sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Do we need more direct regulation to solve our housing woes - or less? Has past regulation contained the issue, or accentuated the problems? Your view?

Property
Do we need more direct regulation to solve our housing woes - or less? Has past regulation contained the issue, or accentuated the problems? Your view?
No video provider was found to handle the given URL. See the documentation for more information.

Plenty of voices make the case for "more regulation" to solve our housing issues.

We have local authorities required to 'plan' and 'set standards'. We have central government imposing national policy guidelines, directing "special housing areas', writing resource management rules.

Here is someone making the case for less of all this.

This clip is offered as a place to discuss the issue.

A reminder: please keep comments issue-focused. Personal slagging of anyone, including those offering different points of view, will be removed.

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.

77 Comments

Less planning regulation.
More regulation on foreign investment.

Simple.

Up
0

Fritz... u are a genius... I agree

Up
0

You are WRONG, both of you. I don't understand why people do see what the problem is ? The only way to sort this mess out is tell us how many migrants we are planning to let in over the next 60 months SO WE CAN PLAN TO HOUSE THEM IN AN ORDERLY FASHION .

Right now we are reacting to the tsunami of skilled migrants that have been let in over the past 36 months , all of whom have to be housed ( 200,000 work visas issued in the time it takes to build a Greenfield housing project )

Up
0

Boatman.. I agree with u too.... ....which does not make Fritz wrong.

Up
0

Apologies Mate , I thought you were missing the point ( and I may be wrong anyway because there may be something I am missing too )

There is no easy solution to this mess we are in , but the Govt ( who I support) has not handled this immigration issue well .

The immigration numbers have, to use a rugby analogy , come in and high tackled from our blind spot , we did not see this crisis coming

Up
0

Less regulation.

Simpler.

Up
0

Maybe simpler but unlikely to be effective

Up
0

???
How could it not be more effective?
How could it possibly be less efficient than adding more constraints to the problem?

Up
0

When you have a world awash in a surplus of money looking for a home that supplies a yield, or capital gain, and housing in New Zealand supplies that, then there is probably very little the governments and councils can do. But if the government is going to try and address the problem, the intervention has to be on a scale so massive that it will break decades old narrative that you can't lose in housing.

Alternative is to let it runs is course, and break of its own volition. For break it will.

Up
0

Like it or not,, the regulation is there because history has shown that when left to their own devices. The average Kiwi will do a very sub-par job at constructing a house.

But, in saying that. Most of those in charge of the regulations also do a very sub-par job, and usually try to interpret the reg's in the most ineffective way possible.

Some reg's are definitely needed, some could be removed. I just don't think we have the collective Government brainpower to redo it correctly.

Up
0

That has been a growing problem ever since Roger Douglas and his ideas got hold of the country. It most certainly was not much of an issue prior. Let us remember that it was slackening of regulations that brought us leaky homes. It is not just NZers who will turn to cheating and bilking each other if some sort of rules and regulations and punishment for transgresssions were not available. If that we not the case, the human race would never have gone down that track in the first place all those thousands of years ago.

Up
0

It wasn't slackening of the regulation, it was the regulation!!! We actually got more regulation, not deregulation. Read it all here: http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-1-myth-of-deregulated…

Please tell me, how many homes leaks before we got all this regulation? The stuff that cot build in the 1920s for example? Not known for being a leaky building does it?

Up
0

Two things - eaves and native heart wood. I sincerely hope you are not proposing that we return to the days of no regulation when native forest was felled like there was no tomorrow, much of it is resistant to rot. Funny how that article managed not to acknowledge, especially, the role native timbers played in the durability of housing from those eras, might have spoiled the narrative a bit, I guess.
Then imagine if we had had regulations that required that houses had eaves, especially when this ludicrous fad for Mediterranean type housing and monolithic cladding combined with cantilevered decking became so popular. Even little school kids drawing houses knew that houses needed eaves.

Up
0

Only with our native wood we got to build houses that didn't leak! Maybe tell that to the rest of the world.

If you want to read more in-depth on what makes houses leak, read this: http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-2-whats-going-on.html

But given you cannot mention a SINGLE regulation that was abolished, and according to you the cause of the leaky houses, I take it you concede that no, we didn't get less regulation, and more regulation didn't actually help.

