The National-led government’s efforts to tackle Auckland housing affordability by focussing on the planning system’s effects on land prices is a “generational fix” for the issue, Prime Minister Bill English says.
During a Radio NZ interview focussing on homelessness Monday, English was asked about the rising cost of housing contributing to a growing number of people experiencing severe housing cost stress. While Budget 2017 initiatives would help 20,000 people rise above that stress line, it was put to English that 100,000 would remain below it.
He said the government’s response through the Budget was a shorter-term fix – “it’s a policy that delivers the benefits as we have the tools and the cash to do it with" – and that government was now looking to longer-term solutions.
“A big part of the growing cost of housing has been the growth in the cost of land. And that is why we’re setting out to rethink the urban planning system – everyone agrees we should, because in the long run, that’s how to get a better grip on the cost of housing,” English said.
Budget 2017’s ‘Families Package’ which included Accommodation Supplement boosts, tax threshold rises and Working for Families tweaks would ensure “more cash in the pockets of those families, so that they can afford it. And the market is going to become more affordable.”
He added that a systematic problem was also being tackled: “Poor planning creates real pressure for low and middle-income households. And everyone now agrees, in Auckland, where they planned for decades not to grow, had the effect of driving up land prices. That’s what’s driven up housing costs, primarily. We’re fixing that. This is a generational fix.”
Neo-liberalism
Radio NZ Morning Report host Guyon Espiner quizzed English on previous National Prime Minister Jim Bolger’s comments earlier this year that neo-liberalism had failed in New Zealand. You can listen to that Bolger interview on our website here.
“Frankly, I don’t know what he meant by that,” English said. “We have an economy which is underpinned by market principles – that’s broadly accepted. That’s enabling us to be competitive in the world, we can see that with our better terms of trade, for instance…”
Espiner put to him that neo-liberalism referred to state asset sales, lower taxes, smaller government. English said the term was a product of its time.
“This economy is in good shape. It’s one of the better performing ones in the developed world by any measure, but one of the better measures is that we have a higher proportion of the working age population in work than New Zealand has ever had,” he said.
“I think a debate that’s a left-over from the 90s is not going to guide us through the 2020s. What is clear is…if you can have lower taxes, if you can have less regulation, if you can have supportive social policy, you can have a successful country with a strong economy.”
Homelessness
Asked about wealth inequality – it was put to him that those at the top were doing very well while the poorest were having to live in cars and garages – English said the National-led government had been making progress on that front.
“First, they’ve got much more opportunity to get a job now, better than ever. Secondly, with the way we’re adapting social policy – here’s a fact: In Hamilton, homelessness has almost been eliminated by dealing with the people on the street one-by-one and the complexity of their problems,” he said.
“And in Auckland, in the last four months, the same kind of scheme – Housing First – has placed 150 people in just four months. And I can see a time where homelessness is rare in New Zealand if we’re smart about how we deal with it.”
On to homelessness, and the conversation took a surprising term. English suggested that the largest problem faced in New Zealand on the issue stemmed from the Christchurch earthquakes. It appeared to be a way to initially avoid the subject of people ‘sleeping rough’, although he returned to that definition later.
“So, our challenge there, 2010-12, was to rebuild a city whose homes had been devastated. Then the Auckland house prices took off. All work that’s been done on that is now coming to fruition,” English said. “Thousands of them in garages and lounges – no places to go to.”
It helped him get on to the track of discussing housing supply. He said the government had learnt lessons from its response to the Christchurch quakes, which could be applied to dealing with homelessness issues in other cities.
“Now, Christchurch house prices are flat to falling, it’s an affordable city, it’s a growing city. When the pressure came on in Auckland we’ve transferred those lessons to here, and now it’s working – house prices are flat to falling. And our ability to deal with those symptoms…is going to increase, because we’re going to have a more manageable market,” English said.
“We’re certainly going to have a very good go at [reducing homelessness]. We can’t guarantee that – and what I mean by homelessness is not the statistics measure of your cousin staying with your brother. It is people who are sleeping rough on the street. And I think that can be virtually eliminated.”
However, what was not acceptable was “the overcrowding where people can’t afford the housing costs, and there’s too many of them in a house,” English said. He added that there was probably even more “suppressed demand” for housing at the affordable end of the spectrum than what measures indicated. “You could go to houses and find, there’s families living together under the pressure of housing costs. We want to deal with that.”
