Thank you for the 5 Star Testimonials – Redbank Plains QLD – LJ Gilland Real Estate 🏡

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Excellent – above & beyond expectations

Linda and her team have managed our investment property from Day 1. They have been totally organized, prompt and responsive to any requests during the rental period. Excellent vetting of tenants, with proactive management of the property. 12 months ago we were ready to sell, however Linda’s guidance and advice suggested we should wait – which we did. Recently we decided to sell – that advice gained us an additional, yes additional, 60% over what we would have achieved previously. Very happy with her professionalism, knowledge & guidance.

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Carlos and I are very appreciative and thankful for your kind words. As a team, LJ Gilland Real Estate were privileged to look after your Investment Property, treating it as if it was our own. Please stay in touch with us for many more years as our relationship is more than just the long term business, it’s a loyal trusting friendship. Thank you.

https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agency/lj-gilland-real-estate/property-listings/26-daryl-reinhardt-st-redbank-plains-afxszs Guess we hit the #brisbane #channel #nine #news from #sunday 24-3-2019

#buy #buy #buy #affordable #housing #the-great #southeast #brisbane-wide #property #professionals #ljgrealestate

Please check out this #great #buy in #redbank #plains

26 Daryl Reinhardt Street, REDBANK PLAINS QLD 4301

#testimonials #property-investors #valued #landlords #referrals over 22 years #word-of-mouth #family #realestate

Rental house property management and sale.

Vendor Review – Recommended by HowardJeanelyTatters

15 Feb 2017

Ten years we had our rental property, L.J Gilland managed it, in all that time we never had a bad renter in our house because the applicants were carefully chosen. When it came time to sell, we had L J Gilland to handle the sale, they did low cost advertising because they have a large data base of investors who they contacted about our house which gave us a quick sale and at a price we were very happy with.

No hassle agency

Buyer Review – Recommended by AbidRasheed

22 Feb 2017

Very responsive, prompt and easy to deal with. Don’t try try to overdo things and quite

11 Reynolds Cl, Redbank Plains, QLD, 4301

https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/11-reynolds-cl-redbank-plains-aafwtr

https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/11-reynolds-cl-redbank-plains-aafu86.

26 Daryl Reinhardt St Redbank Plains Managed and Sold by LJ Gilland Real Estate 🏡 Est 1996
Posted in Australian Properties, HOME, infrastructure, LANDLORDS, LJ Gilland Real Estate Pty Ltd, ljgrealestate, MAINTENANCE, Property Investment, Property Law, Property Management & Sales, QUEENSLAND, TENANTS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

18 Bishop Court, Lawnton, Qld 450118 Bishop Court, Lawnton, Qld 4501

BUILT 2007, MANAGED & SOLD AT 2% BY LJ GILLAND REAL ESTATE

#soldhome #tenanted #property #propertyinvestor #landlord

ljgrealestate #fast

propertyinvestments

propertyinvestment

propertymanagement #propertymanagers #propertymarketing #competitive #commission #win #win #relationship #happyvendor #happytenant #resultdriven #gratitudeattitude LindaandCarlos Debello Linda J.姬琳达珍 Gilland (Debello) Linda-Jane 姬琳达珍 Gilland(Debello)

https://ljgilland.blogspot.com/2020/07/property-investor-testimonials.html

18 Bishop Court, Lawnton, Qld 4501 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-lawnton-133738778

LJ Gilland Real Estate has been involved with the complete Lawnton Development as Investors ourselves since inception and we have had few tenants in 18 Bishop and for example, we have had the same tenant in place at 12 Bishop since new, achieving a great comparable rent. http://ljgrealestate.com.au/property/18-bishop-court-lawnton-qld-4501/

Posted in LJ Gilland Real Estate Pty Ltd, ljgrealestate | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Australia’s ‘watergate’: here’s what taxpayers need to know about water buybacks

 

Australia’s ‘watergate’: here’s what taxpayers need to know about water buybacks

In 2017, the then agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, signed off on an A$80 million purchase of a water entitlement from a company called Eastern Australia Agriculture.