Up
0

I'm arguing that not enough regulation applied, we have tightened up since, inconvenient, yes, but given the materials we have to work with, necessary, unfortunately. We do not and should not have the option of native timber anymore

Up
0

"Only with our native wood we got to build houses that didn't leak!" Pretty much, yes.

Up
0

Not so much 'native' as 'old growth'. Dense old-growth timber is one of those resource peaks that we blew through centuries ago and hardly noticed.

Same in the UK. Buildings galore put up with old-growth oak still going strong after more than 500 years, but had to switch to brick when supplies ran short. Somewhere I saw the figures on timber consumption for building just one ship, like the Mary Rose. Whole forests, thousands of trees, and a hell of a lot burned in forging the nails and other metal bits.

Up
0

"Old growth" timbers are pretty much native, wherever in the world they are, we had what we had. I defy you to hammer a nail directly into some old heart rimu without drilling the hole first for it.

Up
0

And I expect we would be absolutely horrified today at the amount of wood that would have been flitched off these massive trunks in order to get at the heart wood. I imagine the flitchings would have by and large found their way into the fireplace or stove.

Up
0

And the amount just burned off would break your heart.

Up
0

It truly is both sad and scary. We are the "Clean Green" nation yet we are missing something like 80% of the native Bush we had 200 years ago.

We have more Pine plantations than native bush. It is that same Pine that is the cause of most of our building problems. It is a softwood, that is completely unsuitable for construction.

Up
0

That crosses my mind more than infrequently, especially when I consider what is going on in Indonesia at the moment. Will we, in 200 years time, when Orang Utans and many other species are but a distant memory, look at the lovely neat rows of palm plantations and admire the clean, greenness of them?

Up
0

or admire Brazil for the "green" way they raise cattle in nice open pastures as opposed to Barns. Ignorant of the fact that there used to be this small thing called the Amazon.

Up
0

although of course you couldnt use that same recycled rimu for framing now because of regulation. I built our first house largely from recycled timbers, including wonderful douglas fur beams, but would not be able to do that now.

Up
0

although of course you couldnt use that same recycled rimu for framing now because of regulation. I built our first house largely from recycled timbers, including wonderful douglas fur beams, but would not be able to do that now.

Up
0

Actually those who blame Roger Douglas have no memory of New Zealand before the reforms of the 80's. For instance, you were legally required to purchase a dozen beer when you purchased a bottle of wine. This was because wine could only be sold from wholesalers and you could only buy from a wholesaler if you bought so much. This was regulation, like many regulations, which was imposed by Government after lobbying from the major breweries.

Up
0

Sub par? How many of those sub par homes were signed off by local council building inspectors? How many were designed by architects with the builder just following the plans?
The "average kiwi" can build a home with some oversight, its not rocket science and nor should it be treated as such. Sub par homes are still being built it would appear from time to time by an industry that almost has the whole process locked up for themselves. Having said that, that kind of regulation is only a small part of the overall problem. The real problems lie with banking and tax regulations along with immigration and foreign investment policies that have not kept pace or ahead of the huge elephant in the room we are now dealing with

Up
0

"The "average kiwi" can build a home with some oversight"
That oversight is the regs. They have got unwieldy precisely because we clearly can't build a home.

As for the rest of your comment, I have to agree, there are significant other issues rather than just the regs.

Up
0

It would pay to note that the systems used - monolithic cladding, chem free timber, spray on texture coating, no eaves - were all acceptable at the time. Our Friends at James Hardies and Carters had quite a vested interest in the first two.

Up
0

LOL - he actually made the case for more tax, LOL.

He referred to this "more tax" as "revenue sharing between central and local government". Use more revenue gathered from tax to get infrastructure to private landholders - so that more land is available for residential development.

In fact, Mr Seymour, restoring the top tax rate to 39% might just do it. You're onto something.

That fine idea aside, where were you the other day when the vote in Parliament to remove the Auckland Urban Growth Boundary was lost by only one vote? Yours.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1609/S00171/seymour-to-twyford-put-you…

The spin you've tried to put on the cock up that was yours is pathetic.

Up
0

Where does he make the case for more tax?
He was arguing that the central government is gaming the system at the expense of local government. He never made a case for increasing tax revenue, only more equitably distributing the current tax revenue.

Anyway, how would raising the top tax rate to 39% (or some other arbitrary figure) help at all?
I know I don't want to pay more taxes for services I don't receive.
Plus, it does nothing to support what he is saying in terms of equitable distribution of funds.
It would make more sense to raise council taxation and reduce PAYE contributions.

