Prime Minister Christopher Luxon won’t say whether he's now throwing his support behind an economic development opportunity he has previously opposed in his home electorate, after asking New Zealanders to say yes to growth.
The National Party leader and MP for Botany told Parliament on Tuesday that he wants to “end the culture of saying no” to economic growth.
“Because Kiwis want to build and they want to grow and they want to innovate, and all too often they're actually told no,” he said.
“We must develop a mind-set that says yes to things that are going to make Kiwis better off, and you'll know that as part of that, last week I expressed my view on removing the limits around concerts at Eden Park”.
But while the Prime Minister wants communities in Mount Eden to say ‘yes’ to the economic opportunities that come with noisy concerts, he won't commit to supporting a development in his own backyard.
When running for the Botany seat in June 2020, Luxon helped stymie a project which would transform a closed petrol station into 54 housing units. He joined with a local residents and ratepayers association to say a definitive ‘no’ to this development and others in the future.
In a video still available on Facebook, Luxon says the area around Howick should "always stay a single-dwelling zone” and that those blocking the development “deserve a medal”.
They were “fighting hard to make sure we don’t set a dangerous precedent, not just here in Howick, but out across all of Auckland as well,” he said.
Luxon and his fellow nay-sayers won the debate. A fast-track panel blocked the development in July last year, after the newly-elected National-led government changed housing rules to allow councils to restrict development.
Opposition to the project means the Auckland suburb has had an empty petrol station for over five years, instead of construction jobs, new housing, and all the economic growth those things would’ve created.
BusinessDesk reported on Thursday morning that Box Property Investments was still pursuing the development and was challenging the panel's decision in court. But despite Luxon’s new push to say yes to economic development, he won’t come out in support of housing density in Botany.
Interest.co.nz asked the Prime Minister several times whether he would now support that development or similar projects, given he wants a culture of yes.
While Luxon made general comments about backing opportunities, he would not say anything specific about housing development in his own community.
You can read the full transcript below.
Q: You have made this a year of growth, you want to have a ‘yes’ economy. Can I get you to cast your mind back to when you were running for Botany, you opposed the housing development in that suburb. That developer is going to court and still wants to go ahead. In the new ‘yes’ economy, will you now embrace that development in Cockle Bay?
Luxon: What I'd say is, that's a matter before the courts. I understand it's under appeal, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a specific case, but you can be reassured we are going for growth, and you've seen that with our fast track legislation, with the projects that we have on the table, we think we can generate 55,000 new houses across New Zealand as a result of that, we can increase our renewable electricity by almost 30% we can build hundreds of kilometers of new roads. That's all good stuff.
Q: If I can take it back from that specific case and just ask, that kind of development which you opposed—now that we have this focus on growth and on saying yes—would you now support those kinds of developments, high-density housing in Botany?
Luxon: What I’d say to you, is that conflating those two issues is, I don't think, [that's] the right way to look at it. We've got a massive agenda to unlock growth in this country. You've seen that with Fast Track. You've also seen us come back to councils and say, we want council to consent to 30 years of growth. You've seen us say that there's optionality now by making the MDRS [medium density residential standards] optional, within a given city for local government to work through. But you know, we are going to build houses and we are going to grow New Zealand. There are lots of different cases that will have lots of different component parts to them.
Q: If I can push you one more time on that. You want more concerts at Eden Park, some locals oppose that. You want seabed mining in Taranaki, some locals oppose that. You took the initiative to say ‘no’ to a development in your electorate, but you are now asking people to say ‘yes’ to developments in their regions. Do you think you're showing leadership…
Luxon: I can't comment on an individual project when it's before the courts. That's inappropriate for me to do so, but I don't think you can look at what we are doing as a government and [not] say, this is a government that is unlocking and removing the impediments and the obstacles and the culture of no, because we have no choice. It's not up for negotiation anymore. We are here to grow the joint. So, that is what's needed. Why? Because that's actually how New Zealanders get ahead and how we get a better quality of living for everybody.