“Solving that problem is a bigger, harder one. And that’s why we’ve changed the social housing system so that, as we look out over the next 10 years, we are renewing the approach to social housing . It will give us a lot more flexibility and capacity to deal with, what I think, is still some suppressed demand. There’s still more of it out there than the government’s familiar with,” he said.
164 Comments
It's now a 'generational' issue?
So the burden of something they have facilitated over 10 years is now stretched out for at least another 10 to 15 years?
What a stupid thing to (seemingly) be okay about.
What is the cumulative impact of this on New Zealand's productivity and wealth?
Bill, you really are as retarded as you look.
It's too late to "fix" the baby boomers as they've already had children. I don't think this policy will be very effective.
Bill English has completely ignored the problems that National create with the changes to the Building Code and their active encouragement of Councils to be hostile towards anyone applying for a building consent. That did happen 5 years ago and we're feeling the effects now. Of course he won't mention this as it's completely National's fault.
What I believe he saying is that we need another 9 years of National's idiotic leadership. Which would truly be generational with old white male boomers leading the country to greater disaster. Maybe they could double the debt to GDP as an achievement.
Neo-liberalism also of course includes the origins/running of our large scale immigration policy - a history of which is a really worthwhile read in this article by Ranginui Walker written in 1994 (so very prescient);
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_316.sh…
I read that article a few months ago and I was astonished. I am surprised that no Maori politician has used this quote ""In keeping with that unilateral determination of immigration policy, the Government did not consult its Maori treaty partner over admitting up to 25,000 immigrants per annum from 97 countries around the world.""
Which echo's David Goodhart's comment at the end of "the British Dream - successes and failures of UK immigration" that most eldery Brits say "while not necessarily being against immigration they don't know why they were not consulted".
Interesting, I was in early stages of primary school around the same time the Business Round Table (NZ Initiative) were shilling open borders to ruin everything for my generation.
Even Christchurch is looking like another country. And the immigration is not integrating either.
I go to the swimming pool; Kiwis down one end, Asians down the other.
I go to the supermarket to meet groups of Indian men gazing at my wife's buttocks.
At my workplace Chinese people often eat lunch at the same table. When I do talk with them they tell me how cheap the real estate is, and how much money their friends are making in real estate deals.
I go to the ATM - it asks me which language I want to use.
Peter Thiel spelled it out way back in 1996. Multiculturalism does not work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cxRYgqfHY
Thanks boomers for allowing NZ to be colonised.
Fair is fair. How about we revoke all citizenships granted to anyone whose ancestors arrived after 1800 AD and then let everyone re-apply for citizenship on their own merits? We could decide exactly how many people we want in NZ, by issuing only that many citizenships!
Exactly. Multiculturalism itself doesn't provide any benefits for white, western nations, but it does lead to segregation, "hunkering down," more political protests, a reduction in social capital, less trust and a loss of the "community spirit,." among other things.
First off, I'm glad we're in agreement that 'tasty ethnic food' is a benefit of multiculturalism - that's a good common ground to start from.
Here's a short (non-exhaustive) list of why i'm in favour of immigration and 'multiculturalism' and the benefits they bring to young kiwis:
- engaging with other cultures that have different ideas and different methods of solving problems opens up our own societal problem solving capacity.
- we're always going to be a small open economy that needs to trade with the rest of the world. Having people from the rest of the world here, with their connections to their previous homes, gives us a comparative advantage over countries with closed borders.
- immigration is, in aggregate, positive for economic growth. There will inevitably be winners and losers from any policy, but the economic literature is as clear about immigration as scientists are about climate change.
- intermingling of cultures improves genetic diversity.
- New Zealand's reputation as an open, friendly, welcoming country is one of the greatest assets we take with us when travelling and working abroad.
Whatever your thoughts about climate warming all the scientists studying it are in basic agreement although being scientists there are many details being argued. Not so economists and immigration for example Paul Krugman and Herman Daly. Can you name a single Chinese or Japanese economist influencing their governments to start immigration let alone increase it.
The consensus appears to be that demand increases so you get a boost to the economy as the new comers get homes and clothes and vehicles. But in the long run economic success from immigration is debateable.