Up
0

The bit where he says infrastructure problems should be solved by ""revenue sharing between central and local government" - meaning the answer to Auckland's problems require more of the nations share of tax.

All councils build exactly the same type of infrastructure to service their respective populations. And they all receive CG subsidies for such infrastructure proportionately. Why should central government pay a greater proportion of this requirement for Auckland only? As you say, that is not equitable.

Auckland Council's problem is it can't afford the rampant growth - or its spending its revenue in all the wrong places. They need to solve it locally - their rates pretty much are on a par (if not much, much, much lower as a proportion of valuation) to elsewhere in NZ.

The only way to get David Seymour's idea of "increased sharing" is to increase national (e.g., CG revenue).

You and I are on the same page - David Seymour is not.

Up
0

Fair enough. I think linguistically there is a disconnect, then.
I really doubt Seymour would ever be advocating increasing taxes without value. I took increased revenue sharing as an increase (decrease) in proportion allocated from a fixed pool of funds.

Up
0

Seymour's speech (that one anyway) is a diversionary tactic. He's got a great deal of trouble on this issue of housing affordability (which is what the debate was all about). Firstly, he's the MP for Epsom - the biggest NIMBYs in town, and secondly, he's in coalition with a National government who has been telling us the problem is a supply-side one and nothing else for the past 8 years. So he has to toe the supply-side line.

But what happened during that debate is that due to a technicality - it opened up an opportunity for opposition parties to table amendments to the National bill to extend the timeframe for SHAs to operate. One of many amendments tabled by the opposition (all of which were voted on by Parliament) included the removal of the Metropolitan Urban Limits in Auckland - a supply-side measure and something he has been advocating for all along. National voted "No" (believe it or not!) and Seymour was missing in action. His vote would have seen the amendment pass. He claims to have been in a meeting (within Parliamentary walls) but no one got a message to him about this amendment or the vote in time for him to be informed.

Either he hasn't got a secretary who reads his emails and acts on the urgent ones (Phil Twyford sent him an email an hour before the vote apparently) or he conveniently made an excuse about why he was a no show.

To be fair, maybe he hasn't got a secretary.

Up
0

More regulation on the banks' special rights to loan money into existence and their ability to exploit real savings and implicitly pass the buck to the taxpayer.

Up
0

Unsure if you need more or less regulation. Just BETTER regulation.

There should be better regulation of credit. No more interest only mortgages. LVR restrictions should stay in place and LTI restrictions should be introduced. Banks should be forced to hold a higher amount of capital. There should also be longer term fixed rate mortgages introduced. Housing shouldn't be a giant game of chicken for whoever can take out the most heroic mortgage.

Foreign buyers should be taxed hard or banned outright. That includes students and guestworkers. The current state of affairs is quite frankly disgusting. Likewise negative gearing. Capital gains tax should be applied to housing gains to level the tax playing field with other investments.

Landbanking is the source of much woe. We have a regulatory framework that encourages it. Either get rid of the MUL or levy high rates on zoned but undeveloped land. We are not short of land in New Zealand, even on the outskirts of Auckland. The drips and drabs zoned are just being held hostage.

I don't know much about building regulations, but it sounds like there is a cartel with building materials and being forced to use one or two specific suppliers approved for New Zealand. Obviously we don't want the leaky homes farce all over again. Why does every country on earth manage to build quality housing quite cheaply compared to New Zealand?

Up
0

When Seymour was talking about how everything seems to go down in price except for housing and he asked what is different about it?

Inflation targeting and housing being excluded from CPI would be my answer.

Up
0

Inflation targeting effects all goods.
Housing costs are included in the CPI.
We have been over this.
If you still can't differentiate between consumed goods and assets, I don't know what can help you understand..

Up
0

As you are so clever why don't you go ahead and explain for our benefit exactly how housing costs are included in CPI and if the weightings are appropriate. Imputed rent in GDP calculations is another interesting topic if you have the time.

I can differentiate just fine between classifications and that simply reinforces what I said about WHY one just goes up and up while the rest don't.

Up
0

The costs of 'consuming' housing are in the CPI. These include Rent, mortgage interest, maintenance, Rates, and the like. These are the types of costs that consumers face every month or so.

You can find the weightings of the various housing costs that are in the CPI here. (Follow the links.)