114 Comments
Excellent reporting Dan.
NIMBY?
Not In My Back Yard.
It's a of way of saying, "I want to protect what I have - do this in someone else's backyard".
A planner's nightmare. And a reason why homes are so expensive when all things - including commuting costs and access to public services & amenities - are considered.
Question; how is this project (a project which would transform a closed petrol station into 54 housing units.) economic growth?
It will produce no exports, any employment generated by it is only temporary until the units are built.
As many people have indicated in the past housing, especially residential house holds little to no real value for NZs economy. So again how is this project economic growth?
It will mean 54+ people to live closer to work and amenities.
Is that economic growth?
More like very limited possible efficiency for a very small group of people. Still not economic growth.
'New stuff' got created. That's economic growth.
Yes it is and better use of infra with more concentrated developments means better per capita outputs.
Housing is accounted for in our gross domestic product via actual and imputed rents. When more housing is built, it increases the consumption expenditure of households (reflecting the real value derived by the people who reside there), therefore growing the economy.
Our economy is not limited to exports, nor is it counted by the number of permanent employees it generates.
So our economy is now primarily based on housing as more than a few have suggested? How does that benefit the country?
Remember Luxon's mantra is 'get the economy going', with the unstated implication of being good for the country. How is converting a former petrol station to 54 housing units a benefit to the country? Building new houses was happening before he came to be PM.
If people buy or rent the houses that implies there is consumer surplus derived from the housing. If the additional supply ultimately frees up space for those currently struggling to find accomodation that seems like an enormous benefit to the country. To me, one of the big long term issues in New Zealand has been not building enough housing supply (pushing up prices), not overbuilding and having unproductive empty apartment blocks.
You seem to have a very narrow view of what benefits the country, reminds me of examples of central planning where communist governments prioritised coal, steel and massive infrastructure projects etc over provision of consumer goods.
I believe there are a lot of myths built up around the economy, especially the persistance towards 'growth' in a finite system. Housing is a social need, as important as infrastructure, but the economics associated with that are not and do not benefit the country. They are about maintaining the 'bones' on which the economy functions (transportation networks are also a part of this). How many houses are being land banked (or house banked) vacant and are contributing towards a need for more housing? A couple of years ago that number for Auckland was set at about 40,000. That goes to identify government failings in properly regulating that market.
Manufacturing, production of goods, and R&D are about the economy as a benefit to the nation. Consumer goods are not housing, but rather a subset of the greater economy. Immigration is not economic growth either, and that is also a source of housing demand. But as others have also identified it is a false 'economic growth' as it increases demand that is not being met, and drives down living standards for the middle and lower classes.
You can believe what you like, but many of your points are fringe theories that virtually no modern economists would take seriously.
Housing and infrastructure/transportation systems are long term investments that deliver a stream of services. Other long term investments deliver a stream of goods (eg, a power plant). Services are as valid as goods/manufacturing when it comes to economic benefit (though they may be harder to count or easier to fudge). In many cases they directly substitute for each other - for example I could buy a car (a good) but I might not if I could move to a house nearer to my workplace, or if a train station were built next door, or if I decided I wanted to take an uber every day.
Does our country need external income for our economy to function.
You talk about modern economists, but multiple discussions on this site in the past have argued that economists perspectives are fundamentally flawed. An example being the persistent belief in the need for 'growth'.
Does our country need external income for our economy to function.
Yes, to the extent it lets us import stuff that our economy is unable or less efficient at producing. That doesn't mean producing things (goods or services) for the domestic market doesn't count as part of the economy. It's perfectly possible for exports to go down while the size of the economy increases, and vice versa.
You talk about modern economists, but multiple discussions on this site in the past have argued that economists perspectives are fundamentally flawed. An example being the persistent belief in the need for 'growth'.
