r/interesting • u/Wonderfulhumanss • 4d ago

SOCIETY The Zammit family refused to sell their five acre property as an entire Sydney suburb was built around them

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

66.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

5.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

823

u/seandavisaus 4d ago

I drive past this everyday.

The big developer in that area called Bathla just went bankrupt.

So Zero chance they will get that money again.

433

u/Va1kryie 4d ago

Doesn't really seem like they want it

156

u/PailingRaint 4d ago

Tbh they probably own other houses and barely live at this one, if they live there at all. They could very literally just be using their F U money for its intended purpose.

110

u/DukeKazoo 4d ago

This is an area of Sydney which was (comparatively) dirt cheap even 15 years ago. They have apparently owned the plot for several generations so they’re not necessarily particularly wealthy. The combination of Sydney’s urban sprawl and a large property development project has caused the land to increase exponentially in value.

69

u/Alarmed-Newspaper994 4d ago

This sort of thing happens a lot in the UK. Generational homes dating back hundreds of years that are worth an absolute fortune are lived in and owned by some relatively poor people. It's a weird situation, where they could simply downsize and have loads of money, but they refuse and just live frugally in a 12 bedroom Georgian mansion.

Basically people living on something like £50k a year in a £10 000 000 house where £25k of their income goes on bills.

32

u/domalino 4d ago

It's usually because they're upper class descendants of aristocracy and to sell the house would be shameful socially, both in terms of the social status of the living family and for selling off something that's been in the family for 250+ years. So they end up cash poor and asset rich.

Plenty of them do sell up eventually, and sometimes someone in the family does well for themselves and then has the money to get back on top of things.

29

u/MindCorrupt 4d ago

Have they considered growing copious amounts of weed under their estate?

1

u/Significant_Shoe_17 3d ago

I was just going to say that 😂

1

u/Tanner-C 18h ago

I absolutely love that movie, the show was kinda meh for me though.🤷‍♂️

3

u/CocoMilhonez 4d ago

This kind of thing often ends when the patriarch dies and the kids are all eager to cash out. My parents have bought land from a farm that was split up like that and I often think about how I could split that into housing lots when I eventually inherit it.

2

u/Fucker_Of_Destiny 12h ago

Tbf it is pretty shameful to let down so many generations and piss away everything your ancestors worked for. Shows an absolute lack of sense of duty

Also some times they don’t technically own it because they’re held in trusts

1

u/GavLaIndustries 4d ago

I visited Erddig Hall in Wrexham, Wales, UK last summer, it's a unique, late 17th-century country estate with a grand stately home, the last guy that owned it was so skint that he gave it all away, the entire estate, the house, 1,200 acres of land and all it's contents for free in 1973.

2

u/domalino 4d ago edited 4d ago

That happened a lot after both world wars which were kind of apocalyptic events for the landed gentry. Taxes (esp inheritance tax) went through the roof just as loads of people were dying in the war, labour to work the land all went to war, and the bond and stock markets collapsed.

0

u/Liquid_Friction 4d ago

Nah this is called the middle class here lol, there are so many of these situations it can't be decendants of aristocracy there wasn't that many aristocrats and they had much much bigger castles than a lowly mansion.

1

u/domalino 4d ago

No one middle class has ever lived in a £10m house.

1

u/Liquid_Friction 4d ago

I guess you don't live in Sydney then.

Every second home is worth millions, a big portion were all inherited. We are one of the youngest countries, our land was worth nothing only 1 generation ago

1

u/nimbledoor 4d ago

This make me really happy. People giving the finger to money when they have enough.

1

u/Ardal 4d ago

Generational homes dating back hundreds of years

You answered your own observation here.

1

u/Alarmed-Newspaper994 12h ago

I'm not following your logic

1

u/lumpkin2013 4d ago

Well at least they have an asset to pass down through the generations. If they did cash out, the money would be gone within a generation or two and then the younger members of the generation would be stuck in the same hole that Gen z is right now never being able to buy a house.

1

u/Navin__R__Johnson 3d ago

Yes, keep doing this! If everyone sells out, it looks like that Sydney shit!

1

u/DemiseofReality 3d ago

Yeah I heard that can be an issue on those huge Victorian estates out in the countryside. 150 years ago they were ripe with farming, livestock, horses, etc. on potentially hundreds to thousands of acres but now you have said 12 room mansion with broken windows that would take a years' salary of the sole owner to replace. The land doesn't produce anymore and the house would take millions of pounds to renovate to proper modern standards. But the owner can't do anything about it because they can't take a loan against the tens of millions they have in wealth because of their income is too low.