What is not included is the capital cost of buying a house, something most people do just a few times in a lifetime. These are not consumption costs. They should not and are not be included in CPI.

Up
0

I never said they weren't and never argued it should be. Just thought it might be better to hear it explained by Nymad.

Again, I'm simply stating that house prices go so high because CPI is used to set interest rates and interest rates are a strong driver of the price (capital cost) of houses, which doesn't directly feed back into CPI.

Up
0

And I quote...
"Inflation targeting and housing being excluded from CPI would be my answer."

Up
0

Well done, xelnaga. My argument (below) exactly. We need to look beyond orthodoxy - it masks reality on the ground.

Up
0

For your second point, "Again, I'm simply stating that house prices go so high because CPI is used to set interest rates and interest rates are a strong driver of the price (capital cost) of houses, which doesn't directly feed back into CPI."

You have hit the nail on the head with that one as to why property value isn't included in CPI.
Causation. Assets should not have a causation effect on consumption measures.

In the case of an intrinsically restrained land market (i.e we can't use technology or capital to efficiently increase supply) and a natural Malthusian condition, the consumption inflation measure would be perpetually overstated. This would have a non optimal influence on the overnight rate - i.e. there would be undue pressure to constantly increase it.

Up
0

Again, I'm simply stating that house prices go so high because CPI is used to set interest rates and interest rates are a strong driver of the price (capital cost) of houses, which doesn't directly feed back into CPI.

Fair comment.

Australian banks have grown in size hugely in recent years. Astonishingly, Commonwealth Bank of Australia is the tenth largest bank in the world, despite Australia having a far smaller population than China, the US and the UK – the other countries who have banks in the top 10. All four of Australia’s main banks appear in the global top 20.

Australian banks are highly geared to a domestic housing bubble and have built up some of the highest loan-to-deposit ratios in Asia and the developed world. When, as we believe, the housing market begins to unravel, the banks are gravely exposed. Our equity leading indicator for Australian banks corroborates this, which forecasts the sector turning down over the next 6 months. Read more

Furthermore,

Australia has been in a fully blooming housing bubble. Households are the most indebted in the world, based on debt to disposable income. To maintain the housing bubble, the central bank slashed interest rates to record lows (1.75%). The government wants to keep the bubble going for as long as possible. So regulators close their eyes, according to media reports, to questionable or even illegal lending practices. Home prices, after soaring for years, are clearly unsustainable.

The assets (mostly outstanding loans) of the big four Australian banks have skyrocketed. For example, in 1999, CBA’s assets amounted to 14% of GDP. That was already high, for just one bank! By the end of 2014, they reached 51% of GDP. How’s that possible? A housing bubble with sharp price gains funded by ever larger mortgages extended by ever blinder loan officers. If these four banks topple, as we noted almost a year ago, they can sink the entire Australian economy. Read more

Up
0

What is not included is the capital cost of buying a house, something most people do just a few times in a lifetime. These are not consumption costs. They should not and are not be included in CPI.

I thought I'd read somewhere that we Kiwis move owner-occupied dwellings (on average) once every five years. That of course doesn't include the turnover rate of non owner-occupied residential dwellings. Whether that implies we are consuming houses (LOL) ...

The point of the matter is that First Home Buyers only move into their first home once in a lifetime.

CPI like GDP is an antiquated, orthodox conceptual application with little to no relevance in the world today. New ways of measuring the success, or otherwise, of societal progress are desperately needed.

I think you'd agree?

Up
0

Exactly.

There is very little appetite for productive investment during depression because businesses realize very easily there is little return on investment under those conditions. Thus, economists believe low rates are incentivizing businesses to invest through the low costs of borrowing when in fact businesses refuse to borrow because as a matter of basic logic and common sense there is no reason for them to do so (at the margins) no matter how little it supposedly costs. It doesn't matter if you can borrow all you want at zero interest, if you think the economy is bad now and will remain that way you aren't going to add a liability that doesn't actually create expected wealth. The interest rate isn't the issue. That is a much different process than the one suspected of an R* at zero or negative.