Your first question was "how is this project economic growth?" But now you want to ignore what the economics discipline has to say about the question. Economists and statisticians define what the standard measure for economic growth is (Gross national income or gross national product) and housing is included in that.
I live in area in which 20% of houses are unoccupied according to the last census. Fantastic for the economy here, really adds wonderfully to our economic growth I'm sure.
Can't understand why we have so many homeless and living in poverty. Surely economists after all that learning and thinking can't be wrong
How about a waste to energy plant instead ?
https://www.shi-fw.com/our-solutions/energy-from-waste/modular-waste-to…
I am not sure that intensification in the way that has been practised has benefitted home buyer but it surely has led to developers s benefit. The stand alone houses that could have been available to first to people wanting to buy to live in a decent house couldn’t compete with developers who offers big money as they carved out multiple units which are like so expensive fir what they offer.
such intensification could have worked if there was competition with making green field sections available at real prices, can any one justify 400-500 m2 section on Te kauwhata that was priced at 350-400k
obviously this is my anecdotal experience and not objective study.
"he wants to “end the culture of saying no” to economic growth."
So what? I want to end the growth yeast culture that's wrecking the NZ environment and way of life.
Luxon says the area around Howick should "always stay a single-dwelling zone” and that those blocking the development “deserve a medal”.
The staggering level of entitlement mentality on display!
If they want to rule over the land, let them buy it. If not, they're free to rule over the land they do own. But the entitlement on display for them to insist they should rule over land they do not own is ridiculous.
Saying NO to economic growth, saying YES to entitlement mentality.
All while pretending to be about small government and productivity. Farcical.
But think of their children !!!
Productivity is great when it only negatively impacts someone else.
What a bizarre way of looking at things. Too much time on "X"? Try this: "Productivity is great when it help everyone up, equality."
We all should get 54 units built next door equally?
bet he supports lower speed limits in his neighbourhood too
Man he's squirmy. I did wonder at what point someone would raise the MDRS with him in this context of "yes to everything".
Of course we're all being a bit silly, not everything should be "yes" even if it creates jobs and grows the economy. We don't want a casino in every city, we don't (necessarily?) want brothels popping up in every block of shops.
It would be worth finding the limits to what Luxon thinks should be "yes" though, especially where it departs from National's previous positions, because they are in actuality a conservative party that operates on the basis of a default "no" to change.
Not only squirmy, but embarrassingly simple as well. When he couldn't evade the question anymore due to the excellent follow up by the reporter.... he comes up with this gem;
We are here to grow the joint.
So, he sees New Zealand as a "joint" - kind of like the local Workingman's Club.
Don't know that I'd want him running that either.
I thought growing joints was green policy? To be fair it would probably help the economy more than “cutting red tape”
That's true!
Well Kate… “thats how he rolls.”
Guys an absolute embarrassment.
He is. Bit scary really that he and Nicola are the best they've got to offer.
And looking down the ranks, Luxon is throwing the promising, relatively new MPs, like Tama Potaka and Shane Reti under the bus. Those two ought to declare themselves independents now - leave the National Party if they want a future in Parliament..
I imagine they will roll (sticking with the green theme) him if the poor party and personal polling continues. But, yes there are not too many heirs apparent.
As for Reti, I always felt he might have suited being in Labour. Guess his social conservatism was more aligned with blue.
Caught for the greedy NIMBY he is, ay
I guess NIMBY's voted for this. They pretend to hate the high costs of living but delude themselves they have no role in this?
"Greed is good". But let's pretend we're not greedy, right Luxy?
And let's pretend everyone had the same opportunities they had, right Luxy?
And let's pretend those who bought property 20-30 years ago thought they were helping NZ grow, right Luxy?
Look. I'll be honest. I am "sorted". But this NIMBY greediness makes me sick. And extremely angry.
I didn't take you for the sorted type!