3

u/EconomicRegret2 4d ago

As a European, I find this urban design extremely wild. Why not concentrate all of that in 3-5 storey buildings, with 2-3 family flats per floor, thus leaving way more space in the community for everyone to meet and mingle, such as in a big park, a big playground, and a big swimming pool, etc.?

3

u/strategicmagpie 4d ago

It's the Sydney suburban sprawl special!

Real answer: Sydney has restrictive zoning laws that limit the height and capacity of dwellings (≤2 storeys, ≤2 dwellings per lot), so the only way to build new homes is to redevelop apartments in areas with high density, or deforest land at the edge of sydney and turn it into what you see in the post above. It's depressing and unnatural. The better parts of Sydney are those originally developed in the early 1900s or before.

1

u/MindCorrupt 4d ago

The problem is a lot of people want a backyard.

And on the flip side, people who could do without having one are often not catered for in size of apartments which are rarely big enough for a family. Or it's just not worth having to deal with the Strata title.

1

u/EconomicRegret2 4d ago

Fair enough

Countries with denser population have solved these issues, probably due to way higher demand and cultural acceptance of apartments as a normal way to live, even for families (e.g. a certain percentage of all builds being big family units, outsourcing strata title to a non-profit company specialized in dealing with it, thus making it easier and cheaper for everyone involved, etc.)

1

u/Wanderer-91 4d ago

The problem is a lot of people want a backyard.

Why is this a problem?

1

u/MindCorrupt 3d ago

Regarding low density urban sprawl. Not a problem itself but creates interesting problems regarding public amenities like transport / business districts etc. Because the majority of the users are mostly dependent on accessing it by car.

Example where im from - Perth, WA. Check north and south of the river.

2

u/AvrupaFatihi 4d ago

It's so far out, can you even call it Sydney?

1

u/whatever--idk 4d ago

Well they would be paying insane land rates now wouldnt they, so they would need to have proper money behind them to keep living there

1

u/vadeka 4d ago

Land aside, the house on it doesn’t really strike me as being owned by “normal income”

1

u/campground 4d ago

You have to be pretty wealthy to voluntarily choose to leave millions of dollars on the table, not to mention the upkeep and property taxes.

1

u/Rough-Improvement-24 3d ago

They are immigrants, probably for not more than a hundred years. So unlikely they owed the property for "several generations" - at most 1 or 2?

1

u/dudepappy 19h ago

Increased taxes , you mean… doesn’t have value until you sell… the “increased value” is slowly killing them

1

u/Designer_Bell_5422 4d ago

I mean, that looks like a fairly new build, and it's massive. They must have a good amount of money.

0

u/Beware-of-Moose 4d ago

They likely owned the land around it as well at some point, sold that for a couple hundred million, built the house they "live" in now and bought some other properties along the way.

133

u/GalcticPepsi 4d ago edited 4d ago

Work with their son, they live there and are just well off from working hard. Up at like 4am every day finish work at like 7pm And the comment above you is correct, they don't care and don't want to leave their family home.

62

u/Goatknyght 4d ago

If you have to get up at 4am and return home at 7pm, that ain't living unless you really, and I mean REALLY love that job.

32

u/GalcticPepsi 4d ago

Yupp they sure do :)

5

u/TrashPandaPandaPanda 4d ago

Well now I'm curious what they do that's so fulfilling!

10

u/GalcticPepsi 4d ago

They're old school maltese so work in itself is the fullfillment

3

u/petroleum-lipstick 4d ago

What does that even mean lmao

1

u/pigeonholedpoetry 3d ago

They don’t get enjoyment from scrolling through Reddit all day complaining.

2

u/whatever--idk 4d ago

Explains a lot

1

u/AssociationPrevious 4d ago

Oh, that explains the lack of threes

1

u/At-this-point-manafx 3d ago

Knew they were Maltese from the surname, how long has the family been in that area? Cause most of our people left in the 40/50s/60s

4

u/NotInTheKnee 4d ago

Golfing and dinning with investors.

1

u/Equal_Oil_9819 4d ago

CEO of Orphan Killing factory

1

u/Goatknyght 4d ago

Glad to hear that at least haha

9

u/DenverCoderIX 4d ago

I do that for minimum wage in Spain and I hate my job.

You are right, it is not living.