It is, however, the opposite case for financial investment. Companies that experience depression in the real economy can be incentivized to participate in debt that flows entirely into financial progressions such as share repurchasing or M&A at greater and greater prices. These are, essentially, alternate outlets for resources because of the low reward paradigm in the depression economy, an almost paradoxical parallel to John Maynard Keynes' liquidity preferences. That has the effect of redirecting even more monetary flow via credit away from the real economy for distinct circulation outside of it. Productive investment creates jobs and incomes; financial investment creates unrealized gains and perhaps dividends. Despite the contention of economists (yet another correlation/causation fallacy disproven), there is no wealth effect from record stock prices leaving the economy further worse off (and creating a self-reinforcing spiral where less money to the economy creates more incentive to do even less in it).

Persistently low interest rates as well as productivity are symptoms of a depression economy. Economists and policymakers are being forced into that conclusion though they might be doing so for now on their own terms. Read more

Up
0

You can see for yourself; no need for me to explain it - stats nz breaks them down, with their respective weightings. You can see the allocations of rent and cost of new build housing plainly.
I trust the statisticians to get the expected weightings correct for aggregate NZ. Sure, it is not optimal for all areas, but as an aggregate measure, I doubt they are shafting us.

If you understood the two concepts adequately, you would be able logically explain why "one just goes up and up while the rest don't".

Up
0

Then why is "one just goes up while the rest don't", only a recent phenomenon, since about the year 2000, where previously it tracked 2-3 * household income? (stripping out inflation). With housing inflation starting soon after CPI targeting came along.

It hasn't really stopped the boom-bust cycles has it?

Up
0

Indeed. I would argue that by targetting only CPI inflation, the inflation hasn't been defeated, its just been pushed out to where it's not targetted.

Up
0

Supply vs Demand is why it tracked, previously.
Likewise, supply and demand is why it diverges now. See my comment regarding what differentiates property from consumption above to provide a basis as to why this happens.

I don't know what you mean by "It hasn't really stopped the boom-bust cycles has it?"
Just because it doesn't track with CPI, it doesn't mean that a boom-bust cycle has been avoided..

Up
0

Inflation targeting was designed to stop boom-bust, now we get mega-boom (10%+ housing inflation) and mega-bust (2000,GFC, next one)

Where is the supply response then? Because there is expectation to make good returns on inflating existing property with overly cheap debt.

Up
0

Inflation targeting was not designed to remove boom-bust cycles; it's design was to limit the huge volatility in business cycles. Sure it smoothes boom-bust cycles, somewhat, but it could never be expected to completely remove them.

The supply response is non existent because of the myriad of restrictions placed on generating supply in Auckland. Ask any economist - this is the root of the issue.

Up
0

I would ask my local economist, but like all economists he is wrong most of the time.

Up
0

Unlike the commentators on this site, apparently..

Up
0

It is not about more or less regulation, it is about balanced regulation that is effective. The issue with respect to housing is greed, so the regulation is required to put the brake on it, not wipe it out altogether. The regulation that the Government and the RBNZ has put in place has not addressed the core problem, and only adversely impacted the young or those trying to get into their first home. The regulation that the Government has put in place has allowed bureaucrats to run rampant with legislation making the cost of red tape ludicrous, and has not stopped land banking, has put foreign buyers ahead of Kiwis (under the BS mantra that a foreigner buying residential property here is "investing" in NZ!).

So it is all about balanced regulation that puts ordinary Kiwis first, protects their opportunities and rights from being bulldozed by the rich and powerful. Get it right and the economy keeps ticking over at a nice pace without the boom and bust cycles.

Up
0

When it's not working try again. And again. And again. But I sometimes wonder how these folks in the 19th century came here, and build this country without any building regulations.

Up
0

As I said above, native heart wood, from ancient trees, in abundance, great big huge slabs of the stuff, much of it resistant to rot. We do not have that anymore, we destroyed almost all of it. Now we use immature, rapid growing pine that is not even allowed to dry naturally. We have to make sure no water gets to it, as we no longer cure it with poisonous substances. Or we use steel and we all know what happens to that if it gets water and oxygen on it.

Up
0

Yep. We did a substantial renovation to a 1920s bungalow. The timber in it had originally been milled from the property it started life out on, we were told. It was then transported to the site we bought it on, and had stood there solid as a rock in extremely challenging wind conditions on the foothills of the Ruahine ranges for the past 10 years. Outstanding views of both Taranaki and Ruapehu year round - as well as Kapiti Island (on a clear day).

When we went to replace the ceilings with Gib, we were required to "strengthen" the roof space. It was hilarious. The builder pointed out that the house had withstood NZ conditions for the last 100 years - we hadn't altered it structurally and he doubted the new timber was going to make one iota of difference over the next 100 years - unless the roof leaked, that is! Then we'd get rot.