I struggle along on my own pathway to sortedness, as a property investor that feels a lot of guilt about it, and cheered when the previous government stuck a nail into my heart (deductibility). But then my heart hurt and started bleeding and I realised I had to eat. Since then it's been difficult to figure out what the ethical and practical way to end NZ's obsession with property investment is without creating some other kind of bubble and a lot of pain. Of course most other people don't really care about ethically euthanising the property rort.
Partly I think just the simple flat-rent, flat-house-prices status quo, if it persists for a few more years, might just be the ticket.
Get rid of FIF taxes and support kiwis to invest in overseas markets.
Great idea - this will probably benefit our sad looking current account as well
Yep, great comment.
NIMBYs are many things, but greedy is the one thing you should never accuse them of being. NIMBYs biggest fault is to value social cohesion and community for themselves at the exclusion of others.
Living as a NIMBY is to make yourself poorer. Banning medium density housing in your area reduces the value of your existing house, because it removes developers from the pool of potential buyers. The development premium pricing margin of Howick could be about $100,000 per average house by now.
The prices of housing in Howick have fallen by more than $100,000 since Mr Luxon became PM and helped ban medium density development.
Well said.
I'd be delighted if a 6-8 story building was built next to me. We're zoned for it.
It would make building my 7 story building just so much easier and I've always wanted to say 'I live in the penthouse of the building I built. You must come round and enjoy the views!"
It would be fine if NIMBYs only made themselves poorer but they make society as a whole poorer by forcing development to the next best alternative (on not at all).
They make things inefficient by refusing change for the betterment of many, resulting in the likes of medium density housing in fringe suburbs with no carparks attached, which only leads to streets clogged with parked cars.
Reminds me why I didn't vote National
Luxon: What I'd say is, ...
Luxon: What I’d say to you, is that ...
Luxon: I can't comment on ...
Can we get a new one? This one seems stuck on a single track.
Typical politician. Only real skill is in avoiding answering questions
Surprisingly he didn't start off with the default "Look.....".
Luxon: let me be very clear.... [proceeds with being very unclear]
What else was anyone expecting?
Botany? Where, there is no space. Flat Bush used to be a lovely reserve and great for riding through to Whitford . Now it’s a mix between medium density housing with no parking and $2M homes. Much of the former is split between first home owners and social housing, and the latter by Asian immigrants. It’s a hotbed for crime and antisocial activity.
No thank you. Once bitten twice shy. Epic failure in community planning.
We don't plan anymore though. That ended when the USSR collapsed and everyone attributed thinking before you leap to outdated Soviet thought.
It is actually an interesting problem in the modern era. Many have pointed out that even "properly designed" new neighbourhoods often based on cul-de-sacs and hubs of shops are really antisocial places that are heavily car-centric and difficult to service with public transport. And they'll stick around for 100 years. Maybe by then flying cars will make it all OK, but we continually make braindead planning decisions and previous generations didn't.
That guy from somewhere else that pointed out that the entire Orakei and Pt Chev coastline should be dense apartment buildings by now highlighted something askew in the kiwi thought process perhaps.
Feel a bit sorry for him in a way, rock and a hard place.
The irony is that if they just allowed density near the city, we wouldn’t need it in Howick.
You feel sorry for him? Why would you feel sorry for a politician - way out of their depth - lining up equally hopeless politicians to take the fall before he does - who can't keep his foot out of mouth - who will likewise takes a fall?
Maybe an animal shelter would be a better outlet for your sorrow?
The NIMBY situation is pretty crap for politicians and councillors. At the end of the day you need to somehow keep everyone happy to get elected. And let’s face it, who isn’t a NIMBY? I like the idea of more density, until someone decides to build 50 units next door to me, then it doesn’t sound so great.
It’s why I’ve always said planning should be done with a compass - draw a 5km circle around the city centre and a 1km circle around each train station and make that high density without all these exceptions. Auckland council have almost done the opposite.
Great politicians explain why an individual, or a localised group, or privileged group, can't have everything they want when it effects the great good.
When you are starting out as a politician and you need to win your electorate, telling them to suck it up for the greater good is a very hard sell.