1

u/Billyjamesjeff 4d ago

I'm sure they own their businesses.

12

u/roYBzdC9yUqMe9coSsp8 4d ago

Remember, the only way to "work hard" is to work 30 hours per day

2

u/dm80x86 4d ago

And that's just to mow the grass! /s

2

u/Jumpy-Jello- 4d ago

Could sell an acre at least and live comfortably.

2

u/LordBlackadder92 4d ago

Do you know why they don't grow any trees?

2

u/velvetvagine 4d ago

Do you have any idea why they don’t do more with the space than grass? (Serious question)

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago edited 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/the_wren 4d ago

Ask them why they hate trees so much.

1

u/Rizzanthrope 4d ago

Are they related to the Sydney podcaster Joel Zammit? The Sanspants Radio guy? One of their popular podcasts is called Plumbing the Deathstar https://www.sanspantsradio.com/presenters/joel-l-zammit/

2

u/At-this-point-manafx 3d ago

Wouldn't bet on it Zammit is a very popular Maltese surname

1

u/iloovehugecock 4d ago

Tell them to plant some plants and trees then for goodness sake!

1

u/nimbledoor 4d ago

is their job taking care of that giant-ass lawn?

1

u/Glittering_Meet3206 4d ago

this brings me joy

0

u/Donna_Hawthorne 4d ago

Mmm I'm putting my money on well off because they flogged their cow paddocks to a succession of developers. All these people going 'it's a grazing property'...pffft it's 5 acres. The other 95 acres was probably grazing. 5 acres is enough for maybe two or three cows full time.

2

u/Va1kryie 4d ago

What makes you assume that?

1

u/PailingRaint 4d ago

People this rich rarely ever own just one house.

5

u/Va1kryie 4d ago

Maybe it's cause I'm from a rural area but I know plenty of folks who have a single house about that size who are definitely well off but are by no means rich.

1

u/PailingRaint 4d ago

That area doesn't look very rural to me, on account of the several hundred something houses surrounding it. Could be wrong, though.

9

u/Va1kryie 4d ago

You do realise that the natural progression of metropolitan development is to slowly absorb surrounding rural areas as a natural consequence of the growing population right? I've watched so many of these housing developments overtake areas that were previously essentially rural.

0

u/PailingRaint 4d ago

I think your definition of rural and my definition of rural are two completely different definitions, then.

2

u/Va1kryie 4d ago

I'm more pointing out that that house isn't really something that points to any sort of existing immense wealth, my parents built a house on $600k of mixed savings and loans (it was supposed to be a little over half that but some stuff got out of hand) and this house seems similarly sized. We were definitely pretty well off but we were by no means rich.

2

u/MobiusLoopd 4d ago

it's pretty far out on the outskirts of Sydney. It's about 40kms away from the city so about an hour drive to get into the city using paid motorways.

1

u/PailingRaint 4d ago

I mean, I'm not Australian, so maybe I don't understand, but is the Aussie definition of rural being an hour out from the nearest major metropolitan area? Because, to me, rural means being thirty+ minutes away from the nearest store and seeing more cows than people on the way there.

2

u/MobiusLoopd 4d ago

You have to remember that most of the Australian population lives on the east coast between Melbourne and Brisbane. So along this part, there's rarely anything that's 30min+ to the nearest store unless you go inland.

This area is not known for affluent families, it only developed due to Australians wanting large (by global standards) detached houses so Sydney had to expand in land. Traditionally the land in the area was really not expensive to purchase and before covid, building was relatively cheap to accomplish.

If I had to put a figure on how much the family spent on the land and home, I'd estimate it cost them under 1m AUD after inflation today. In contrast, detached houses in Sydney average almost 2m or more. Even the neighbouring houses you see in the photos would sell for 1.5m+ despite being on a plot of land 1/50th the land.

2

u/DimensionOwn8531 4d ago

My parents own a rural patch (3 acres) of land in Brazil that was about 20 minutes from the city, it was our house growing up, we were constantly surrounded by farms. (No, we are not rich)
Nowadays a few of the farms around us got sold and are being made into plots. We are just 1 small farm away to end up the same way.

-1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

2

u/LonelyTAA 4d ago

Maybe read better before replying

0

u/Va1kryie 4d ago

Where's the 2nd house??

1

u/Ancient-Emu-8293 4d ago

Now it's F U without the money. I like it.

1

u/NotAnotherFakeNamer 4d ago

I wonder if they will eventually sell it and the city will make a much needed park.

