iscover
iscover 
What’s being referred to as the “view tax” will see the Gold Coast City Council charge larger rates for those living on higher floors of apartments in the city.
Those living on floors 40 plus will see rate increases of 40 per cent to 50 per cent. Those between floors 21 and 40 can expect 30 per cent to 40 per cent increases, 11–20 up by 20 per cent to 30 per cent, and those on floors 5–10 up 10 per cent to 20 per cent.
REIQ CEO Antonia Mercorella has called the decision “nonsensical” and could detriment the state’s housing crisis.
“Colloquially known as a ‘view tax’ but certainly not commonplace in Queensland, this is an arbitrary way of raising rates masked as creating greater equity. It’s concerning when you consider we’re all hoping that greater density by ‘building up’ will be part of the solution to our state’s housing crisis,” Mercorella said.
“People are choosing apartment living over freestanding houses largely due to greater affordability and access to shared facilities. They would never have guessed that buying on the 21st floor as opposed to the 20th floor, for example, would come with ongoing penalties.”
She continued: “It’s nonsensical for a council to assign a derived value capture for views. Views are not public infrastructure that the local government provides which they can seek a return on investment – it’s the natural environment.”
Further, architect Lucas Christopher has dubbed the decision “un-Australian”: “Labor’s cost-of-living crisis and expanding black hole in the Treasury has led many to believe that they’ll soon be taxing the air. After all, what is ‘carbon tax’ but a tax on the building blocks of life?
“What no one expected was for a local council to leap straight over carbon and instead impose a tax on … the view. Did you work hard, make sacrifices, and save up for a beach vista? Joke’s on you!”
Speaking to ABC News, division 9 councillor Glenn Tozer said the changes are in the name of fairness.
“When you take the full city into account, there is no reason I can think of that a penthouse owner should pay exactly the same as a ground floor unit, that’s not a fair model.”
“I appreciate there is definitely going to be property owners in high-rises that will be frustrated ... but the premise that a person living in a $2 million, $3 million, $5 million penthouse should pay exactly the same rates on the ground floor unit isn’t a fair model,” Tozer said.
“People living in more expensive apartments pay a little bit more than people living in a ground floor unit and frankly, I think it’s the right thing to do.”
Mercorella argued that apartments are more efficient on government intervention as the shared facilities allow for greater efficiency.
“If anything, given apartments share facilities, they are often more efficient and less taxing on council services such as roads, sewage, water and rubbish collection,” she said.
“We appreciate that generally speaking, elevation can attract a premium price at the time of sale, particularly when the penthouse is concerned, noting that unless you sell, this value isn’t realised. However, ultimately the market will determine the value which will take into account numerous factors unique to that apartment building and the apartment itself.
“We’re curious to see how these floor tiers and rates categories were calculated, and whether the research stacks up against their perceived value tiers. We caution councils that unexpected and unfair rate hikes based on formulas plucked from the air can erode the trust and confidence of buyers and the home owners who are your constituents – property owners are not a bottomless money pit,” Mercorella said.
[Related: REIQ unveils 6-point plan for housing reform]
ISCOVER 