Maybe it works in other countries and it certainly worked in NZ 150 years ago when there were resources just waiting to be plundered but after the last 70 years of way above average immigration New Zealand has dropped down the ladder of wealthy countries so it is not working here and now. Of course some immigrants add to our wealth but others don't.
If you want to learn from other countries do an OE. When Japan opened to the world in the 19th century that is what their government did sending a large number of its top academics to study the west.
I'll bite.
The west doesn't need to learn from other cultures since it is the most advanced. If anything other cultures are copying from the west.
Chinese trading with local Chinese doesn't benefit young kiwis at all. Example: Chinese tourists come here on China Southern Airlines, stay in Chinese owned "heritage" hotel, take Chinese bus to Chinese owned shops etc. This is simply cutting the kiwis out like we're some third world country.
Since immigration here isn't skilled it's just more people, same pie. Sure there is some short term boost in the construction sector but this is inherently unsustainable without limitless resources.
There won't be much genetic diversity if people fall into the melting pot. Everyone will look the same bland shade. But as I've said people don't want to race mix anyway.
Our passports are a joke now. We've imported so many fake students, chefs and money laundering thieves that Australia is starting to take away the power the NZ passport has.
Neoliberalism also sent our best and brightest young out into the world with debt already established. That might have merit ( might!) if it enables a skill deficit to be addressed ( more doctors and teachers etc) .But a large number were 'conned' into debt in a commoditized 'education' system that will see them excluded from establishing an adult life for years, perhaps decades to come. Bolger's comments, coming from The Right as they do, should be listened to.
Yip - tertiary education is just part of the great debt ponzi scheme ... it keeps (what would be) unemployed occupied and helps create demand ... but the majority of degrees and graduates arent really needed on a system wide basis - individually its a foot in a door ; collectively it makes little sense
This prolixity and bloviation does my head in ....
How does our urban planning system have any impact on a new blow-in arriving on our shores and rocking up and paying $10 million for a 150 sq/m house on 650 sq/m of land in Epsom or Remuera - explain that to me I'm a simpleton
This is an encore performance of Bill English's announcement yesterday that the Christchurch rebuild is mission accomplished
So it will take a generation to fix the issue that National have created in affordability over the last 5 years or so. And they denied the issue even existed till recently, I guess that is progress..... What a bunch of fools!
And i'm sorry but putting people into a hotels doesnt make them any less homeless. It just means they sleep in a room instead of a car!
Buyers who bought apartments off the plan in a tower in Sydney's south-west are facing the loss of their investment after the developer defaulted on a loan from a British Virgin Island lender, backed by a Chinese bank...liquidator, who have now seized the 14 apartments that were purchased off the plan at a big discount, as well as about another 16 unsold apartments. The buyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, are now concerned the receiver could auction off the apartments to pay the lender..
www.afr.com/real-estate/developer-hua-cheng-defaults-on-35m-loan-leavin…
I'll take it as a no to buying overseas. In Dr Smith's universe he repeats the cliched statements of the party but doesn't actually believe them. Your "interesting" statements I consider impractical and unrealistic and not really progressing the argument just cliched.
Quite right. But what happens to comparative property prices if/when those seized properties hit the market? Westpac seems to be getting ready.
"Westpac Banking Group will today introduce a new range of policies intended to tighten lending by increasing scrutiny of borrowers' income, the second policy change in a week....The group... wants more details about borrowers' bonuses, casual income, superannuation payments, savings and any tax benefits that might be used to qualify for a loan....Casual income must allow for an annual holiday and sick leave of up to 12 weeks. This scenario would cover annual income of occupations such as teachers, or other casual school staff, that are impacted by school holidays...If the current year's income is higher than the previous year's, then the lower previous year applies. ."
Best thing a lawyer can say to you in some deal you are proposing is "what are you buying" ? Asking that question is one of the most important things we pay them for.
So then what did folk pay for when they fronted up money in this building. The lawyer was paid, presumably, and should have been saying to them "what are you buying ? You are handing money over, but your ownership is uncertain." They should have the expertise to work that out and they have duty to do that and advise you.