1

u/Sofa47 4d ago

With a house that big I don’t think they need it. They look like they’re doing just fine.

1

u/ADTstocks 2d ago

Just petty and stubborn lmao yet they can sell and get a wayyy better property….so stupid

0

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Va1kryie 4d ago

Por que no los dos?

34

u/boxjellyfishing 4d ago edited 3d ago

I don't see why that matters.

When they are ready, some developer, somewhere will be interested.

5

u/Different_Bridge_983 4d ago

It’s been a while since I saw this in depth, but IIRC the original developer was offering so much because they needed the land to install roads and services that would let them develop additional plots further away from the main road access.

IIRC The developer knew this at the start but fucked up and assuming they’d be able to buy the land built up all the houses around it before it became clear the owners weren’t selling, making the land even more critical for the overall site plan.

4

u/theGoddamnAlgorath 4d ago

That's kinda funny.

33

u/fidddlydiddlyee 4d ago

It seems they dont care about the money.

22

u/seandavisaus 4d ago

The owner doesn't but his kids do. He just wants to live in peace for the next 6 years before he moves to south of Campbeltown

3

u/WarzoneGringo 4d ago

I mean, looking at the property it could be split among the heirs and they could all still make out bandits while leaving plenty to live on.

0

u/miyabi0rochas 4d ago

Ye until you realise how often this goes wrong and breaks up the family

1

u/SpinoHawk097 23h ago

Is this the justification boomers make for cashing in on family land that managed to be in their family for generations prior

1

u/miyabi0rochas 21h ago

I have no clue what you're saying. I said people fight all the time when inheritance is passed on

13

u/_lippykid 4d ago

Wish they cared about landscaping

2

u/Prestigious-Fan-6751 4d ago

They could buy 10 ugly McMansions anywhere in Australia but for some reason they stubbornly cling to this hellscape

40

u/seandavisaus 4d ago

They were originally offered high amount but because of the government tax policy the price of property has stalled a big in Sydney so they won't be getting as much as a year go.

41

u/grimeyduck 4d ago

You just fly through life never reading what you wrote?

22

u/urzayci 4d ago

Some people's goals are too grandiose to waste time on the little things in life, like being coherent.

9

u/davvblack 4d ago

yea but the money in the future will be less

1

u/VizJosh 4d ago

That’s the Australian accent, mate.

1

u/Nicodemus888 4d ago

Gotta respect the chaotic energy there

1

u/Working_Peanut5273 4d ago

It’s a single letter that’s wrong dude. Chill

2

u/OiledUpThug 4d ago

a letter, a missing word, and a couple of commas

1

u/AntonioVivaldi7 4d ago

But the property value will probably pick up sooner or later, no? Like if not soon, then in 10-20-50 years or whatever.

0

u/Sweetreg 4d ago

They won't be getting anything, ever, no one will buy that now

1

u/whatever--idk 4d ago

Why wouldnt they?

0

u/enderwiggin83 3d ago

If that is their ppor they will still be able to sell it without getting wacked by the new changes to cap gains and, and despite reduced interest the builders and investeors won't get wacked either because it will be new builds. If you fit 50 houses into the 5 acre block that's maybe $50 million

6

u/searchlinkprofile 4d ago

zero chance Bathla will get any land again 👌

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

3

u/maxman162 4d ago

Looks like they have a gate.

1

u/Awake_b4_Sunrise 4d ago

Is that grass still in pristine condition? Did they plant any trees?

1

u/MeLikeyTokyo 4d ago

oops

1

u/tombrady011235 4d ago

It doesn't look like they regret it

1

u/tombrady011235 4d ago

I have a feeling they don't give a shit

1

u/Ok-Nail-6507 4d ago

I guess they did need to develop that last bit of 5 acres to have had a chance to break even and stay afloat. We will never know.

1

u/cosmicharmander 4d ago

Is it just the angle the pictures are taken or do none of the surrounding houses have back yards?

1

u/xiaopewpew 4d ago

Who is getting all the money then lol

Apparently housing is so expensive people cant afford them, yet developers are going under. Whackity whackadoodle.

1

u/lanalizzy 4d ago

Me too!! This feels weird to see it on reddit

1

u/GlitchedBlueprint 4d ago

It's still worth a fortune if sold as is privately, I'm sure there's other developers who'd snatch it up as well considering everything is already done around it and it's just flat ready to build on land.

