+

Answer Overview

Response rates from 222 Auburn voters.

56%
Yes
44%
No
56%
Yes
44%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 222 Auburn voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 222 Auburn voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Auburn voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9LPB4H8answered…10mos10MO

Yes but other infrastructure such as public transport, roads, parking and healthcare etc need to be able to support this

 @B2KD52Hanswered…1wk1W

Yes but in order to they need to improve infrastructure and transportation, while also keeping green spaces in mind

 @B2HM86Z answered…2wks2W

No, there should be more family based houses at an affordable price for the lower tax brackets, rather than expensive apartments that nobody wants

 @9ZM933Ganswered…3mos3MO

Do you want to look like China? High density housing is terrible for the mental health of people who are already struggling. High density building of residential or corporate should be minimised EVERYWHERE! in australia

 @9YLH5TZ answered…3mos3MO

Yes, as long as building legislation includes provision for a minimum amount of greenspace around the residential properties

 @9YL3RSCanswered…3mos3MO

A clear assessment of the troubles with housing combined with sustainable solutions is importsntnin consideration of policy.

 @9Y3YFYZanswered…3mos3MO

Construction should be well planned and appropriate land given up for development by the federal government. The population should be kept stable to stop required development.

 @9X9TVMBanswered…3mos3MO

Yes, and introduce legislation ensuring individuals and businesses cannot purchase it all just to rent out to others.