Up
0

Better and valid regulation. Also proper and fair taxation.

Up
0

It all depends on the type of regulation. The government could immediately fix the problem by legislating that no house could be sold for more than, say, $500k. But they would not do that. Similarly removing all regulation - I.e building codes and planning restriction, landlord subsidies etc would eventually have an effect on house prices. But that too would not be done.

I think the problem is that too many people think that housing is a safe investment. More than anything else, that is causing prices to rise above any inherent value in the land, amenities and shelter. Perhaps what we need is the horses to be scared a little. Ten years ago a friend of mine from China was telling me that he would never invest in real estate in China because without any warning the government could just take it away. So maybe, instead of regulation, we just need a more enthusiastic use of the Public Works Act, and problem solved.

Up
0

For those calling for more or the same regulation, here a real example of someone trying to add a shower to a room. In the normal world: nobody wants to destroy their house, or make their insurance invalid, so they pick a good plumber, the plumber installs the pipes, the builder puts up the frames, and we install the shower. Done.

Here in Auckland:

  1. Get an architect to draw up plans.
  2. After a few rounds, architect submits this to council. At this point you're already a few thousand into the process.
  3. Wait for council to approve. Hopefully you don't need to go back to your architect. If they approve, it's $2,000.
  4. Finally you can get your plumber. They can do half the work. Then you have to wait and book in a council inspection. Weeks pass.
  5. You get your FIRST inspection. These guys are so glad they get to inspect something, they'll find something to proof their worth, so plumber has to come back. Another week gone.
  6. Another week passes, and council inspect turns up. Approves.
  7. Now you get to do the final half, filling up the holes, because the inspect had to look at the pipes. You need to book your plumber/builder, which are all busy, so another few weeks. At this stage you only get to fill up the concrete and put up water membrane.
  8. You need to book your SECOND inspection. It gets signed off.
  9. At this stage you haven't gotten your shower in yet. But now finally you can install your shower.
  10. After you have done that, you have to book your THIRD inspection. Hopefully it passes, else you can rip it all down.

Only then you have your shower.

All you guys calling for more of the same, have you ever build anything?? You really think this is the regulation that has anything to do with safety? It solves absolutely nothing except make building in Auckland very, very expensive.

Up
0

1.(a) Screw it, will just get a plastic tub and a sponge.
1.(b) Screw it, will just buy the components and install it myself on the quiet.
1.(c) Pssst, who are the shady inspectors who'll pass it for a backhander? Those are the ones I want.

Up
0

It costs more in compliance to put in a Velux window then the installation etc itself if you are DIY, thats the MADNESS we live in....

Up
0

Move out of Auckland!!!!! It's not the building regulations that are the problem - it's the wait times for people both in the public and private sectors that are too busy to get back to you within a reasonable timeframe to progress the job.

We did the same here (well actually more, we relocated a HWC and installed a wetback at the same time as adding a shower) in Palmy a year or so ago. Total job done inside two weeks - and we didn't require an architect to draw up the plans - we used a draftsman. He was really quick and the price was reasonable beyond our expectations. And we were living on a LSB in the sticks - which for here, is 14km out of town :-)!

You're problem is Auckland - and Auckland's rampant growth arising from excessive immigration numbers and a speculative property market. It's not only the demand for housing that is out-of-control up there, but the demand for all the tack on services associated with it!

Plumbers, planners and building inspectors will be leaving the city in droves looking for a relaxed, affordable lifestyle in a place where they can earn exactly the same amount of annual income and not have to waste hours upon hours of un-billable time in traffic to boot! AND the kids will be able to walk to a decile 10 school as well :-).

The only way to solve your issue in Auckland is to amend the Building Act or decrease the demand for these services.

Otherwise - move.

But perhaps given the renovation that's your plan :-).

Up
0

Completely and utterly ridiculous. The cost of installing an ensuite is 5 times the cost in other countries like HK and Singapore.

Up
0

Perhaps their plumbers will emigrate here and lower our costs.

But they'll need to enter as tour guides or chefs, according to the immigration stats - they are the occupations in high demand.

Up
0

LOL

Up
0

who can take david semyour seriously, he and peter dunn are only in parliament due to backroom deals.
so whatever there stance is can be changed at a moments notice with a quiet word in the ear.

