Supply is definitely part of the equation, no doubt about it. Relaxing zoning and land-use regulations is necessary but, IMHO, not sufficient. More radical step

Supply is definitely part of the equation, no doubt about it. Relaxing zoning and land-use regulations is necessary but, IMHO, not sufficient. More radical steps need to be taken, like the introduction of a land-value tax and repeal of stamp duty (Canberra has done this, albeit phased in over the next 15 years or so). This would: - Stop developers from 'land banking'. They would either have to put the land to use (e.g. build an apartment building, thus increasing supply) or sell the land to someone who will. - Reduce 'speculative vacancies' (properties that are purchased and then left vacant). Prosper Australia (a Georgist non-profit) estimated vacancies in Melbourne (in 2014) by examining water use data. They found that 1.45% of non-advertised residential stock was demonstrably vacant (0L water use per day). This would mean the actual vacancy rate was 8.3%. They also found that 4.8% were likely vacant (residences with below 50Lpd usage, when the average usage is 160Lpd). Which would equate to a vacancy rate of 18.9%! [1] - Obviously, an LVT would make vacant possession much more costly, and financially infeasible in some cases (although my assumption is that a decent proportion of these are financed by hot money flows out of China). And the removal of stamp duty would effectively result in additional supply on the market, as it would remove the disincentive for people to efficiently reallocate to appropriately sized homes. And fair enough re: immigration. You make perfectly valid points, and if your own experience of it is positive then that's obviously a good thing. Just as an aside: usually people cite "the need to support our ageing population" as their reason for preferring high immigration, even though the Productivity Commission has stated in three separate reports that this view has no real merit (simply put, because immigrants also age). However, I would still contend that, in aggregate, our current net inwards migration numbers aren't sustainable (and haven't been for a while).[2][3][4] For me, it's nothing against immigrants, and certainly nothing to do with race, religion or creed. It's simply a numbers issue. Not just in terms of housing demand, but also in terms of increasingly constrained infrastructure and education services. I think we need a bit of breathing space so we can catch up (or more competent politicians). Regardless, on the demand side, I think the bigger issue is our messed up tax system and the (mal)incentives it creates to invest in housing (or, as they say, 'equity maaate'). And I think your financial strategy is extremely sensible (perhaps, dare I say, optimal). It's the exact same strategy that's used by most 'housing bears' that I know. It's what I should be doing too, but I'm sorta lazy :) EDIT: Oh, and the decoupling of rent and prices is one of the reasons I think there's a bubble in property. People make investments to earn a return. The fact that super low rental yields haven't deterred property investment suggests that people are investing to chase capital gains, under the conventional wisdom that 'house prices never go down'. This is the textbook definition of speculative investment. [1] https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/11Final_Speculative-Vacancies-2015-1.pdf https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/11Fina... [2] http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ScreenHunter_17403-Feb.-13-11.51-660x465.jpg http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/S... [3] https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Australian-population-change.jpg https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/... [4] http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ScreenHunter_17401-Feb.-13-11.51-660x489.jpg http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/S...