1

u/rankinfile 4d ago

This situation in the USA often ends up with the property being worth less than seems because of development policy changes. The surrounding area has maxed out infrastructure. It will be more expensive to subdivide, connect to utilities, get permits, etc. All the people in the surrounding subdivision will scream to the bureaucrats/politicians that it shouldn't be developed now that they have theirs. They look at at it as an extension of their yard now.

Your property value did go up enough to increase your taxes and insurance though. So maybe you sell or donate it to become a park, school, etc. Get it named after you. Then in 50 years when the area goes to shit the local gang that took it over will have your name tatooed on their necks.

1

u/yezhnuzjhd 4d ago

How is this relevant? They could still sell the land to sombody else. Or even divide it into parcels and build houses themselves for even more profit.

1

u/Homerduff16 4d ago

It's not all about the money Spider-Man

1

u/MF-Geuze 4d ago

They will get the money, and more, when they sell. The value has only gone up in the meantime 

1

u/theartificialkid 4d ago

What? All they would have to do is subdivide it themselves.

1

u/_blip_ 4d ago

Famously hard to sell residential zoned real estate around Sydney. They'll probably never get an offer again.

1

u/d4ybrake 4d ago

yes because as we all know there is only one developer in sydney

1

u/Upstairs-Event-681 4d ago

I don’t think they want the money. Maintaining a lawn this big is already a sign they got money, the house looks good too

1

u/cosully111 4d ago

The property value must be crazy though. They could cash in for tens of millions if they ever wanted

1

u/Appropriate-Depth379 4d ago

Not everyone is all about the money 

1

u/Glynnkid 4d ago

This house will be worth 200mil in 10-20 years, I don’t think they’re in a rush

1

u/BeneficialSort4643 4d ago

There will always be another developer. I find it hard to believe that they won’t still get amazing offers for the land.

1

u/wedonttalkanymore-_- 4d ago

"zero chance" as if there's only one developer in Australia

1

u/seandavisaus 3d ago

Name 2 other developers that have the economics of scale in Sydney to develop that land.

Metricon and stocklands are not interested. Esp after they completed the ponds and pemuway .

The roi is not there for them.

1

u/Shot-Toe-2884 4d ago

thats not how land value works. Land is not valued based on the financial health of whoever developed it. It's already developed land. The value has nothing to do with the neighborhood developer staying solvent.

1

u/DisasterEquivalent 4d ago

Developers aren’t what makes land valuable, you know..

If value was based on development activity, places like San Francisco would be basically worthless.

1

u/pphresh204 4d ago

serious question: does the family allow kids to play on their lawn?

1

u/seandavisaus 3d ago

Nope all fenced and gated.

1

u/VioletsRPink 4d ago

Let me guess: people from all the houses around walk through the grass as a shortcut and their lawn gets dog poopies by everyone walking their dog? 🤔

1

u/a-pp-o 4d ago

Did the other property owners got theire money? 

1

u/happy_bluebird 3d ago

*every day

1

u/cuedIO 3d ago

Shittest developer. Painters allegedly told to water down paints to save more. Hoping people get their money back and the company no bail outs

1

u/Zealousideal-Bike-90 3d ago

There will always be another developer coming by at some point, guarantee others have had their sights set on that land, and will step in now that the competition/developer are no longer in control

1

u/Visual_Locksmith3337 13h ago

Now they are true Aussie Bathlas.

0

u/Accomplished_One5478 4d ago

Eh, land only gets more expensive. A new one will come around eventually

0

u/_thro_awa_ 4d ago

So Zero chance they will get that money again.

You never know, a data center might want to set up roots there.

0

u/BlueJayNB 4d ago

If he wants money he can sell the house...

0

u/No_Expression_3299 4d ago

What a ridiculous assertion. Why give your opinion when you clearly have no clue? The driving force behind the amount of money they are offered for their land is the value of land I.e. the value of land in that area I.e. The value of all the surrounding houses. Not the developer in the area. JFC of course the value of the land is going up long-term. This is too common sense to even call it economics. Don't give your opinion on property prices ever again bro.

1

u/seandavisaus 3d ago

Listen here jelly brains .

The land value across Sydney has dropped. You can attribute it to capital gains, removal of negative gearing , increase cost of construction etc.

Now that the only volume builder in that particular suburb is gone . There is very little buyers in that market to offer it for that 50million.

You can't simply subdivisied that land first without buying it.

There is very little returns for whoever buys it.

Clown thinking buddy.