Once again Bill insists that the housing issue is solely a problem of supply. It's a demand issue as well, as a whole generation now assumes that debt financed property speculation is the solution to tax-free capital gain. Taxation policy in concert with banking restrictions such as LVRs and capital ratios, more favourable policies towards rentals, a taxation on empty homes, etc would severely dampen demand. House prices would drop, which would lead to a vicious cycle as margin calls force mortgagee sales. The disadvantage would be a recession, recent house buyers with negative equity, superannuation savings wiped out and the Government that did it would be voted out. It would be worth it in the long-run though. Better we instigate this now before it is forced on us by GFC II.
Fran O'Sullivan made an excellent point about a CGT on Q & A in the weekend.
Basically it was that by not having a CGT it's effectively a great way to invite the world to buy up NZ property.
She seemed to be alluding that it's value was more as a market signal than anything else
Good point she makes.
At the moment it's a fairness issue too. Everyday Kiwi workers are having to bear more of the tax load on their incomes than they should, when this could be balanced more equitably across other forms of wealth gain the recipients of which are currently getting a free ride and not contributing reasonably to society.
she also pointe out we are wrong to have an open property market since we are so small and it disadvantages the locals especially with the way our property is being marketed overseas
when you have just as many people of the right spectrum saving we need to ban foreign ownership its only a matter of time before its done
Haha ... well isnt that exactly what people did to Labour in 2008 after 9 years in power ?? or lest we forget?...they were punished for their frugal and useless policies ...!! and all the might and power of Aunty Helen and the strong team of old hands wasn't enough to anchor them.... or are you lot just too young to remember that ??
Enjoy punishing National guys while paying your new taxes, revenge is sweet and will be somewhat expensive this round !! .... Wonder how long labour is going to last this time if elected? we know WP will not overstay his welcome ...:) ...:)
As far as I can see none of the major political parties or even the smaller ones are advocating for a fundamental change in the economy. We are a market-based economy with few exceptions. Labour wants to spend more money and National about as it is. That's hardly a radical choice now is it?
What are you trying to absurdly claim isn't true?
- That Labour were not competent enough to identify and admit and address a housing crisis during their last time in government?
- That National did identify a crisis, and campaigned on the housing crisis and the need to urgently address it, in 2007?
- That National has since then cynically denied any crisis (you know, that one they campaigned on) exists, and have not addressed it effectively, instead allowing houses to get up to crazy prices on their watch? They campaigned on it, then denied it's existence and made it worse.
Surely...you should be able to point out what's untrue about the above?
What is untrue is that there is any meaningful difference between Labor ( when in government ) and National approached the issue.
The prices speak for themselves ; the rest is just your inept attempts at spin.
I would add that Labor actually were in a much better position to do anything about the problem than the Nats had they chosen to do so - they did not have to deal with worldwide ultra-low interest rate environment post GFC.
I already noted in my post that Labour mismanaged the housing market, and were incompetent in this regard.
It's factually true that National campaigned on the need to urgently address a "housing crisis" then has simply denied for the following nine years that any crisis exists, and has in fact called it "a good problem to have" and a "sign of our success".
In fact, you've highlighted well my point - there's no meaningful difference in how they approached the housing crisis, yet it absolutely was National who campaigned on the existence of the crisis then cynically denied it for the next nine years, while mismanaging it.
Now - if people elect Labour based on their campaigning on the crisis, then they pull a National and turn around and deny any crisis exists and instead make things worse....well, THEN you would have a fair point.
I mean...if you just don't think National's dishonesty in the issue matters...that's different. Doesn't change the facts though.
Wasn't meaning Auckland. That is an anomaly. It's transitioning to an International city. I mentioned that in another article.
Rest of country went up far more under Labour and Clark than this National govt. Prices have gone up less than 40% in Wellington over the past decade or instance.
Thought it would be easier to copy and paste a response to the same argument from only 7 days ago:
We've really covered this off before, though. Labour were guilty of incompetence for not identifying and acting on a major problem.
National are guilty of much more cynical behaviour for campaigning on the urgent need to address the housing crisis, then denying for the next nine years the very existence of a housing crisis. And still they deny the crisis that existed when they were in opposition (as you raise) exists now: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/08/nats-alone-in-denying-hou...
National appear to have been committed over this last nine years to doing as little as possible that would have any real effect on making housing more affordable.
If it really was an urgent crisis in 2007 - as they said in their campaigning - why have Kiwis seen no urgency about resolving the crisis?
you mean this boldger, now he looks back has realized his government started NZ down the road to greater equality. I have to give him his dues to admit his mistakes
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91769882/The-9th-floor-Jim-Bol…
Bolger says neoliberal economic policies have absolutely failed. It's not uncommon to hear that now; even the IMF says so.
