Explaining the Ground Lease Model
The Queensland State Government has recently released their Homes for Queenslanders strategy, containing a suite of bold policies to deliver housing for all. In this article, we ask: What is the ground lease model? And could it catalyse a change to Queensland’s housing approach. Vacant state land provides a blank canvas to solve the Housing Crisis.
Queensland’s State Government has set a target of 53,500 social homes to be constructed by 2046. Beyond just numbers, it is important that these homes are near schools, hospitals, employment, transport and other foundational aspects of strong communities, that liberate residents to enjoy stable housing, inclusive community and participation.
So how do we do it?
One initiative unveiled by the State Government, labelled the ‘Ground Lease Model’ may play a central role in the achievement of these aspirational targets. This policy involves freeing up vacant State Government owned land to be used for social and affordable housing. Public land, used for the public good. It is such a simple, yet logical policy to ensure well-located housing for our key workers and those most vulnerable.
How will it work?
Queensland is not the first state to embark on this policy. Using the Victorian implementation of the model, publicly owned land is leased to a not-for-profit project group (e.g. Community Housing Provider) for a period of 40 years, for the purposes of delivering and managing social and affordable housing, which is government-funded. At the end of this period, land returns to the government, ensuring housing delivery without selling off assets.
Victoria’s approach focused largely on redeveloping existing, rundown public housing sites. As much as this will deliver a greater amount of social housing, it also displaced residents in the process, which is particularly precarious when concerning vulnerable residents, in a housing crisis.
How will this look?
In Queensland, the implementation is likely to look quite different. The government appear to be focused on vacant, well-located sites, citing that there are 500 government-owned sites suitable for future housing. The full list is unknown, with sites adjoining rail stations at Mango Hill and Varsity Lakes earmarked as likely pilots. Take this site at Varsity Lakes for example, there is over 6ha of land, ripe to be repurposed for housing.
Beyond retrofitting vacant state owned land, could this herald a rethink to how social and affordable housing is delivered in Queensland. Many of these vacant sites are lauded for their proximity to rail and education, but could we embed housing when these projects first occur? When we are building new rail and busway infrastructure, could land allocated to vast park n rides be better utilised for housing density, in prime locations.
Similarly, as we struggle in the delivery of affordable housing for key workers, including teachers and nurses, housing should be considered in the delivery of new public schools and hospitals.
This could create a more holistic precinct outcome, ensuring that teachers and nurses can live proximate to their workplace, people with mobility impairments can live near transport, and vulnerable populations have easy access to services and support.
Stability of housing for all should be the guiding principle for Queensland’s social housing delivery. The ground lease model is a logical policy, with enormous potential to deliver social and affordable homes in communities with existing resources and infrastructure. We implore the State Government to be bold in their implementation, and re-think infrastructure delivery so that we not only deliver housing up-front with education, transport and hospitals, but also consider housing a vital form of community infrastructure.
Jefferson Union High School, located in San Francisco, constructed 122 units on a vacant parcel adjacent to the school for staff and teachers at below-market rents. The project was aimed at ensuring the school could continue to attract teachers, and that staff didn’t have to endure long commutes given the unaffordability of the area.
