The trend for building consents for new homes hit another record low in April, although the rate of decline appears to be easing, Statistics New Zealand says.
There were 927 new dwellings authorised in April, down 34% from the same month a year ago, figures show.
Stats NZ’s trend series for new homes authorised has fallen nearly one-third since April 2010, to the lowest level since the series began in 1982. Economists are warning the slump in building consents for new homes may put upward pressure on house prices, with a shortage of properties becoming apparent especially in Auckland.
“While the overall level of consents is low, with many series still decreasing, there are signs that the decline in residential building consents is easing,” Stats NZ business statistics manager Kathy Connolly said.
“When the volatile apartment numbers are excluded, and after adjusting for seasonal factors, there have been increases of more than 3% in each of the latest two months,” Connolly said.
Still slow in Christchurch
Seven of the 927 consents in April were for new homes to be built to replace homes destroyed in Canterbury by the September 4 and February 22 earthquakes. That brings the total amount of earthquake-related building consents issued for new homes in Canterbury to 21 since September 2010.
Minister for Earthquake Recovery Gerry Brownlee has told interest.co.nz that building work for new homes can only get underway once land remediation work is carried out in Christchurch. With land there still shifting he was unable to give a timeframe for when that work may be finished. Early government estimates were that 10,000 homes may need to be replaced due to the quakes, although more recent estimates from the industry point higher.
Four of the earthquake related consents in April were for “relocatable units intended to house displaced Christchurch residents,” Statistics New Zealand said. These were the first consents recorded for these units, a spokesman for Stats NZ told interest.co.nz.
JP Morgan economist Helen Kevans said the slow rate at which earthquake-related insurance claims were being processed had delayed quake-related consent approvals.
"Earthquake-related rebuilding cannot get underway until claims have been processed by insurers, and this process has been delayed by a lack of information on land remediation, which aims to prevent lateral spreading of any future quakes," Kevans said.
"Furthermore, the official land report detailing which properties have to be abandoned and which can be rebuilt has yet to be released - and it won’t be until well after then that rebuilding of earthquake-affected Canterbury gets underway," she said.
Only one region sees growth
Of the 927 new dwellings authorised in April, 893 were for houses, down 32% from April a year ago. The remaining 34 were consents for the volatile apartment unit category.
“Only one of New Zealand’s 16 regions (Tasman) had more new homes authorised in April 2011 compared to April 2010,” Government Statistician Geoff Bascand said.
“The largest fall was in Canterbury, at 68 fewer new homes, but similar-sized falls were seen elsewhere,” Bascand said.
Seasonally adjusted figures show a 3.8% rise in the number of houses authorised in April from March, the second monthly rise in a row.
Including apartment units, seasonally adjusted figures show the number of new dwellings authorised in April fell 1.6% from March.
Under supply?
ASB economist Jane Turner said building consents remained very weak in April.
"Total consents declined 1.6% over the month, although once stripping out the volatile apartment component, core consent issuance increased slightly, up 3.8%. However, the increase is entirely due to a partial recovery in Canterbury consent issuance. Consents for the remainder of the country declined over April. This is a very disappointing result," Turner said.
"We had expected that ongoing population growth and low interest rates would be stimulating building activity (beyond the Christchurch rebuilding requirements). However, the consents data suggest underlying building demand remains extremely weak," she said.
"Given the low levels of construction activity, particularly relative to population growth, the weakness in consent issuance suggests there is a risk that the NZ housing market may become under supplied."
Quake response: From Stats NZ building consent releases:
April: In Canterbury, 28 earthquake-related consents were identified in April 2011, with a total value of NZ$2.5 million. These consents included seven new homes, four of which were relocatable units intended to house displaced Christchurch residents.
March:In Canterbury, about 20 earthquake-related consents were identified, with a combined value of $11 million, including two new dwellings.
February: In Canterbury, 16 consents relating to the previous earthquakes were identified, including three new dwellings. The total value of these 16 consents was $2.6 million.
January: In Canterbury, 30 earthquake-related consents were identified in January 2011, including five new dwellings. The total value of these was $4.5 million.