But to hear it from a former National Prime Minister who pursued privatisation, labour market deregulation, welfare cuts and tax reductions - well that's pretty interesting.
"They have failed to produce economic growth and what growth there has been has gone to the few at the top," Bolger says, not of his own policies specifically but of neoliberalism the world over.
He laments the levels of inequality and concludes "that model needs to change."
Pay attention to the blue line. There is Clarke's government for you.
https://rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key-graphs/key-graph-house-price-values
Property king's graph seems to show a direct correlation between our house prices and the monetary policy changes of the large central banks, along with the entry of China's influence. Might as well go home house prices have nothing to do with our regulations.
What was the point being made again?
I think the point is well made. PK said that house prices doubled between 2002 and 2007, and the graph shows that to be true. Therefore not arbitrary.
However, in my view, one of the best things about democracy is the ability to vote a party out of government, i.e. even though the graph shows Labour's reign to be terrible as far as house prices go, I would rather vote out the incumbent, if only to show that this is not what we want. Otherwise it can be viewed as validation for continuing the status quo.
Looking forward (rather than back 15 years), we now have a Labour party that realises that housing is a major issue, and a National govt who have barely even acknowledged the issue.
But that's an arbitrary point.
Like I said, anyone who justifies ~$250k being more than ~$450k is just plain retarded. Relative measures have their purposes, for sure, but in this instance it is a ridiculous argument.
Like I said, the variance on the graph shows, essentially, just as much house price growth under National.
Why didn't you buy? Foolishness always carries a price.
Chances are that you probably didn't buy any cryptocurrencies or the NZX50 ETF when it was less than half the price it is now. The fact that you didn't buy may not have anything to do with you being foolish. Suggesting that people who don't buy houses during possible bubbles are foolish is the realm of suburban point scoring, which is kind of foolish in itself.
"if someone makes money or succeeds"
Property King - you are clearly clueless (also an ugly trait). Money is DEBT. Making money is just expanding debt claims. ALL monetary policy is now geared to manage existing debt burdens which is destroying the very thing capitalism requires ... ie a biggere future ... investment & saving are toast ... in other words - the debt system which you know and love is on its way out.
If you know what you are doing you can make a heap of $$ in any property market. Everyone's house could go down and a good property investor will make even more money if they know what they are doing.
It is for you to learn, but if you choose to be envious and bitter then you will never succeed and you will stay in that loser group who knows neither victory nor defeat. In the frustrated words of the cricket supporter watching his team's batsmen block continuously, HAVE A GO!
I am not one bit envious of people making money.
I make more via an equities portfolio than I ever would with Property. The same is true for just about every investor in shares, provided they are at least semi numerate.
Property has, and always will be, the simple man's investment vehicle in New Zealand.
What I take exception with is people peddling BS - which is what you do.
Common taters are seemingly forgetting that the 'house price' issue for new builds is actually more of a Land Cost issue. As Hugh P useta say - 'if the land price is wrong so is everything on top'.
And this, believe it or not, is solely down to the stupidity, economic cluelessness and sheer arrogance of TLA's and their dopey Planning Schemes.
Because nowhere in the RMA does spatial zoning get a mention (try a word-search of the Act at legislation.govt.nz). It's solely concerned with Effects and nothing else.
So, and in this narrow sense of land supply and pricing, Bill the E is perfectly correct. Awkland - as unaha-closp is fond of saying, they prevent building anywhere close. Whereas in Christchurch (greater area, because it has Diffused) plot prices start with a 1 and house+plot with a high 3/low 4.
See the difference? Awkland closes the land supply gates, Christchurch has had them blown away (admittedly by Gubmint Diktat).
But as Awkland prices are where they are, with the entitlement effect that creates, and as Awkland planning owes more to Dunning-Kruger than anything else, it is certainly gonna be a long, hard row to hoe. Generational, in fact.
I agree, but feel you are being too optimistic.
Auckland doesn't close the gates (plural), Auckland closes one set of gates (singular). Auckland is the happiest of councils when it comes to converting countryside to sprawl. Auckland builds extensive and expensive sprawl in vast quantities for minimal benefit.