The problem is that Energy Minister Angus Taylor used to be a director of Eastern Australia Agriculture – though he didn’t have a financial interest – and the company is a liberal party donor. What’s more, the value of the water purchased for A$80 million is under question.

Now, as the election looms, this issue has resurfaced. But why should taxpayers be concerned?

Water buybacks using an open tender were halted by the current government in 2015, even though this is the most cost-effective way to set aside water for the environment. Instead, the government pronounced that subsidies for irrigators were a better deal.

Until 2015, the government bought back most water using an open tender process, before it was replaced by a subsidy scheme for irrigation and occasional closed tenders.

The problem with the closed tender process is that it tends to lack transparency, which raises questions about how effectively the government is spending public money. And it’s hard to prove closed tenders deliver the most cost effective outcome.

The Murray-Darling Basin is a very productive agricultural zone and its rivers have been used to boost agricultural outputs through irrigation.

State governments spent much of the 20th century allocating this water to agricultural users. By the 1990s it was clear too much water was being extracted. This resulted in both harm to the river environment and potential reduced reliability for those with existing water rights.

Various attempts to rein in extractions were made around this time, but ultimately the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was adopted to deal with the problem.

In agreeing on the plan, the federal government committed to spending A$13 billion to reduce the amount of water being extracted from the Murray-Darling Basin. To accomplish this the government has two basic strategies.

One involves buying up existing rights for water use. The other hinges on using subsidies so farmers use less water when irrigating.

Reducing water extraction from the basin

The second approach of using subsidies is generally more politically appealing. This is because few farmers ever object to receiving a subsidy and the public has an affinity with the idea of “saving” water.

The problem, however, is that subsidies are a more costly way of returning water to the river system than simply buying back existing water rights. And so-called water savings are hard to measure how much water savings are a result of subsidies or some other factor.

This is why some analysts even claim subsidies are reducing the level of water available for the environment.

Buying back water rights is generally more cost-effective than providing subsidies. But a clear and transparant process still matters because water rights are not the same for everyone and it’s a complex process to determine their overall value.

Allocations and entitlements

First, most water users hold a legal right, known as an entitlement. Water entitlements represent the long-term amount of water that can be taken and used – subject to rain, of course.

Second, water allocations represent the amount of water currently available against a given entitlement – this is the water that is available now.

If a farmer owns an entitlement in the River Murray, chances are the annual allocation will be determined by how much water has flowed into upstream storages like Hume Dam, Dartmouth Dam or Lake Eildon.

Even then the allocation will vary, depending on which state issued the original entitlement. For instance, New South Wales water is generally allocated more aggressively. This means NSW entitlements tend to be less reliable in dry years than Victorian or South Australian entitlements.

If a farmer owns an entitlement where there are no upstream storages, as is the case with much of the Darling River system, then the allocation will vary depending on how much water is flowing in the river.

So what?

All of this means the amount of water that can actually be used for the environment when an entitlement passes to the government will depend heavily on the underlying characteristics of the water right.

Partly for this reason, water buybacks were historically conducted using an open tender process.

This meant the government would announce its willingness to buy water entitlements. Farmers would then notify the government about what entitlements they held and the price they were prepared to take.

Running an open tender allowed the government to assess the value for money of the different entitlements on offer at the time.

Water buybacks through open tender began seriously in about 2007 to 2008. This meant the price owners were prepared to sell for would be registered, and then the government would determine which offer provided the best value. Around 60% of all water now held for the environment by the Commonwealth was secured through open tenders.

As a general rule, a relatively high-reliability water entitlement was bought for about $2,000 per megalitre and this has become the metric for many in the market. But the current government halted this process in 2015.

Now, the government buys water through direct negotiation with water-entitlement holders.

The government justified ending open-tender buybacks on the basis that the water being secured was causing undue harm to rural and regional communities. And, instead, much more expensive subsidies would supposedly generate a better overall return.

This view is not universally shared. The receipts from openly tendered water entitlements were being used by many farmers to adjust their business, while still staying in the region.