He can just say he's changed his mind lol.
Give some spheal about now how serious the country's position is, blame labour. Say that yes growth is critically needed now, and that sometimes it means houses get built near where other people already have a house.
Yes he should have done that. Doesn’t seem to perform well unrehearsed or under pressure.
Which is why we have List MPs.
At the last election I unfortunately voted for him and his party. He was the best of a bad bunch. Since then he has been a compete and utter disappointment. Out of touch with the ordinary person, arrogant and unable to lead his coalition government. Peters and Seymour are running the show. If National are to win another term they will need a new leader. As a nation we have not had a strong leader for some time.
Give Helen Clark another shot? That was probably the last time NZ was really transforming itself.
Isn’t she the ultimate NIMBY?
Both her and Phil Goff turned nonsensical NIMBY, oddly enough.
Yeah nah. You'd probably have to go as far back as Savage for real transformation.
Clarke and Cullen fuelled much of the tax distortions and property "Ponzi".
Roger Douglas bought in "transformation" and 40 years later the jury appears to be still hung on net positive or negative benefits.
Problem is a lack of foresight, siloed thinking and a general lack of knowledge of human behaviour and values. Economics originally believed it was a social science based in human behaviour. It's transformed into a controlling operating system, reducing everything to a mathematical formula, and tries to control and manipulate human behaviour.
Second problem is the lack of hindsight or the ability to apply it. Case in point is political parties (and central banks) unable to see cause and effect of either their own policies or those of their predecessors, no matter what evidence is thrown at them.
Maybe not so much nibyism but certainly a member of the rentier class. At least 3 investment properties and could be as high as 6 back when she was PM.
Glad you've finally seen the emperor has no clothes. It seemed pretty obvious to me before the election the man is a fraud and charlatan.
I do not fancy Chris in a knife fight.
But no one in national will be able to sell policies to disadvantage Nat supporters, and Hippy and crowd are lost in the wilderness, since that bonfire thing.
National won because they where not Labour.
Good chance Labour will win because they are not National. PDK has it right, incumbents are getting booted out left, right and centre. All they can offer is a slightly smaller take of the ever decreasing pie, except the liars like Trump who promise the world and pick on the helpless.
Is the pie decreasing, or are most the slices going to less/different people? In a world where technology does everything, what is left for people or countries that don’t own technology?
The pie is decreasing.
Evidence? Worldwide GDP is declining?
Is GDP the pie? We all contribute to the making of this pie, and we all get different sized slices depending on our needs, wants and money.
The "money" pie is increasing.
The "wealth" pie is increasing.
But wealth isn't money and nor is money wealth.
Maybe it's not the size of the pie, but the number and size of the slices left to share amongst a larger number.
GDP is a poor metric for the pie.
Try livable biosphere, biodiversity, oil, sand, glaciers, micro-plastic free seas, wilderness, properties not susceptible to extreme climate-change induced weather events, you know parts of the pie that are actually worth eating.
100% this ^^^^
But cleaning up pollution adds to gdp.
And uses energy
"extreme climate-change induced weather events"...propaganda much?? How about a propaganda free world - now that is a slice of pie that I'm interested in.....
The consensus of the global scientific community is something I trust more than your hunch that this is propaganda.
The thing that's causing you concern is that a lot of people are trying to make a profit from climate change, so you think of it as hype and bullshit - an understandable reaction. But actually those people will try to turn ANY situation to their advantage.
The more real the situation, the more they succeed. So if anything the greenwashing and money-grubbing should prove to you that the underlying science is real.
What I'd say to you is I'm sorted so f*** everyone else.
God I detest the ‘What I’d say to you is…’ mumbo jumbo phrasing
Sorry mate but that's what everyone says when they are sorted. Get in the real world, everyone out there is killing themselves to try and get ahead, its a hell of a struggle. I have lost count of the number of dick heads I have had to work around that were trying to stop me along the way.