Every town of the region (except Auckland) has had its land supply doubled, tripled, quadrupled... by Auckland Council. Cumulatively more land is being developed at greater cost than ever before. Auckland Council is committed to sprawl.
Google earth Kyle Road in Greenhithe to see the VAST ACREAGES being LAND-BANKED , just 16 kms and 19 minutes from the City centre .
Heres the link :-
https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-36.7593702,174.6922715,728m/data=!3m1!1…
Make sure you cut and paste the whole link and then click on Satelite image in the bottom left corner
With all the will in the world , you are NEVER going to get land-bankers to sell vacant land and bring down prices when the land is going up faster than than the opportunity cost or the holding costs
Yeah this is a nonsense argument.
If you zone all the land around it for development as well, then it's value doesn't go up now does it?
Landbankers hold onto land that can be developed because they know how rare it is.
We either need to limit the number of people coming to this country (my preference) or allow developers to build pretty much anywhere. Otherwise you get price increases in land. Simple as that really.
Can't argue with that. Everything else is almost irrelevant. Except for the fact that the number of potential international or immigrant buyers will overflow demand even with opened up regulations. So I agree with your preference. Close the doors. And it's nothing to do with racism we're just overfull
Boatman,
Kyle Rd, Greenhithe isn't land-banking.
All of Greenhithe (apart from the bits with suburbs already) has been made "large lot" - which means new development is banned - by Auckland Council. This is just one of the numerous ways Auckland Council screws the Auckland property market to keep prices high.
Good luck to whatever Government we have after 23 September in dealing with Auckland house prices - because it will need it.
Like thousands of others, I've given up hope of ever being able to buy a half-decent house in Auckland.
Palmerston North - here I come...... (It's the city of opportunity! See you there, folks!)
Tothepoint this home was sold at the onsite auction yesterday afternoon for $2.922M. Zachary went to the auction so he probably knows if the new owner is Chinese or not... http://rwremuera.co.nz/auckland/remuera/15-cotter-avenue-10277424/
Hi DGZ,
Thanks for the link.
It rather seems that house prices are holding in good localities close to the Auckland CBD. I guess it's got a lot to do with convenience - and avoiding Auckland's transport/traffic problems.
Nonetheless, $2.922million is a whopping price to me.......... In good old Palmy North, you could buy an entire suburb for that sort of money. (-;
Also this one was sold in the beginning of Aug for $2.91M with a CV of $1.93M it's a whopping 51% over the CV https://www.barfoot.co.nz/596957
Here's a Freemans Bay villa for you tothepoint. I hope you like it http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction…
I think with the foreign buyers and especially the Chinese, that the other key cities around the world influence their decisions to buy in Auckland. There is no doubt in my mind that they see Auckland as a cousin to Vancouver and Sydney. If these markets weren't highly priced Auckland wouldn't be either, if Sydney goes up Auckland will soon follow.
Too many NZ'ers have missed property king's point(and are bitter as a consequence) that Auckland is transitioning into an International City and since it historically has a low density of housing means that property savvy people(property spiv's if you like) are capitalisizing on the densification. Have you seems the 2 new apartment blocks been advertised on Kepa Road, Mission Bay? 3 sections being converted into 42 flats. The top ones selling for around $4m each. Advertising started 6 weeks ago and over 50% sold is what I hear.
new by Property king | Mon, 28/08/2017 - 15:07
up2
Wasn't meaning Auckland. That is an anomaly. It's transitioning to an International city. I mentioned that in another article.
Is this what you mean? Not sure it is
An international city is an autonomous or semi-autonomous city-state that is separate from the direct supervision of any single nation-state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_city
What is your definition of of international city? What makes it different to what Auckland already is? Or does Auckland become a ring fenced country within a country with it's own Parliament etc? Don't know where it will get it's electricity and water from that it will need?
They seem to be getting to the stage where if they say it enough times, it becomes the truth. eg They don't admit there is a housing crisis, and it is only a 'challenge' .So as there is no crisis, there isn't a crisis to solve. Yet just about everyone else in NZ, including Labour, seems to be saying it is a crisis. But even Labours policies aren't really treating it like a crisis.
I listened to this interview. Bills language is terrible. I bet his campaign manager was cringing every time he referred to the have not's as them, they.