Many rural communities continue to thrive, regardless of the strategy chosen to secure water for the environment. Subsidies also tend to favour particular irrigators rather than the community in general.

Having set aside the cheapest option of open-tender buybacks and declaring support for irrigation subsidies, the problem the government now faces is that it must explain why closed tenders persisted (albeit in isolated cases) and were signed off by Ministers as good value for money.

Closed tenders need not deliver a poor outcome for taxpayers. But it does mean the likelihood of establishing the best value for money is reduced, simply because there are fewer reference points.

And if it’s legitimate to overspend public money on irrigation infrastructure subsidies, the credibility of a supposedly cost-effective closed tender is also brought into question.

Economics and Head of School, University of South Australia

Disclosure statement

Professor Lin Crase is the South Australian branch president of the Australasian Agriculture and Resource Economics Society.

Partners

University of South Australia provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

http://theconversation.com/australias-watergate-heres-what-taxpayers-need-to-know-about-water-buybacks-115838

Posted in Australian Properties, Empowerment, Foreign Investment, HOME, infrastructure, Interest Rates & Global Economy, LANDLORDS, ljgrealestate, MAINTENANCE, Property Investment, Property Law, Property Management & Sales, QUEENSLAND, sino australia investment, TENANTS | Tagged | 1 Comment

Quarterly rents have increased across all capital cities, bar Sydney and Darwin.

Brisbane rents are starting to climb again, with Brisbane now having a median weekly rent of $436. This is an increase of 0.8 per cent over the past quarter, and 1.4 per cent over the past 12 months.

ljgrealestate

At a glance:

  • CoreLogic has released its first Quarterly Rental Review for 2019, showing rents have risen by 1 per cent during the first three months of this year.
  • Sydney is the most expensive capital city to rent with a median weekly rent of $582 per week, while Perth is the cheapest at $385.
  • Quarterly rents have increased across all capital cities, bar Darwin and Sydney.

The first CoreLogic Quarterly Rental Review for 2019, which tracks median rents and rental yields across Australia, shows that national weekly rents have risen by 1 per cent during the first three months of the year.

“This seasonally strong first quarter has delivered the highest increase in weekly rents since the corresponding first quarter a year ago”, says Cameron Kusher, Research Analyst for CoreLogic. “Our regional housing markets are performing marginally better than the capital cities, many of which have been experiencing weaker rental…

View original post 1,862 more words

Posted in Empowerment, HOME, infrastructure, LANDLORDS, LJ Gilland Real Estate Pty Ltd, ljgrealestate, Property Investment, Property Management & Sales, QUEENSLAND, TENANTS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A draft GST legislative determination has been made to provide the acceptable methods for valuing real property so that the supplier can use the margin scheme to calculate the amount of GST payable.

A draft GST legislative determination has been made to provide the acceptable methods for valuing real property so that the supplier can use the margin scheme to calculate the amount of GST payable.

ljgrealestate

A draft GSTlegislative determinationhas been made to provide the acceptable methods for valuing real property so that the supplier can use the margin scheme to calculate the amount of GST payable.

DraftA New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Margin Scheme Valuation Requirements Determination 2022(LI 2022/D14) repealsA New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Margin Scheme Valuation Requirements Determination 2020(F2020L00346) but is substantially the same. The determination specifies the requirements for making valuations to apply the margin scheme in Div75of the GST Act. The requirements apply to valuations for taxable supplies of real property made on or after 1 March 2010.

Source:A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Margin Scheme Valuation Requirements Determination 2022(LI 2022/D14), ATO Legal Database, 14 September 2022, accessed 14 September 2022.

View original post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

14 September, 2022 09:49

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2022/09/14/housing-crisis-rents/

Sent from Mail for Windows

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Brisbane is also tanking, as we warned it would, overtaking Melbourne with a chunky 1.3% loss over the last 25 days. Melbourne home values have shrunk another 0.9% in the first few weeks of August. Since their recent peaks, Brisbane and Melbourne’s dwelling values have fallen more than 2.5% and 4.3%, respectively. 

ljgrealestate

Sydney prices are on track for another, truly massive, circa 2% per month decline according to CoreLogic data. They fell 2.2% in July, the worst outcome in around 40 years, and have slumped another 1.7% in the first 25 days of August alone. Sydney housing has now lost more than 7% of its value since its recent peak.

