53% of legal costs (excluding the Daoud Federal Court case).

But here’s the catch:

  • Probity/General legal advice soaks up another 37%.

  • When I asked for a breakdown of these “other” costs, the Public Officer refused to provide it.

This is the deflection at play.  Council points to the unavoidable LEC cases, but goes silent on the categories where the blowouts are happening.

Are LEC costs really unavoidable?

Council insists LEC costs are unavoidable. But the record shows many cases should never have reached court at all.

  • Yes, developers have a legal right to appeal to the LEC.

  • But how Council manages those appeals is absolutely within its control. If cases are lost because Council misapplied its own LEP or DCP, or if politically motivated decisions collapse under scrutiny, those costs are self-inflicted.

  • Time and again, matters defended at great expense have been lost or forced into costly conciliation — suggesting they should never have been taken to court.

LEC costs are not automatically unavoidable. Too often, they are the price we pay for poor governance.

Code of Conduct costs

On top of this, $69,080 was spent on Code of Conduct complaints in the past reporting year, even though:

  • 10 complaints were lodged,

  • only 2 reached investigation, and

  • 2 breaches were found (leading to councillor censure).

That is an extraordinary spend for very little outcome.

And the contradiction is glaring: the Mayor has claimed Codes of Conduct are being “weaponised” — yet he himself lodged the complaint that led to a censure later overturned in the Supreme Court, costing the community just over $200,000.

Why this matters

It all beggars belief.

Residents should not need to become forensic accountants to follow the money. When legal spend is this high — and when we keep seeing corrections across legal costs and developer contributions — the only responsible response is radical transparency.

So why isn’t it happening?

  • Why isn’t Kiama Council publishing legal spend by category, with clear totals, every quarter?

  • Why aren’t the Office of Local Government and the Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) demanding answers on the developer contribution overcharge, the double-counting of legal costs, and the “Other Legal” blow-outs?

  • Why is it left to community members to do the oversight work that should already exist?

The bottom line

Transparency in legal and developer-contribution accounting is not optional — it is a core measure of good governance. Until figures are itemised clearly, corrected promptly, independently reviewed, and made public without community pressure, trust in Kiama Council will continue to slip away.

Disclaimer

I am a community member, not a forensic accountant. This post reflects in-depth analysis of Kiama Council reports, combined with concerns raised by community members and councillors. It is a genuine attempt to understand and explain how and why Council’s legal expenses have escalated.

I look forward to Kiama Council’s response.

#KiamaCouncil #Accountability #Transparency #Governance #LegalCosts #CommunityVoice #LocalGovernment

Getting to the Root Cause of the Wicked Problems at Kiama Council

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I am not an accountant. I am a community member, like the majority of our residents, reading the same public reports and trying to understand where our money goes. We should not need a crystal ball to interpret basic financial information. We deserve numbers that make sense.

The last Council agenda included a “quarterly update” on legal costs that, when added together, came to $12 million. Days later, Council issued a media release saying the number was wrong, that the real figure was $2.275 million.

But that is not what the agenda papers said, and not what any reasonable resident would have understood.

And here is the deeper issue:

🙋‍♀️Why did the error have to be picked up by the community?

🙋‍♂️Why was it not identified earlier? Why was it not raised in councillor briefings?

🙋‍♀️Why was it not corrected before the agenda went public?

This goes to the heart of a wicked problem in local government.

The councillor’s impossible workload

Council agendas are released six days before each meeting. Councillors are provided with briefing sessions where they can ask for clarification on complex issues. But how many councillors have the time to attend these sessions? Most have full-time jobs.

And even if they do attend, they face the daunting task of wading through agendas that, once supplementary papers are included, can run to 800 pages or more. How can councillors reasonably be expected to spot errors buried deep in financial tables or misleading cumulative totals?

Why accuracy matters

Councillors can only make sound decisions if they are given timely, accurate, and complete information. When they are forced to second-guess whether the numbers in front of them are right or wrong, they cannot do their jobs effectively.

That responsibility does not lie with councillors. It lies with the executive team. Their role is to ensure the data provided to councillors, and to the public, is clear, concise, and correct.

The wicked problem

This is why the $12 million legal cost debacle matters so much. Not just because the number was wrong, but because it shows how fragile the system is. If councillors cannot trust the information they are given, and if the community has to play watchdog just to keep the books straight, then we do not have transparency. We have a system that is exhausting, confusing, and corrosive to trust.

The financial year before last, Council’s own financial statements showed that 37 percent of all legal costs were grouped into “Other”. With no clear breakdown, ratepayers have no idea what “Other” really means or how that money was spent and when questioned the Council Public Officer refused to answer the question.

Where to from here?

In our next posts, we will dig into specific examples of how these failures in reporting play out:

  • The weaponisation of the Code of Conduct and the hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted as a result.
  • The ballooning of “Other” legal costs and what sits behind them.

Getting to the root of this wicked problem means demanding better.  Councillors, and the community, deserve information they can rely on. Nothing less.

🤑Did you know that for a family of four in Kiama, $576 a year is effectively going straight to Council’s legal bills?

In my next blog, we will unpack what this figure really means, how it compares to other councils, and why residents deserve to know where their money is going.