Sorry mate but that's what everyone says when they are sorted
No they don't. Selfish, self-entitled, dickheads do. There are loads and loads of 'sorted' people who try to make the world a better place for their kids and their community and work tirelessly to achieve that. I've personally worked with multi-millionaires in the public service, they don't need the job or the money, they do it because they have a sense of public service.
Don't tar everyone else with your own values and standards. God help your kids if you have any.
Couldn't agree more. To many with the 'fuck em I've got mine......' attitude out there.
"To many with the 'fuck em I've got mine......' attitude out there."
Is there a typo? Should it be "Too many with the 'fuck em I've got mine......' attitude out there."?
Should these selfish & self centred people be in positions of leadership or positions of power?
Are they genuinely acting in the best interest for the good of all residents of New Zealand or for their own selfish interests and the interests of their campaign donors and various special interest lobby groups?
When is anyone happy with their lot though? Technically I’m loaded (along with most commentators here): easily in the top 10% in the world, possibly in the top 1%. But I still have a mortgage to pay, a retirement to save for, kids to put through uni, an increasingly uncertain future, etc. The more you have, the more you think you need.
Not many and that's the fundamental problem. You have to know when you have finally crossed that finish line and bail off that mouse wheel. Once you have the mortgage paid on a modest house and money in the bank you can bail. There is no point working until 65, there are far better things to do.
Or you could do something worthwhile and continue to get paid for it! Some people actually enjoy their work.
(Not saying your retired activities aren't worthwhile, but why stop earning - unless perhaps you're an oligarch with an army of serfs earning for you - ohhh, and that's why we have an army of wannabe Lords).
Yeah, personally I'm hoping to be able to work until 70-75. I reckon that'd be nice. I think I'd be bored otherwise.
Yeah helping others makes us happy, there is lots of research on this, we are social creatures built for this. People with a lots of money and free time have space to realise this, they can’t attribute their lack of material or lesure time for feeling unhappy.
Side note: You don’t need to have money or loads of free time to be altruistic, I highly recommend giving blood!
I did wonder if he was a bit weak when he gave ACT so much power in the coalition agreement, compared to what Labour gave the greens in their threesome. I doubt he will be rolled while the coalition are still ahead in polling, but he’s cannon fodder otherwise.
Also see this from Seymour .
I like the part where he proposes that access to Grammar will only be allowed for existing residents.
Note, the land at Alexandra Park that was earmarked for a new school was sold as residents and some politicians weren't supportive.
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/77521/epsom-mp-david-seymour-highli…
Yes he’s the worst of a bad bunch.
Few things are more fake than a pretend libertarian.
Libertarian in theory, pearl-clutcher within his electorate
What I'd say is.. ha!
The energizer dummy.
"What I say to you".
What does that mean, is it the truth? Does he say the opposite to other people?.
Good job.
Excellent work to be fair, Dan
There are heaps of multi-unit developments in Howick, Pakuranga and Bucklands Beach, with the result that cars are littered all over the roadside making life dangerous and slowing traffic down(are you out there Simeon?).
I do hope TOP have a decent marketing strategy for their campaign next election. Roll on the LVT, and hopefully we will get someone stand up in parliament and tell truths instead of trying to sell us on some immediate benefit that causes longer term issues. charge me my LVT, rejig PAYE and let's move forwards.
Land value tax would be devastating for many. How do you propose low income people pay it? It would make my family homeless.
As does personal income tax.
Lower income tax, broaden tax base by wealth tax,Tobin tax.......
If you took the Government's total tax take of around $110b and divided that across the country's urban land mass of 5078 km2, you get an annual rate of $25 m2. Someone with a 500m2 section would pay $11k p.a, the same as the PAYE on a single $65k salary.
Now before you balk, all I've done is lump the entire tax burden into only the urban land areas. You would of course hope this tax shift is a bit more comprehensive, and factors in that not everybody on a 500m2 section pays $11k+ p.a. in income taxes. But this does have the benefit of making high density housing more attractive, you have an 8 story apartment and suddenly the tax is split 8 ways.
