Are The Greens Living In The Real World?

I don't like political parties, any of them - lets get that one out of the way. I think that they are self-protectionist and put their own needs above those whom they are supposed to ultimately serve,that is the electorate - not their members.

Having said that, the more I watch them, the more I wonder if the Greens are living in the real world at all - or understand the way things work in that most beloved of their sacred cows - the planning system.

Aside from the fact that they are propping up the most despised government that I can ever remember - for which I am sure the electorate will get the chance to show their gratitude in time - they have recently come out with two beauties concerning planning.

Now planning is a very contentious issue and what I might not like, is another mans' bread and butter. But aside from your personal preferences, where are they coming from by thinking that (a) de-zoning land and or (b) a windfall tax, will reverse the ridiculous prices that have been demanded for land and houses in the last decade.

Firstly, there is a very strong argument to say that a shortage of zoned land has contributed to the cost of land and that de-zoning land will exacerbate this, increasing prices even more. Now I'm not talking about small towns that have had stupid re-zonings for thousands of homes in areas with no services or public transport etc. I'm talking about supply and demand. If there is a demand for houses in an area, then restricting the availability of zoned land would make that land more expensive surely.

Secondly, the imposition of a windfall tax on developers as proposed by the Greens in order to make NAMA more saleable to their members, will simply, rightly or wrongly, be added onto the price for the eventual end-buyer - be that a first-time buyer or anyone else. That's the way commerce works. If it costs more to deliver; it costs more to buy.

So despite the best of intentions (I am sure) I do not believe that either of those two approaches would deliver the desired results for the Greens. It's a case of unintended consequences: sometimes, the very interventions you make to prevent something, actually cause the problem you were trying to solve, to become worse.

How can reducing the supply of land and increasing the cost of delivering houses do anything other than contribute to increasing the cost providing and buying houses in the future. Maybe I'm mis-understanding it?