Stay tuned — because when it comes to Council’s finances, it is time we all started asking tougher questions.

#KiamaCouncil #LegalCosts #Accountability #Transparency #CommunityVoice

Lawyers at the Beach !!!!! Why is Kiama Council in Dispute with Gerringong Surf Club?

Yes, you read that correctly Kiama Council is in a formal legal dispute with the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club — a  volunteer-based organisation that patrols our beaches, trains young lifesavers, and shows up for the community when it matters most.

Council’s own legal report lists the matter as:

“Gerringong SLSC – Licence dispute”
Status: In a meeting held with the club, they confirmed that following advice received from Council, they would withdraw their dispute. To date this hasn’t occurred. Council to follow up.

This post is the part of a Follow the Money  series shining a light on Kiama Council’s ongoing failure to even interpret its own spreadsheets.

I’ve been digging into Kiama Council’s legal expenses and what I’ve found is confusing, frustrating, and frankly concerning.

Why it matters

This is not vague or hypothetical. A community surf club and the local Council are in a formal dispute, with lawyers in the middle. However it unfolded, the fact remains that volunteers and ratepayers are now caught up in a process that should have been solved with better communication and collaboration.

And let’s talk about cost. Council spent more than $12 million on legal matters in 12 months, ( see Item 13.7 Legals Agenda of Ordinary Meeting – Tuesday, 19 August 2025), including nearly $5 million in a single quarter. If that doesn’t tell us it’s time to upgrade our negotiation skills, I don’t know what does. (Maybe TAFE should run a course called How Not to Spend $12 Million on Lawyers.)

What’s at stake

  • The surf club exists to save lives.

  • Council exists to serve the community.

  • Neither should be wasting time and money battling each other.

A Pattern of Escalation

The Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club isn’t the only example.

Council’s legal report also lists:

“KMC v Morgan Lewis – Failure to comply with terms of DA, Fillmore’s Manning Street, Kiama.”
This case went all the way to a contested hearing, with a fine of $3000 recorded. Council spent $88,000 plus to the end of June that only resulted in a $3000 fine.

Yes, rules need to be enforced. But when so many disagreements between Council and the community ends up in front of lawyers, something’s broken.

Instead of being solved across a desk, these matters are being fought across a courtroom.

And that’s how we end up with Council spending more than $12 million on legal matters in 12 months. 

Disputes can happen. But when they escalate into legal wrangling rather than being solved face to face, the community loses twice, first in trust, and then in money.

It’s time to get serious about collaboration. Because if we can’t negotiate with our lifesavers, what hope do we have on bigger challenges?

See previous post “No lease, no answers. What is Kiama Council hiding?” for backstory

#KiamaCouncil #Gerringong #SurfLifeSaving #CommunityFirst #Accountability #Collaboration #GoodGovernance #LegalCosts #Negotiation #CivicLeadership

From Bare Floors to Barely Affording. Why Getting Rich in 1870 Was Easier Than Buying a House Today”

In 1870, the Kiama Independent ran a piece titled How to Get Rich. The advice was breathtakingly simple:

Work hard. Spend less than you earn. Save a few hundred pounds. Buy a small farm on the edge of town. Build a modest house. Marry a prudent woman (the sexism was free). Live happily ever after.

And the best part? Don’t worry about furniture. As the newspaper sternly advised, “If the average colonist can have a carpet and fine furniture without taking another man’s money to pay for them, let him have them. But if he cannot afford it, bare floors will not hurt honest men’s feet.”

In other words: buy the farm first, worry about the carpet later.

And here’s the thing, it wasn’t a joke. Back then, this advice actually worked. You could slog for a few years and end up with a farm. Land ownership was within reach of an ordinary labourer.

Fast forward to 2025, and you’d be laughed out of the bank for suggesting such a thing. Today’s version of How to Get Rich might read something like this:

Work hard. Spend less than you earn (if that’s even possible). Save for a decade while rents chew through a third of your income. Watch house prices climb faster than your wages. Cry into your smashed avo (because it wasn’t the avocado that broke the bank). Apply for a mortgage that will consume 50% of your household income. Repeat until retirement.

Here are the hard numbers:

  • The house-price-to-income ratio in Australia now sits at about 8 times annual income (9.5 times if you’re in Sydney, 10-12 times if you live in Kiama). In 1870, it was closer to 1:1.

  • It takes the average household more than 10 years just to save a deposit—and that’s without the market leaping ahead while you save.

  • If you’re lucky enough to secure a mortgage, expect half your income to vanish into loan repayments. If you’re renting, a third of your income disappears into someone else’s mortgage.

In short: in 1879  “getting rich” meant a few years of thrift and sweat, and you could end up with your own patch of dirt. Today, thrift and sweat mostly buy you the right to complain about real estate agents and doom scroll Domain listings at midnight.

The truth is, our ancestors may have lived with bare floors, but at least they could afford the walls around them. Carpets were optional. Houses weren’t.

#HousingCrisis #CostOfLiving #KiamaHistory #ThenAndNow #BareFloors #HomeOwnership #AustralianDream #LocalHistory #RealEstateReality