Propagating the them and us - Bill here's a tip, if we don't all work together, we aren't working at all.
For all you tax allergy sufferers, stock up on antihistamines.
It will be interesting to see if in the next few years there starts to be a growing gulf in society between native Kiwis who want the chance of home ownership, and those who were born at the right time to get access to housing and now want to open NZ as much as possible to increase their own material wealth with no thought for anyone else.
Yes it is already happening considering all the incidents that have happened in our neighbourhood:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760102
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/95603259/woman-allegedly-brutally-atta…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/75712542/violent-death-shakes-res…
nymad:
I am not one bit envious of people making money.
I make more via an equities portfolio than I ever would with Property. The same is true for just about every investor in shares, provided they are at least semi numerate.
Property has, and always will be, the simple man's investment vehicle in New Zealand.
What I take exception with is people peddling BS - which is what you do.
REPLY:
If it is sooo easy then why have you not done it.
Why are you so bitter? Sounds like envy and the ‘missing the boat’ attitude to me. Well done on making $$ out of shares.
Who are you talking to, just to clarify? May be better to reply directly to their comment.
Re envy - how about concern for young Kiwis who are born into this crisis? My partner and I have a couple of properties mortgage-free and earn good salaries, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have concern for the situation that younger Kiwis will face. I've no desire to see NZ return to an inheritance based society such as early NZers were very keen to avoid, having left that behind when they left their home countries.
I think you guys have latched on to your envy drum a little too tightly.
I'm sick of the whingers on this site. Blame, blame, blame, blah, blah, blah. That is not how a champion succeeds.
If I had to start again tomorrow I'd still find a way to make $$ out of property. As I said a good property investor can make money in any market. It is a bad mentality that holds people back (everyone owes me something) and listening to foolish and inept reporters.
Look, I do appreciate where you're coming from. You've worked hard, and you've forgone luxuries at times to get to where you've gotten. You don't appreciate people highlighting the role of luck any more than I appreciate people referring to "talent" to describe my aptitude in an area I dedicated years of hard work to.
That said, I don't think we can deny that things have gotten a bit out of kilter in recent times in New Zealand, can we? The article yesterday that discussed the distorting effects of some tax changes on property in NZ, for example. The ways in which the governments in NZ fostered supply of affordable housing in the past, versus now. The pure maths of property that young Kiwis are facing today, and how different it is...
You know property - so how about running some example scenarios of renting, saving then owning for young Kiwis in Auckland today? Looking at average rents, how long it will take to save a deposit, how long of a mortgage they'll then be facing and how might interest rate increases stress them? What incomes will they need to be on, and will they have to forego or put off having children? How would you do it if starting afresh now? (And if it's "get out of Auckland", are we as society okay with this being the only way?)
I don't think either of us would claim things are no different today than in the past, would we?
I don't honestly believe the average property investor on Interest is a bad or selfish person innately, and I don't honestly believe that young Kiwis (who are actually outsaving previous generations) are lazy, entitled and not prepared to put in the hard yards for home ownership.
Agree Auckland is a joke. It's out of kilter but I wouldn't be surprised to see a 20% drop up there should things go pear shaped economically. That will likely happen within the next 3 years and it won't matter who is prime minister. It's just a matter of how severe it'll be.
For the rest of the country there is no crisis. Homes are affordable if you want them bad enough and try not to expect to live in a suburb where Mum and Dad ended up!
Ha ha thats funny
Champion. Like Richie McCaw is a champion, Michael Jordan, Usain Bolt.
That statement says everything we need to know.
Of course if you start again tomorrow, you can do it. You have the experience knowledge, contacts networks. If you are so good teach people, become a mentor, invest. Dont put people down and call them losers. Set up a website that is scalable, create a business, that you can employ thousands, and employ lots of NZers, take it to another level. Become a unicorn.
Hahaha Auckland an international city? hahaha It will never be an international city. Its at the ass end of the world has no industry, no infrastructure, no vibrancy and terrible weather. It will end up a dirty Asian city full of ghettos. Any kiwi who grew up in Auckland will move to a place that provides the standard of living they were used to but for every 3rd worlder Auckland will still be far better than where they came from. You can keep Auckland.
Yep Auckland is as important to the world as Lima, Ho Chi Minh and Kiev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
It is also not on a flight route to anywhere so not a gateway city.
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.