December: In Canterbury, about 30 earthquake-related consents were identified in December 2010, which included two new dwellings. The total value of consents was $10 million.
November: In Canterbury, there were a small number of earthquake-related consents identified in November 2010. The total value of these was $2.3 million. Two of these were for new dwellings.
October: In Canterbury, a small number of low-value consents authorised in October 2010 were related to the earthquake. None of these were for new dwellings.
September: The earthquake on 4 September 2010 has had some impact on building consents issued in Canterbury, due to factors such as territorial authority offices being closed temporarily. The three territorial authorities most affected were Christchurch city, Waimakariri district, and Selwyn district. Combined, the number of consents issued in September was about one-third lower than the monthly average for the previous 12 months. A handful of consents were earthquake-related (none were for new dwellings), with a combined value of approximately $0.5 million.
(Updates with JP Morgan, ASB comments)
Building consents - growth
Select chart tabs
64 Comments
"Economists are warning the slump in building consents for new homes may put upward pressure on house prices"....doh
That sort of warning fails to reach the quality of BS.
Some home truths here. The Chch land pipedream that digging holes and filling them with rocks and pollies past their used by date, is waffle. The ground is stuffed. Expect more shakes and more ooze.
At some stage...even Gerry will realise new subdivs on the stable ground are the only way to go. Of course that will mean Fletchers will not collect a few hundred million for digging holes etc but so what...the rebuild should not become a Fletchers benefit should it...right Gerry!
When we get to the new subdiv stage....then the great price rise rort will kick into high gear and that is what will drive up the cost of building a new house, right across the country.
"Economists are warning the slump in building consents for new homes may put upward pressure on house prices" - can we please get some economists that understand basic fundamentals.. ie when its cheaper to buy a house than to build a new one thats what people will do.
"At some stage...even Gerry will realise new subdivs on the stable ground are the only way to go. Of course that will mean Fletchers will not collect a few hundred million for digging holes etc but so what...the rebuild should not become a Fletchers benefit should it...right Gerry!"
Whoops - there goes Gerry's guaranteed seat on the board! LOL!
"Decline eases" yeah right, that's because the volume of consents is bouncing along the bottom at 40 year lows of activity. In terms of new dwellings per capita, I imagine that we are at all time lows since NZ was founded.
For consents to be down 25% in Canterbury given what is required is a disgrace. Excuses from Govt and insurers is absurd. We have destroyed buildings in areas where new dwellings have been built post quake and insurers do nothing other than make excuses as to why they can't hurry up with settlements or rebuilds.
End the excuses and get on with some action.
Why doesn't the rest of NZ see the incompetence and mismanagement and give the Nats a kick in the pants.
All TRUE NATS should vote for Brash, to let Johnny know that he has done about as bad a job as he could have done. It's just like 2002-2004 when the general population couldn't see Clark and Cullen were actually destroying the future prosperity of NZ.
I for one have seen it - and the arrogance of this government just gets worse;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/5099566/Brownlee-slams-push-by-owners
Brownless has to be the biggest fattest useless arrogant git going. If he was the best JK could find for CHCH, they don't deserve a second term.
From what the article tells us, the CORE group represents 170 building owners in the CBD, many of which I assume own more than one building. No matter what their politics or how parochial they have been in the past - this is not the time to insult them. They are the ones who have the capital and will either take it elsewhere or use it to rebuild somewhere in the CHCH area. Much more of this from the government simply guarantees they go elsewhere with their payouts.
Dont the latest bunch of lousy building consent statistics tell you anything Kate?
Yes, they do. We are in a period of recession and deleveraging. And I suspect the deflationary effect on land values going forward will be directly proportional to the distance it [the land] is from markets for labour and services.
But isn't the CHCH situation more about whether the CBD land should remain the CBD or whether the concentration of markets for labour and services in NZs South Island should be relocated elsewhere? And it is to that question that the present landholders in the CBD want faster resolution from Government. Nine months from now to answer that question just seems too long a wait.