He is right in that we can just keep putting blobs of dense housing everywhere. Panmure and Greenlane need dense housing around their transport hubs and stations.
Panmure is an absolute shocker because we cant screen the volcano/hill. Ever the planning rules should have changed at the same time or that interchange should never have been built there. Without high-density housing around it the benefit is minimal.
Take it you mean can’t keep putting blobs of density… the MDHR create scattergun density. The Unitary Plan made a decent attempt at zoning only to be overridden by Wellington polies who declared that councils in general had no plan, ignoring Aucklands.
In the context of what he said, did you mean to type can't?
What about all the assets they have said "No' to already.
Look, what I would say to you is this, I'm relying on "pulling a spreadsheet out of the hat trick" using foreign capital to do some of the heavy lifting (of $NZ out of NZ) to increase GDP, asset prices and inequality.
You do have to wonder what is wrong with Auckland (and Welllington and Christchurch to a lesser extent). Why are there no high rise apartment towers being built in the inner city? Why are they all wanting to build out in the suburbs, on streets that are already over congested and where infrastructure is already at maximum capacity? Apartments should be restricted to the central city, where there is access to public transport and cars dont need to be parked on the roads because there are parking buildings nearby.
Look at Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Gold Coast. Heaps of huge residential highrises everywhere. Where is Auckland's "Southbank"?
Instead of mucking around with piddly little 50 apartment projects, how about building something with 1000 apartments? Build a couple of those a year and the housing crisis is over. And they'll probably be a lot more affordable and with better amenities than the suburban proposals.
And everyone else still gets to enjoy their single family home with a backyard in the suburbs.
They should, like they do in many places overseas, have the developers pay into the cost of large scale infrastructure which will be need across the nearby city junctions as a result of increased number of people. If this makes developing unprofitable, so be it, this only then incentivises investment into higher rise buildings as they would actually profit. For example in Edinburgh when lookin to develop another suburb on the outer ring road, the developers and planner shad to work in with the council to design the suburb in a way the bus network could service including time to transit through he suburb etc, including the impact this would have on congestion at all major junctions on the outer ring road, and some inner junctions also. Nothing gets approved unless it can be modelled and tested digitally in a variety of scenarios to be efficient and acceptable given the impact ont he rest of the city.
Because we build shit apartments that's why. Either they are poor quality or shoeboxes or both. Until we start building apartments that actually have a liveable space with suitable underground secure parking at reasonable prices, why would you bother ? By the time you find a reasonable apartment it cost the same as a stand alone house and then you have rubbish like body corporate to pay. The annual cost is outrageous even when you own it, its like you are still paying rent.
As far as I can tell in NZ we don't seem to be able to build apartment blocks that don't result in seriously high costs for remediation.....
Instead of mucking around with piddly little 50 apartment projects, how about building something with 1000 apartments? Build a couple of those a year and the housing crisis is over. And they'll probably be a lot more affordable and with better amenities than the suburban proposals.
Who is building them?
If they were profitable the private sector would do it. The government can't because National just banned Kainga Ora from building. So who is supposed to build these apartments in your 'easy' solution?
A discusting attitude from luxton. wouldn't vote labour or national. But we do want our referendum.
I have watched the reaction to this article with interest. It was deliberately written one sided and designed to cause embarrassment. I have seen this sort of article before, and indeed been on the sharp end of many. It’s the same pattern as the question “have you stopped beating your wife yet” which cannot be answered with a “yes”or “no”. Even more interesting is the yapping from the left wingers agreeing with the articles sentiments. There is always something nasty about Socialists whose sole function is to raise suffering to a higher level.
Big Daddy
best post written for a fair while, I completely concur and think its time to review my subscription
Interest.co.nz is better than this sort of “Gotch ya Politics “
In my opinion - Luxon is very much about himself.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.