Up
0

Dunne is gone the Labour+Green votes in his electorate will kill him off.... Labour going to do and epsom on him.... Even senior National Party people talking WP needed this time

Up
0

In a sense the same building code can be used but the terribly slow and incompetent processes within the councils could be fixed. The councils are under the impression that they are doing a good job and avoiding risk, when in fact the opposite is true. Councils are signing off some complete shit while spending all their time obstructing consents. Their performance is disconnected from reality. Despite all of this the building code itself needs a lot of improvements.

RMA needs to be modified to eliminate nimby sabotage. There are also a lot of times neighbours are completely insane and try to attack any work that'll be carried out around them. Although I've seen people that've flipped out over a notified consent only to have someone turn out and build within the district plan and block their view. Nothing quite like trying to ruin someone's building work only to hurt their own interests.

Up
0

WTF were they thinking ? It should come as no surprise to anyone that we allegedly have 40,000 New Zealanders facing various degrees of homelessness, when, without ANY forewarning from NZIS and zero planning by the Beehive we have issued 200,000 work visa's to skilled migrants in just 36 months (when 36 months is the least time it takes to build a housing estate on a greenfield site...... Hobsonville Point has taken 15 years ).

Of course these skilled migrants have valuable skills and a relatively high earning capacity , many earn twice the minimum wage . Migrants have to live somewhere , and are prepared to pay higher rents than unskilled poor Kiwi's on minimum wages.

And landlords prefer foreign migrants .

Poorer New Zealanders often have huge extended families that cause overcrowding in rental houses and related problems such as blocked toilets , damaged carpets, burnt out plug-points strain on the house wiring system , all the hassles with rent subsidies , a shocking culture of poor payment , and a devil-may- care attitude towards looking after rented properties .

Migrants on the other hand have small families and tend to be 2 adults and one child ( Chinese) or two children (South Africans ) or three children in the case of Filipinos and Indians . And they pay the rent on time .

The "poor" New Zealander has basically been kicked out to make way for a higher rent paying foreigner, he is facing homelessness and his first stop in Housing New Zealand.

The lack of affordable housing in Auckland is caused by one thing and one thing only. Quite simply, Its time to recognise the real you-know -who -in the -woodpile and deal with it .

Up
0

36 months for a greenfield housing estate.

11 months for the whole Empire State Building.

Up
0

two words 'foreign buyers".....

reducing regulation is all fine and dandy and should be aimed for will help with supply HOWEVER, we also need to reduce the demand as even with deregulation they can't build the houses fast enough.

Up
0

Took us 7 months to get permission to build a 55sqm extension on our place - Council demanding flood reports despite living on a 30º slope; lost plans; no access to Watercare/West Auckland Councils' plans records ("Sorry they're a seperate/old organisation!" Why does a rate-increase-dodging split-out by John Banks and A-Name-Change-to-'improve-efficiency' result in no access to existing documentation?). The regulation itself is almost acceptable given materials and experience etc; the incompetence, confusion and obfuscation most definitely aren't.

Up
0

To run a country you have to have regulations. But those regulations have to be good regulations. Perhaps all laws and regulations should have a sunset clause for their total review. But in reality, as U4 says, it is not the regulation but the competence of those administering it and that is a completely different issue.

Up
0

The argument should be about, good no regulation, bad no regulation, good regulation and bad regulation.

Then you need to realize that if something is 'bad', then if you do it slower or quicker, or throw more money at it thinking that it's the speed of implementing it or spending more on it, then all you are really doing is magnifying the wrong thing, and puzzled looks all around when it doesn't work.

Common sense would say if you want to be successful, then look to success for the clues, habits, and systems to be successful.

But where do our numbies look, they look at other jurisdictions that have exactly the same problems they have, expecting to find the answer, without thinking that if they had the answer they wouldn't have the problem in the first place.

Of course, those other jurisdictions look to us for the answers.

It's like a self admiration society for the stupid. Govt. departments conduct publicly funded junkets to visit each others like jurisdictions to admire each others failures, and compare notes. And conclude, whatever they are doing is not working because they are not doing it quick enough, or spending enough money on it.

Here is something we might want try, if it is not already obvious, how about we visit jurisdictions that have affordable housing, that have housing that is well built, and look at what type of regulation, or not, that they have, and copy that?

But of course that would never work, because ...............

Up
0