Well said Kate and to suggest the central city people have been delt a fair hand by the powers that be is a joke, they are eliminating their options and utimately their equity, should be slammed for representing their interests? Hugh like Gerry are showing their bias.
Hugh you talk a good text book...you agenda is clear however you generalisations don't wash with me.
True intelligence to my mind is not academic but the awarness and ability to counter our own bias, suggest you pause and give that some thought.
A number of the people involved are competent developers, sure their are many that are passive investors, everyone & everything has its place.
The private sector vs non profit, local and central Government in Chch, both sides have no faith or see the true need for each other. One substantial group are putting a development proposal forward and if it is not accepted by the powers that be they will not reinvest. Most with settlements, which are clearly the minority, are sitting on the sidelines powerless. Most can't get their money out as the majority of settlements require you to reinvest in property not cash. One large insurer has only settled with three clients and I represent all three.
Had a client decide to do go forward this week with his settlement... rocked up to his bank to see what EQ packages available, we discovered he is the first to do so and his event relates to September, nine months ago. His bank has the largest commercial market share in Chch.
The mis-information is horrific. The actually reality on many issues concerning this EQ are far removed from what is potrayed in the media.
Hugh it is great your Gerrys mate...you even congratuate him on the Rodger Sutton appointment, when the only person to thank is Rodger Sutton, who initially did not want the role.
You bias is clear and the only thing I wonder is do you actually believe everything you write or are you just clearly lacking real examples and what is actually happening on the ground.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for now you only have half the story.
There is no level playing field, if you knock on my door the reality is if you are non-profit, NGO or related to the public sector I can get you help, if you are in the private sector..sorry no help to be found.
Well said Hugh, your pride & ego have clearly taken over. If forum members care to read your posts most will see the inconsistencies within them. Great stuff...shoot down CORE group of business people for speaking up and then shoot down business people for not speak up on their own insurance issues LOL As usual you jump on all these assumptions you make about me and others...LOL You are your own worst enemy.
You are too funny...you are so wrapped up in yourself and your vested interests you have the inability to read a post. You still have not worked out I'm not involved or part of CORE. However I strongly believe they should have a choice to express and represent a view, treated consistently with other stakeholders and treated with respect. Don't see that actually happening, the reason I objected to your orginal post.
They are not represented by any other effective lobby group while other parts of the community have clear favourtism behind the scenes. On handouts there are plenty going around for certain sectors of the community so lets get a little perspective.
The business community will never get much sympathy in Christchurch given the demographic so they have a problem on the PR side regardless...still they should try.
Believe it or not we need all elements for the economy to function.
You appear to prejudge the central business group based on your experiences twenty years ago, you are simply emotionally and not rationale on the issue. You and I cannot change the past. A good part of the business community was not even around twenty years ago.
The old boys club always seems to think the world starts & stops with them...sorry not the case.
You really reveal a great deal of your true self in these recent posts. Good for the wider community to see, I actually think a great deal less of you and your ability to be objective. Just another classic case of a smart individual allowing his emotions and bias take over.
I see no point continuing the conversation, you don't know half as much as you think you do which is amusing but now boring.
Many can't as I suspect their property poitfolio is in Christchurch i.e have not diversified investments outside Christchurch CDB, if you sick hearing about it switch off... :-) Thats what IU do about Auckland property now that I'm out of the market, you can do it!!! lol
conspiracy theory...no just observation which organisations get the EQ handouts from the Government departments and who do not...just observation...professionally not worth it for me to give details however I'm sure its all available under the official information act if you know what to ask for.
Clearly no one is asking. If I know about it clearly a lot of people will be in the loop so no ones talking or the media an't interested.
Luckily , I can return the favour ! ...... I've always found DB's blogs worth reading . .... Informative , well written , and funny .
...... Glad to have helped you out of a sticky spot there , Kate ........ no need to thank me , although a small bag of gummy-bears is always appreciated .
Do tell then, Gummy, what's his modus operandi?
I'll make it easy with a multichoice:
a. Defender of the neoliberal religion
b. Defender of the National Party
c. Defender of an infinite planet
d. Jovial character all round - just likes to poke fun
e. Astute, unbiased pragmatist on all matters
Sorry 'bout the lack of gummy bears here, the grandkids eat them all - but we've got heaps of spare milkbottles.
Gosh darn , so many choices , couldn't you narrow it down to just two ? ....... 'Cos Gummy is as thick as two short planks when it comes to categorizing people ........ The truth be told , I just accept individuals as I find them , as unique . ....... I never dream of " pidgeon-holing " them into convenient little boxes ........
........ I really am a thicko , aren't I !
I guess that is what separates us " freedom fighters " , or " right-wingers " , as you would label us . We're just not intelligent enough to micro-manage everyones' lives ....
..... We're a simple folk , who believe in individual rights , personal ownership of physical & intellectual property . And personal responsibility for decisions made .
Thickos , yes ! The Gummster and his ilk just don't see the need to boss other people around , we just don't assume that we know what is best ... and even if we did , what right do we have to impose our beliefs upon the populence ....
Well thank you, Gummy, for your sterling defence of my good name and character! Would you like some jet planes with your gummy bears? As individuals who believe in free enterprise and personal liberty we can enjoy the odd jet plane or two, Belgian chocolates, even jaffas. And at Christmas too!
Sadly, others have to content themselves with sucking organic lemons.
But hey, what can you do?
PS. Got oil?
Glad to have chipped in , to clip the wild & weird delusions of grandeur , of our leftie comrades ..
..... The 6 y.o. loves those aero-plane jellies . And we all enjoy the Belgian " shells " choccies . ...... Helen Clark was fond of boiled sweets , acid-drops , I believe .
....... Gummy has a modest stash of Russian oil , and a pile of Canadian copper . No point in wizzling about the high price of everything , far better to be " in the game " , for better or worse .
[ And if I screw up , and blow my dough , there's no cotton-picking way that I'll seek a governmental " bail-out " . ]
Oh really, Kate, you are giving me a good giggle. Talk about the left not having a sense of humour! Now I know why you lefties so want to control everybody’s lives. It's so you can drag us all down to your own level of misery. You can't stand seeing anyone having a little bit of fun.
“Sorry I can't return the favour, as I don't recall you saying anything particularly memorable one way or other.”
Coming from someone on the left I consider that the highest of all possible praise. Indeed, you do me a great service. I’m almost blushing.
Me thinks you doth protest too much, DB!
Indeed, I've found the exchange hilarious in that, as is typical of 'ye of neoliberal faith', you avoid labelling yourselves thus at all costs. Which is understandable given the overwhelming evidence of the abject failure of this policy prescription.
So (as Gummy did above) your ilk prefer to maintain the simplistic generalisation of "left" and "right" - drawing on defunct overtones of the "left" being the 'reds under the bed'. And when that fails in terms of logical argument, you resort to a sort of political slapstick humour.
However your notional "right" has no new policy and no new vision (as John Key has proven) - so it continues along the neoliberal path hoping to disguise it by another name or label.
I reject both "left" and "right" - they are outmoded notions - they are irrelevant. We have entered the age of the politics/ideology of globalisation. You need to get a new hymnbook - and picking up that of the Enlightenment forefathers won't do either.
Society has moved on whether you choose to ignore it, poke fun at it or ridicule those that understand it or not;
http://mams.rmit.edu.au/es4cefpg6ifj1.pdf
It is the era you live in.
And yes, I realise there is no humour in this post - only hope.
Price. Cheaper it is the bigger the demand. However the collolary to this is the cheaper it is the less chance Council will consent it.
So you end up with expensive stuff no one wants to buy, but of wonderfull amenity thanks to Council Urban designers and Planners who are extremely concerned that the future inhabitants will have plenty of space, sunlight and vehicle maneouvring in developments that future inhabitants can not afford due to the cost implications of all the amenity that needs to be incorporated as part of the dealmaking associated with granting consent.
The stuff people can afford doesn't get consented as it is considered 'not good enough' for the future inhabitants by the Council officers who work on the principal that if it isn't the housing choice they aspire to then nobody else should be allowed to live in it.
"We had expected that ongoing population growth and low interest rates would be stimulating building activity (beyond the Christchurch rebuilding requirements). However, the consents data suggest underlying building demand remains extremely weak," she said.
"Given the low levels of construction activity, particularly relative to population growth, the weakness in consent issuance suggests there is a risk that the NZ housing market may become under supplied."
Whilst I would love to begin writing a swear-word ridden rant on this garbage, I shall politely restrain and remain considered.....
WHAT PLANET IS THIS WOMAN ON???????
Anyone, like myself, who works in and around the development sector knows it is sickly quiet. It doesn't matter that interest rates are "low", if no one is funding building!!! Perhaps her bank could assist by actually lending more to developers?????
"ongoing population growth"???ahhhh, migration has turned negative...
then she trots out the old bank economists' favourite , the under supply myth
oh dear oh dear
Matt in Auck
I went to a function held by the RBNZ about 2 years ago where they invited CFOs of the banking fraternity and finance coys to explain the new capital requirements for both the bank and non bank sector. risk weighting for a low lvr mortgage was set at 50%, for a property developer it was initially 300%+. The representatives of the Reserve Bank were greeted by gasps from the audience . Those that were funding this sector said that this would be the death of developers and mezanine finance. The RB response was "good" given the losses sustained by this group. It was followed by the statement "that investors were a resourceful lot, and that they would find a way to fund developments by some other means, more likely equity based". Reading between the lines one could infer that this is in effect an endorsement and leg up for Fletchers (ie the little man or owner/operator builder can F%&^ off!)
A lot of talk again on the building concent problem - no one talking about the real problem - COUNCILS and BUILDING COSTS. Being in the building industry (35yrs odd) - I have never seen the costs blowing out like this. An example of Council gouging is the Development Impact Levy, that was $550.00 per unit in 2004, then the next lot of units (2006) it was $5,500 per unit (no I have not put the comma in the wrong place). Now for the units I am trying to build now, it is $8,030 per unit !!!!. Forget it - no building is going to take place.
Saying that there is no demand in Wellington for Rental units in the inner suburbs is absolute rubbish. The demand is very strong. it is the COSTS.
I agree - there has to be a better way to look at development levies - and I think we need to get to a method which looks at what you are building - the design elements of the development proposal.
For example, if constructing energy self-sufficient unit(s) on a site which stores/reuses 100% of its runoff on site, collects and reticulates it's own freshwater resource and which provides no carparks for the residents, then aside from the increase in solid waste and sewerage infrastructure load - the development could be considered as getting close to neutral in terms of its growth attribution and the development levy waived as a form of incentive for better design.
Whether $8,000 per unit (the cost of the current levy) would pay for these additional design elements is the question.
So the 400+ members of the NZGBC are just a rinky dink lot of playtime jokers?
http://www.nzgbc.org.nz/main/about
tor lawn, a developer who wants carparks can pay the associated development levy for those roading costs attibuted to growth - no problem there. That's how it works presently.
But the developer, particularly of centrally located property close to public transport, who thinks there could be a demand for lower cost residential development for carless owners (many older residents fit this category) - shouldn't have to pay the development levy associated with roading infrastructure if he/she doesn't provide any parking space for the residents.
The idea being to create ways that developers can design developments which avoid certain charges associated with these levies. It could be some council's already apply this method of calculation - but I haven't come across any yet.
So Kate....do you see yourself bunged up in a central city bog standard concrete box enjoying the screaming traffic sirens and teen drunk louts every weekend...too afraid to venture forth on your electric buggy and spending your days gorking out a high rise bloody window at nothing but another high rise bloody building....
Cities are made up of Housing far all types. Some people come to Wellington on Contracts for 1 to 2 years - working for the Film industries, Business. You can live in a 100 unit Multistorey, a 16 unit apartment block etc.. Some people can arrord a house in the INNER suburbs and some out in the WOPS.
What ever your choice -
Regarding infrastructure - the rule should be that those who own it should be responsible for its equity and debt financing and charge levies / rates whatever for its use.
Isn't that what council's do at the moment for all the infrastuructre they own (i.e. rates) - or will need to own in providing for future growth (i.e. levies)?
Aren't you mainly arguing that we should raise debt for infrastructure funding differently (i.e. through the issuance of bonds) - but the payment of that debt would still need to be through rates and levies.
"The current "developer levies" are simply a nonsense and should never have got out of the starter block for obvious reasons of economic eeficiency and social equity."
Not nonsense fair, user pays. Whats equitable about existing ratepayers paying for new infrastructure especially if they are on limited incomes such as OAPs? Simple the developers and the new house owners pay for new kit via a first time levy....there are no interest charges involved and no one pays except those who want them, pay...
regards
I like the idea of user pays....so if the infrastructure is existing and for existing properties, yes the rates cover maintenance and replacement. However for new properties then any extar reticulation and plant size increaes should be met by the developer who passes it onto the home owner.
Why should existing rate payers contribute to expansion? after its installed the artes levied from the new hosuing will cover the costs for the new stuff, fair enough.
regards
1) Substantial growth is finished...
2) A hotel is not a good analogy....there is a third party involved, the developer....and this is expansion and not re-letting the same rooms over and over. What you are trying to do is palm the costs of expansion off those who wish to expand onto those you have no income and no benefit to meet your bills.
3) Councils have no choice on providing services in effect, so you cant tender when you cannot opt out.
regards
The present bubbles in the housing market / industry was caused by very cheap credit....there are more than enough opportunities in the US to build "freely" and we can see what the bursting of that bubble has caused. The entire market / industry has brrought the mess upon itself, but now is looking around for someone else to blame....sounds to me like the actions of a 10 year old.
Strangling land in order to keep a town or city from becoming one huge mess is a pretty reasonable decision IMHO.
"Wrong", there is no right or wrong....its about choice....as a voter i can choose to keep the system we have or change it, ive not seen a better system put forward yet, so Im happy to leave as is. The present method of funding expansion is borne by the developer and new home owner I consider that teh fairest way, simple.
"Positive" as in let a developer run amok? uh no thanks....you are assuming the present system is worse than any alternative and/or needs fixing, from my perspective this isnt the case.
performance metrics, by all means....you cannot manage what you cannot measure.
regards
...so that the local authorities were required to "tender" for the management rights of this extremely secure future income stream.
This notion of a "future income stream" being used as a legitimation for growth is common amongst local authorities. They suggest, 'we need to grow so that we can spread the rates burden amongst more ratepayers'. But, have you any experience of rates going down for individual ratepayers in any of our high growth communities?
No. They just keep going up and up.
Take Kapiti for example, one of the fastest growing populations during the boom times and year on year on year since that population explosion rates rises are well in excess of inflation - in fact more than double that of inflation year after year.
How has growth been good for Kapiti?
Growth is a burden - growth costs.
I appreciate your passion for affordable housing, Hugh, but we must also address the carrying capacity of our natural resources to cope with that growth through better designed development. Development which does not place further burdens on existing infrastructure.
Kapiti, and where do they get the water from? in the summer, bore wells, tastes vile...
Growth costs, indeed as a math professor said exptential growth means we go from one overlaoded sewage plant today to multiples at the doubling time....and thats not just plant the pipework is also now too small and needs enlarging....which is very disruptive and expesive to do.
Affordable housing is a mis-nomer....not everyone can afford a house and indeed not everyone should think its their best bet...
regards
Japan , Italy , the Philippines ........ all countries of comparable land area to NZ , and all with some inhospitable mountainous regions ..... and yet they have at least 15 times the NZ population....
...... from first hand experience , both of Japan & the RP still have plenty of wide open spaces , of untouched wildenesses .
As always Hugh, you avoid talking about specifics where the environment (and the possibility of environmental limits) is concerned.
I guess it's because it would be hard to argue that Kapiti has not already over-stressed the Waikanae River as its main urban centre freshwater resource - nor would it be easy to argue that Christchurch/Canterbury hasn't done the same to its aquifers - and let's not even mention the state of the Avon River. The question has always been a chicken and egg one - and so far NZ has always opted for grow first, accomodate that growth later once the existing infrastructure and ecosystems are well and truly overtaxed.
There is no problem about the price/availability of land in Pahiatua or Raetihi, Hugh. We are not talking about an all-of-NZ-land use issue - so to provide stats on NZs total land mass is an utter non-sense.
Where Malthus is concerned, have you actually read his work? What exactly about his analysis and equations are "bollocks"? There is no consensus among scientists or economists either way as to whether a Malthusian catastrophy can or cannot be avoided.
The state of global fish stocks suggest much of his theoretical models are quite sound - population growth has outstripped natures ability to replenish that food source. The principle arguments in favour of avoiding that catastrophy involves the line of 'necessity being the mother of all invention'. Nice piece of positive spin on the problem, but only time will tell.
"There is no problem about the price/availability of land in Pahiatua or Raetihi, Hugh. We are not talking about an all-of-NZ-land use issue - so to provide stats on NZs total land mass is an utter non-sense."
I don't think Hugh's point on urbanised land versus total land mass is nonsense. Like him, I can't understand why we are so precious about marginal peri-urban land, we have so much friggin countryside. Go for any decent drive through NZ and you will appreciate how much rural land we have, and how little urban land.
New peri-urban and ex-urban devleopment can be done well and in a sustainable manner. The Dutch in particular have done some excellent development along these lines.
But Matt, the issue isn't about driving around New Zealand to get to the countryside, rather it's about driving out of Auckland to get to the countryside - and without sitting in traffic for hours just to do so. It's about the massive stormwater problem Auckland already has and the cyclist vs car problem and the growing poverty in the region and the poor public transport network.
The question is whether we fix these problems first and retain the livability of the city - or whether we grow more and worry later. I don't know anyone who lives in LA for its livability qualities.
But I don't care - these "development levies" can be any figure "they" like - $8,000 or $20,000 - there are NO building consents !!. I am an investor NOT a Developer - I keep my units. I already have a waiting list for my units - rents have been rising - I can see the rental situation becoming a cronic problem in a year or two.
We have taken it as a right to OWN a house. In the 1920 - 30's only 30% owned there own houses. Our Boomers created this House Owning mania. In Europe house ownership is far lower than us. We are heading back the same way. I think now NZ ownership is about 60% and falling.
People always talk about AFFORDABLE Housing - what ever that means - realative to what?. Must people have know idea of the changes that have taken place in this building industry over the last 15years - massive increases in costs, bureaucracy etc ... Double glazing, Thermal R values, Ridiculous Window details, etc - all have added. We want "GERMAN" house quality in a "SOWETO" economy.
Another thing is the younger Gen Y and Z generations are far more mobile than my boomer and Gen X lot.
Mind you don't stub your rental returns on a little thing called govt policy DSB....A situation you see as personally pleasing can amount to being a political game changer for something called Labour......consider the potential a promise to freeze rents would have...on you!
And don't BS about such things never happening...and don't try the argument that you would see it coming...or that you would sell in time....
It is a small step for Labour to sink a size 12 steel capped boot into your bum...no skin off their nose...all private tenancy agreements are up for a good kicking by any govt....you could well find yourself trapped into being a landlord unable to sell out and unable to reap the income on a market short on properties.....facing a govt determined to reduce the cost of rents and harvest the votes in return....bummmmmer
You obviously have not been through the Muldoon area. See what happened when that idiot froze Prices.
When people make comments like that they obviously don't understand Markets.
Read about the situation in San Fransisco, Ohio and other states - where they dictact the
Market rent.
The forest or the trees DSB...you really must calm down...Labour can and do promise what ever they think will win them power and a return to the pig trough. If promising to cut rents by 5% each year they are in office would mean an election win...then promise it they will. If Muldoon was prepared to play silly buggers with a wage and price freeze...what do you think Labour would be willing to do.
It comes down to numbers DSB. If Olly is right and the peasants become tenants in his world as home ownership drops to below 50% etc...only a fool would say Labour would not promise to do something about it.
Care to tell us why a Labour govt couldn't run with this policy.........!
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.