Brisbane is also tanking, as we warned it would, overtaking Melbourne with a chunky 1.3% loss over the last 25 days. Melbourne home values have shrunk another 0.9% in the first few weeks of August. Since their recent peaks, Brisbane and Melbourne’s dwelling values have fallen more than 2.5% and 4.3%, respectively.

Across Australia’s 5 largest capital cities, the national index has fallen by a hefty 1.2% in August, and is off more than 4.0% from its recent highs. At this rate, Aussie capital city prices will have lost more than 7%…

View original post 168 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Brisbane recorded the strongest increase in unit rents, rising 4.4% over the three months to July

https://ljgillandrealestate.wordpress.com/2022/08/27/brisbane-recorded-the-strongest-increase-in-unit-rents-rising-4-4-over-the-three-months-to-july/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Builder’s warranties – Mind the gap

Builders are often surprised when we explain to them that the statutory warranty they have to give for domestic building work (generally lasting 10 years from the issue of the occupancy permit and an extended 15 years for combustible cladding) only applies between the builder and its clients, and that there is no ‘automatic’ corresponding warranty given to the builder by the subcontractors they engage for that work.

That is because the Domestic Building and Contracts Act 1995 (DBCA) is concerned with consumer protection. It imposes warranties on the builder in favour of consumers that it will carry out domestic building work in a proper and workmanlike manner, that the materials it uses are good and suitable for purpose, that it will comply with all legal requirements and regulations and that the work will be carried out with reasonable care and skill. These are warranties that cannot be avoided.

For their part, subcontractors will attempt to limit their liability or restrict the warranties they give for the work done or materials supplied as much as commercially possible.

Any limitations on liability that are agreed to between the builder and subcontractor will be upheld, absent ambiguity in the contract. If there are no such terms the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 will apply to prevent contractual claims from being brought after 6 years from the date on which the cause of action ‘accrues’ (generally, the date when the defective work was done regardless of when it first comes to the attention of the builder, except in the case of negligence).

That can leave a builder exposed to any gap between the time limit they have to sue a subcontractor for defective work (ie. 6 years), and the statutory warranty imposed on the builder for that same work (ie .10 or 15 years).

For that reason, it is critical that builders review the terms of the contracts they enter into with their trades and suppliers to ensure that they can hold their subcontractors liable for defective work, for the full period of the builder’s statutory warranty to their clients, or that they are at least aware of the risk of any shortfall and have accounted for it.

Posted in Australian Properties, LJ Gilland Real Estate Pty Ltd, ljgrealestate | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Check this out – Is there a ‘buy the dip’ moment coming for the Australian property market? – Chris Conway | L ivewire

Is there a ‘buy the dip’ moment coming for the Australian property market? – Chris Conway | Livewire
https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/is-there-a-buy-the-dip-moment-coming-for-the-australian-property-market

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Don’t build outside the lines!.

I thought you might be interested in this article on Lexology: Don’t build outside the lines!.

You can access the article for free using this link: https://www.lexology.com/r.ashx?l=9TSJ27U

Lexology.com – legal intelligence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Inflation outstripping rental growth: research report

https://www.reiq.com/articles/inflation-outstripping-rental-growth-research-report/

Sent from Mail for Windows

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

16 August, 2022 12:15

https://www.reiq.com/articles/queenslands-rental-reforms-what-you-need-to-know/

Sent from Mail for Windows

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why China should have a crack at Taiwan in the short-term…

For years we have gamed through these scenarios and exactly what we would do in the event kinetic conflict materialised. This has also involved deeper analysis of the real empirical risks.https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/why-china-should-have-a-crack-at-taiwan-in-the-short-term?utm_campaign=8493&utm_medium=wire-page-share&utm_source=email&utm_content=why-china-should-have-a-crack-at-taiwan-in-the-short-term

Sent from Mail for Windows

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment