$300,000 homes in Key’s own electorate

Written By: - Date published: 1:30 pm, January 31st, 2013 - 78 comments
Categories: housing - Tags: ,

While Labour flounders around talking about 4 bedroom houses for $485,000, Metiria Turei cut to the quick in a question to Key yesterday: “has he never visited his own electorate and taken a look at homes such as those on Hobsonville Road, Cyril Crescent, and Mona Vale that are stand-alone family homes costing around $300,000?”*

The Greens gave TV3 an example of a 3 bedroom house in the neighbourhood that was going for $315,000. Nothing amazing to look at and from the 1970s, but, then, that’s the point -KiwiBuild and Progressive Ownership are about starter homes. It’s proof that a $300,000 home in Auckland can be a reality.

As Turei says: “Given that there are homes for sale for around $300,000 in his own electorate, will the Prime Minister now concede that the problem is not that building a $300,000 home in Auckland is impossible but that it is that there are not enough of them and it is not in the interests of private developers to build more of them, and that that is why we need a Government-led building and progressive ownership programme of affordable homes for young Kiwi families who desperately need them?”

Key’s reply: “Look, in relation to the last point, no. In relation to the first one, I have never said you cannot buy a house for $300,000 or less in New Zealand. What I have said is that it is disingenuous to argue that that is a four-bedroom home.”

So, there you have it. Key’s conceded that $300,000 or less homes are possible. It is clearly possible to get an average of $300,000 in new-builds – especially with economies of scale. Key can waffle on about four-bedroom homes but that’s irrelevant. The numbers on KiwiBuild and Progressive Ownership work*.

*you can check out the rateable values of the houses in that neighbourhood here

**well, the $300,000 average price works. KiwiBuild’s assumption that it can do 20 building cycles of 5,000 homes in 10 years and find 100,000 low-middle income families to buy them who can also afford to service a $300,000 commercial mortgage is a lot more suspect.

78 comments on “$300,000 homes in Key’s own electorate ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Tāne Huna 1
    31 January 2013 at 1:55 pm

    How charitable of the Greens to help Labour out with its housing policy.

  2. Colonic Wiper 2
    31 January 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Obviously all homes in Auckland are now selling at CV. Easy.

  3. BM 3
    31 January 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Not new houses though, which is the crux of the issue.

    According to the harcourts webste
    There are currently 67 houses for sale in Auckland for under 300k, most by the looks of them are complete shitters.

  4. tracey 4
    31 January 2013 at 2:16 pm

    “said it was absurd that developers could wait six to 18 months for a resource consent.”

    The only reason they wait that long is if it is a huge development or they put in insufficient information tge first time. Key is asking favours for mates. We can add developers to banks and finance pals. Introduce ten year personal liability for developers and they can have their cobsent in a week…

  5. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5
    31 January 2013 at 2:19 pm

    It’s for sale for $300k. Doesn’t mean it would cost $300k to build.

    • Herodotus 5.1
      31 January 2013 at 2:39 pm

      Not at all
      Most houses within Auckland are valued below their replacement value. Labours vision is based on constructing new dwellings and to also allow land owners, tradesman,building material manufactures to also make their margins . The only cost savings are tht there are to be no real estate fees .
      Atleastthegreens have an element of realism in their policy, whilst labour is just a empty headline grabber.
      So someone can find a few examples of existing properties $20k above this $300k ceiling how does that provide evidence if 10000 dwelling are to be built 10% cheaper than this listed priceand in 4 years time after inflation has increased the cost ?
      When will authors to this site display an element of truth to the public and tell it as it is? Better to support a policy that CAN be implemented, than one that will fail to deliver?

      [lprent: That last paragraph gets pretty damn close to trying to tell us WHAT we should be writing about. Read the relevant section in the about. I’d be happy to give you some time to pursue your aim of changing what authors can write about – ELSEWHERE. ]

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.1
        31 January 2013 at 3:23 pm

        Playing around with you GIS viewer, it seems that the rateable value of land on Hobsonville Road is about $450 a square metre.

        Of course, this value was set in 2011 and is probably significantly below the present market value. But let’s pretend it is the current market value.

        Say you can subdivide as small as 350 square metres. That means your land cost is $157,500.

        The Ministry of Business Innovation and employment here:

        http://www.dbh.govt.nz/bofficials-estimated-building-costs

        tells me that the estimated cost to build a small house in Auckland is $1,792 per square metre. So a 100 square metre house would cost $179,200 to build.

        Even with these favourable assumptions, your house has cost you $336,700.

        It seems highly doubtful that sub $300k houses are possible.

        • Builder tom 5.1.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 3:28 pm

          I can build a 100 sqm house for 140$ per sq m if I were building 10 at the same time
          Cheers tom the builder

        • One Tāne Huna 5.1.1.2
          31 January 2013 at 3:33 pm

          What does the phrase “economy of scale” mean to you?

          Once we’ve covered that we can move on to more difficult concepts like “developers’ margin”, and “average”.

          I note that you are shifting the goalposts from “$300,000 whine whine whine” to “sub $300,000 whine whine whine”, but of course the substantive aspect of your whining is the source of the proposal, rather than the details.

          Edit: I see Tom the Builder knows what “economy of scale” is.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.1.2.1
            31 January 2013 at 3:48 pm

            You still have to buy the land for the amount it was worth two years ago. Has Turei invented a time machine?

            I tried inventing a time machine once. Not having a DeLorean, I attached a coat hanger onto the back of my Chevette and stood outside the Hastings Clock Tower waiting for a lightning storm. It was taking a while so I got bored. Had I been successful, I would not have gone back and purchased land on Hobsonville Road in 2011. I would have gone back to 1982 and plucked up the courage to ask Shelly Nicholls to go to Blade Runner with me.

            • One Tāne Huna 5.1.1.2.1.1
              31 January 2013 at 4:00 pm

              Hmm, let’s see, who seems more credible, the CEO of Fletcher Building (quoted below by Bad12) or a random whining wingnut? Gosh, that’s a difficult one.

            • bad12 5.1.1.2.1.2
              31 January 2013 at 4:01 pm

              You need to plug the coat-hanger into the 3 point socket on the wall…

            • Rogue Trooper 5.1.1.2.1.3
              31 January 2013 at 5:17 pm

              low self-esteem will do that to ya’ 🙂 (exet, Stage Left?)

            • felixviper 5.1.1.2.1.4
              31 January 2013 at 7:16 pm

              I’ve got a time machine I made myself from cardboard and gaffer tape, but it only goes forward in time. And pretty much travels in real time.

          • bad12 5.1.1.2.2
            31 January 2013 at 3:53 pm

            The CEO of Fletcher Building said on TV1 news last night that OF COURSE given a large scale contract, i assume He meant by the 1000, Fletcher Building could easily build $300,000 houses…

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.1.2.2.1
              31 January 2013 at 4:05 pm

              Did he say how much he was expecting the land to cost?

              • bad12 …
                31 January 2013 at 4:22 pm

                Inclusive of the land, in central Auckland he discussed the fact that such housing to fit the 300 grand cost would have to be rows of town-house type dwellings or high-rise apartments,

                Further out from the center of Auckland he just said flatly that of course given the size of the project Fletchers could build them making savings in economies of scale and further savings in ‘designing out’ expensive items in the build that are not a necessity,

                It comes down to simple questions like this, a 200 square meter build is ball park figure 400-450 grand halve that to a 100 square meter build and apply economies of scale by working off of 10 basic plans over a 1000 unit build,

                Do you need a stone bench top when a wood one will suffice, why pour 20 meters of concrete as the slab a house will sit on when 20 piles sunk half a meter into the dirt will do exactly the same thing for just as long, why build roof trusses with 150×50 timber when the house i live in has been sitting here with roof trusses built from 100×50 timber for the past 72 years and will still be sitting here when i am long gone,

                the list of over-engineering going in to the average house build so as to remove from the middle class that don’t know any better vaster amounts of money is laughable…

                • Herodotus …
                  31 January 2013 at 4:32 pm

                  And who pays for the enlarged infrastructure requirements and the specific foundation and geo tech also FBL had divested out of land development in the 80’s though they are rumoured to be active in acquiring rights to develope to what is currently recreational land within Auckland .
                  Of course FBL are supportive how do they make their money and this also allows them to drive out the competition just look at the Chch rebuild .
                  And building cost are not totally variable there is a relatively large fixed component be you build a 70m or 400 m house eg water connection $7.5k that use to to be $700 7 years ago !!

              • bad12 …
                31 January 2013 at 4:41 pm

                The land in Auckland that the Labour/Green Government will be building upon is at this very moment owned by the Government, building upon it is a simple matter of the fair treatment of the current occupants while showing those current occupants that they are not being shunted aside as a pawn in a political game…

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  31 January 2013 at 4:48 pm

                  The land in Auckland that the Labour/Green Government will be building upon is at this very moment owned by the Government…

                  Have they announced where the land is coming from? Can you provide a link?

                  • Jackal …
                    31 January 2013 at 5:16 pm

                    We’ve been over this already… Can you provide a link that shows the government has no land in Auckland that’s suitable to build on The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell? Could you also change your handle while your at it?

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      31 January 2013 at 5:22 pm

                      I wasn’t trying to be smart. I just thought I had missed where the opposition had identified government owned land they could free up.

                      I take it they haven’t?

                    • Jackal …
                      31 January 2013 at 5:49 pm

                      Whether they have identified government owned land they could free up (I asume they have) or made a press release to inform the public concerning the fact that there’s public land that can be used to build houses on are two separate things.

                      There’s around 763 acres that are zoned Vacant Residential property north of the Bombay hills that the government already owns that they could build on right now if it wanted to.

                      Much of the required infrastructure is already in place on this land that has a capital value of approximately $120 million. There’s also Defence owned land of 1,147 ha, Rail 1,365 ha and other 385 ha etc etc, some of which could possibly be appropriated.

                    • bad12 …
                      31 January 2013 at 6:57 pm

                      I recommend either Gormless or Fool, to vote on this please press either G or F…

                    • felixviper …
                      31 January 2013 at 7:12 pm

                      Yay, asset sales!

                    • Jackal …
                      1 February 2013 at 2:38 pm

                      Unlike the sell off of our power companies, selling unproductive brownfield or greenfield sites directly to the public to ensure there are enough houses has many social and economic benefits to the country felixviper.

        • Lightly 5.1.1.3
          31 January 2013 at 5:11 pm

          nah, click around and there’s sections there valued at $200-$300sqm. Same all around South Auckland and West.

          You can subdivide smaller than 350sqm if you want. townhouses with a section twice the size of the house-print, you’re looking at 200spm, say, x$300 = $60,000 for the land. With that and a $1400spm cost on the 100sqm house, you’ve got $100K for services and fees.

      • Herodotus 5.1.2
        31 January 2013 at 4:08 pm

        Authors was an all inclusive term to incorp all contributors be they poster or like myself contributing in some way, don’t take all comments personally as they may not be intended that way. So given that I was not inferring what you accuse !!!

  6. shorts 6
    31 January 2013 at 2:34 pm

    this policy will come unwound if Shearer doesn’t own it with simple, concise and accurate soundbites – the hallmarks of “where is the money” are returning fast

    the policy (coupled with the Greens) are vote winners – and imo great full stop… please for the love of whatever don’t turn it into a trainwreck Labour

    • bad12 6.1
      31 January 2013 at 3:59 pm

      Shearer doesn’t really need to own the housing policy, most media signal the politicians about what the interview is about,

      Shearer only needed to have said ”don’t be so stupid of course we can build those houses for 300 grand and now here’s my housing spokesperson to tell you how”

      Half the problem is Shearer is being asked to discuss stuff he knows nothing about, that’s a bit like asking me about computer programing…

  7. tracey 7
    31 January 2013 at 2:51 pm

    How much are we borrowing each week under national? Reverse tht tax cut, close some loopholes and reduce borrowing…

    Young families dont need a four bdrm, they need two or maybe three.

    This govt wants land opened up asap but no comment about transport links…

    • marty mars 7.1
      31 January 2013 at 4:09 pm

      + 1 Good point/s tracey – I don’t think that every child needs a bedroom of their own – the advantage of 4 bedroom is that an elder of the family can perhaps live there too.

    • bad12 7.2
      31 January 2013 at 4:10 pm

      Yup i don’t know why people keep inflating the houses to 4 bedrooms and such, as a family start home a 2 bedroom is a great idea,as the young family gain both equity and some savings they can either trade up to a larger size if they have more children or add another bedroom where possible,

      Most of the old State houses that were sold to families as opposed to sold to Nationals speculating monopoly playing mates had bits added here and there, another bedroom, a sun-room, a sun-deck, a garage, i see them everyday,

      The reverse tho is true of the 1000s of State houses flogged off on the cheap by National to their mates,they were simply used to drive rentals up and even basic maintainence is in most cases non-existent…

    • Jackal 7.3
      31 January 2013 at 5:20 pm

      Yeah! I don’t know why the discussion has turned to four bedroom homes either… Perhaps some of the confusion is because National first said they were kicking people out of their state homes to build more two bedroom houses. That then turned into building flats and then changed again into three and four bedroom houses. Of course none of it was true and the amount of state houses available has declined considerably under National in order to push up prices in the private sector.

      National and their property speculator mates have only been able to show that the average cost for Labours housing is more than Labour has projected because they’re including the cost of land, when the government already owns large amounts of land that’s currently being unused. There is no real cost to the government in allocating unproductive land to housing. However there is a cost to the private sector when Labours housing starts to come online, which is why for the most part they’re currently opposing it.

      • bad12 7.3.1
        31 January 2013 at 6:42 pm

        My view is there is nothing wrong with using land that is currently in the HousingNZ estate to do a rebuild across the whole of Auckland,

        The HousingNZ tenants who made Phill Heatley’s ham fisted efforts at turning parts of the HousingNZ estate into what could be best described as a riot (along with the arrest of Hone), would not have been in such a mood to fight the State if National had of been willing to rebuild the same number of State houses in that same area,

        It was the fact that the National Government deliberately planned the lowering of the level of State housing in the area while it flogged off the rest of the land to it’s developer mates that caused the backlash against National,

        I am willing to bet that whole streets of State house tenants if consulted properly and given ironclad guarantees that they could return to ‘their’ streets would happily be moved into other accommodation while the older houses were moved and new ones built which made better use of the space available so as the State tenants would live side by side with new home owners housed by both the Labour and Green Party’s housing policies,

        The Labour/Green Government would need only build 1000 extra State rentals within Auckland to set this particular ball rolling and it makes questions of land cost and/or availability mere quisles…

  8. vto 8
    31 January 2013 at 3:16 pm

    Lordy this is bullshit this whole politician blame game for expensive housing.

    This government put up the price of housing by 2.5% when they put GST up. They are the main and initial culprit.

    Local governments put up the price of housing by an average 2% when development contributions were put up by councillors a couple years ago. They are another main and initial culprit.

    And here are the very causers of the problem claiming to be trying to fix it. And Len Brown pointing the finger at Key and John Key pointing the finger at Brown…

    ffs, talk about letting the foxes run the henhouse.

    Useless.

    • Herodotus 8.1
      31 January 2013 at 4:40 pm

      Unfortunately that did not occur, as someone in the industry land and spec houses maintained their per 15% gst level, all that happened was that margins were reduced. You do not sell land and house packages exclusive of gst, try against vto any misguided blame apportionment. But to the in initiated it sounds so believable.

      • vto 8.1.1
        31 January 2013 at 5:09 pm

        Margins only ever reduce in the first moments of such changes. The margins always subsequently return, as like any sector if the margins are not there then people go off and invest in other more lucrative things. The margins remain unchanged and the net effect of putting GST up by 2.5% was that over a very short period prices rose by 2.5%.

        Your second sentence is diffifcult to understand and the last sentence is similar…

        GST applies to house and land.

        • Herodotus 8.1.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 6:18 pm

          In the last 4 years price of sections has at best maintained their price level be gst 12.5 or 15%. With any increases being the result of demand an the banks creating new money. Of gst was still at 12.5% the value of land would still be the same as or is today.
          Otherwise what I imply you are saying is that due to he increase of gst all property experienced a lift on value- which was not evident by any housing statistics.
          Property affordability has IMO been due to 2 issues:
          The decline of wages
          The creation of new debt/ money

          • vto 8.1.1.1.1
            1 February 2013 at 10:44 am

            Yes, well what you have described there is the way in which new housing costs and prices get mixed up with secondhand housing values and market, which occurs more in the housing sector than any other. That mixing needs disentangling.

            With a bit of thought there mr herodotus, you may come to the conclusion that the reason there is not enough low cost development is because the cost is too high and the buyer will not buy. This is my exact point around the GST increase.

            There is no doubt that central government has been the organisation most responsible for increased housing (and all construction) costs with its GST rise.

            Example – in Chch at the moment when the numbers get added on new developments all costs including “required margin” get added up and then 15% (used to be 12.5%) added again for GST. If the market will not lease or buy it at that level then the development does not proceed (this is a very real problem in Chch and is why many businesses are resigning themselves to remaining in the cheaper ‘burban locales). The “required margin” is not reduced to get the sale or lease as you suggest, as then funding etc is not forthcoming or people go off and invest in something more lucrative (and this is seen by the acknowledged lack of expected foreign investment in the rebuild – i.e. they invest where the margins are better).

            To go back to your post – you mention a timeframe of 4 years and no real change in prices. That 4 years is the short timeframe I talk of. Look at trends over 20 to 50 years and you will see that margins remain relatively static, for reasons explained, over those timeframes and prices simply rise.

            And that’s not even getting started on Councils – try this one…. costs about 15k to put in a septic tank, but in doing a subdivision with compulsory monopolistic sewer requirements, that 15k easily rises to well over 25k. Brainless. Would take another few paragraphs to explain that foolishness. Councils do good work but sometimes their structures and policies become outdated, cumbersome, cost-overloaded and point in entirely the wrong direction. The dinosaur aspect of their nature means it takes too long to change tack.

            • tracey 8.1.1.1.1.1
              1 February 2013 at 10:50 am

              be careful what you wish for.

              • vto …
                1 February 2013 at 10:56 am

                Such as tracey? I am aware I didn’t answer your question a couple days ago and that you have a particular bent for this industry and its operators.

                What was in the above post that I should be careful wishing for?

                • tracey …
                  1 February 2013 at 11:06 am

                  a streamlined council process… there is also legislation which has effectively created immunity for them. I am not convinced that will make their decision-making better. It will lean the decision-making toward that other group I have discussed and they have little or no history of anything other than large profit and self interest which has rarely squared off in favour of homeowners

                  • vto …
                    1 February 2013 at 11:22 am

                    I’m sure you’ve worked out that I spend part of my lifetime hours and years in this sector and have some long term heavy experience in it. I have never had a problem with council processes – that is a dishonesty on the part of Dishonest Johns politics. Councils are fine, they follow their legislative processes and if you handle the people with fairness, manners and some charm then the processes are a breeze. In fact, the fact that so many operators bark and whinge and curse at Council opens up a nice easy operating space for those of us who take an easier approach. Council timeframes are fine – it is the few useless operators who are usless and do not comply with legislative and consent requirements, usually around information, that squawk.

                    I agree with you that any tinkering with those processes will lead to bad decision-making with bad outcomes (e.g. leaky homes).

                    As for large profit in the sector, that is a joke. Most developers I know, over a long period, simply make an average earning for the time, effort, money and risk taken on. Of course it is a sector that makes for great headlines when someone makes a windfall or goes bankrupt, but that aint the average over time. Example in one part of the sector – has it ever occured to you that builders are the lowest paid of pretty much any trained and skilled person? $20-25/ hour (of course higher in Chch at the mo for obvious reason) for a builder. How much does your plumber charge? Your mechanic? Your dentist or lawyer? Your gardener?

                    It aint a highly paid sector, the housing sector.

                    Another example – a while ago had cause to study all high density residential in Chch. Turns out that, with the ups and downs made by the developer-part of the sector over a longer time period, Christchurch residents have enjoyed their apartments, terrace and townhousing at cost. i.e. the sector had made zero profit. Good for the residents – can’t get better.

                    As I said above, the housing sector, particularly higher density stuff, makes for great headlines and prominent buildings in the cityscape. This lends itself to myth and legend-making.

                    • tracey …
                      1 February 2013 at 11:32 am

                      all developers I have met over the last 20 years have made better than average profits from their work. They live very nice lives in well above average homes, have second homes and often holiday overseas.

                      I also work with councils everyday and they are bullies who do not always follow the legislation because they know it will cost people to judicially review them and they know the ombudsmen is slow and a wet bus ticket process.

                      Too many people with power way beyond their abilities.

                      I am well aware that builders are low paid which is why I am astonished they can loses their homes from a project but a developer cant. Which is why I am appalled they are found 80% liable for a leaky home, council 20%, architects not at all and developers packed up and took their profit (big or small) and ran away… often to a new project.

                      I have seen nothing to believe that councils are less full of themselves and flouting of their powers and developers as a group have more ethics than 15 years ago.

                    • vto …
                      1 February 2013 at 11:51 am

                      No worries Tracey, different views from different mountain tops. I don’t know how much involvement you have in the sector but the view from inside looking out is always different from the outside looking in.

                    • tracey …
                      1 February 2013 at 12:02 pm

                      vto

                      As you might have gathered fro my posts my involvement is very much with councils and builders through leaky home claims. I have acted for builders as well as owners. I have yet to be involved in a case with a solvent developer BUT every developing company that was struck off, continues under another guise with the same director/s.

                      I am very aware that the building sector is not a profitable one for builders and some others, but my experience is the big developers, of which Mr Key and his ilk suggest handle the opened up land in Auckland, have the ethics of sewer rats.

                      Are all developers cut of this cloth? Of course not, but we dont legislate for the ethical we legislate to stop harm from the lowest common denominator and it is that denominator I speak of.

                      In any event reputable ethical developers have nothing to fear from personal liability for ten years from construction… anymore than designers and builders do. There is a huge double-standard leaving the out of the recent regulation. I merely hold a light to that. Personal liability for them all or none.

                    • vto …
                      1 February 2013 at 12:20 pm

                      Hmmmm. I can see how your view would form when acting in that capacity in the sector and I understand your point about legislating for nearer to the lower-end denominator.

                      Personal guarantees are notoriously difficult of course. And most of those designers and builders do not in fact provide a PG, their business simply remains liable, which is quite different. Their personal assets would be tucked away like pretty much every other business person n the country.

                      If you want to add personal liability to the limited liability company structure then you are proposing something which would have a massive impact on business in New Zealand. It would obviously need to be across the board and involve everyone operating in other then their personal capacity, in every business sector (farming, car sales, health, local mechanic, etc etc). The implications are ginormous.

                      I don’t like it and think there are other mechanisms which can be used. Removing that limited liability component of business is a big subject and have no time as we are about to go catch some fishies for tea, finegrs crossed.

                      One final point in a similar vein – there has been debate about introducing corporate manslaughter, as exsts in other countries etc. This has merit too. But with both the abandonment of limited laibility and corporate criminal liability it should, in my firmly held opinion, apply also to the politicians and their machinations. Political criminal liability when such eventuates due to a politician’s actions, and personal liability for the politicians who cause loss too. It is they after all who created the leaky home situation – everything worked fine before.

                      I think you are barking up the biggest tree in the forest Tracey. There are other means of achieving what you see as an injustice.

  9. tracey 9
    31 January 2013 at 3:22 pm

    I didnt know our govt offers no deposit loans

    http://www.welcomehomeloan.co.nz/key_facts.php

    • Lightly 9.1
      31 January 2013 at 5:31 pm

      they don’t. They just guarantee a private, no deposit loan – ie. they pick up the tab if you default. If you’ve got no deposit are you in a position to service a 100% mortgage?

  10. tracey 10
    31 January 2013 at 3:30 pm

    John keys developers dont need to wait 18 months if they choose to build homes like these…. Interestingly an innovation they developed or didnt reverse…

    http://www.dbh.govt.nz/simple-house-faqs

  11. Rogue Trooper 11
    31 January 2013 at 5:20 pm

    well, 2014 is still a few moons away…

  12. tsmithfield 12
    31 January 2013 at 7:14 pm

    Part of the problem for Labour is they are saying that houses can be built for an average of $300k. If Labour is talking about normally distributed data, and we assume that there will be some houses at $550k (as I think Shearer mentioned on the news the other night) then there must be houses being built for around $100k at the other end of the scale. If he is talking about a highly skewed distribution, then it must mean that most of the houses must be built for just under but close to $300k in order for there to be some houses at $550k.

    If Labour are talking about cramped, low-cost, intensive accomodation, then I think I know another word for that. And I think it is highly disingenuous to refer to it as “housing”.

    • handle 12.1
      31 January 2013 at 7:18 pm

      “If Labour are talking about cramped, low-cost, intensive housing, then I think I know another word for that”

      Europe?

    • felixviper 12.2
      31 January 2013 at 7:32 pm

      I don’t think it matters any more, tsmithfield. This is John Key’s post-modern New Zealand where “the reality is” whatever I say it is today and numbers add up to nothing.

      We deal in facts, by which we mean the truth can be bought and sold. If Shearer says everyone gets a house, then everyone gets a house. Doesn’t matter whether it happens or not.

      They’re just words, tsmithfield, and they’re pliable, malleable, tradeable and biodegradable. Bed, lie, etc etc. Not the way I wanted it.

    • tracey 12.3
      1 February 2013 at 9:06 am

      How big a house do you think two adults and one or two children need?

  13. Rusty Shackleford 13
    31 January 2013 at 9:20 pm

    If Labour get elected next election cycle and enact this plan and (inevitably) fail to build 3 bedroom, standalone houses for 300K will you guys re-evaluate your position/shut the fuck up or will you just move onto the next wacky scheme?

    • tracey 13.1
      1 February 2013 at 9:07 am

      and if they succeed will you stop supporting a do nothing have no plan method of government?

      How wacky is it compared to borrowing over $300m per week to build roads as a method of stimulating the economy? Surely building shelter for those in need and to ensure a good start for our youngest while stimulating the economy is no less “wacky”?

      • Rusty Shackleford 13.1.1
        1 February 2013 at 3:53 pm

        “…will you stop supporting a do nothing have no plan method of government?”
        There is no plan here, though. “We will build houses for 300K (on average)” appears to be the extent of it.

        “How wacky is it compared to borrowing over $300m per week to build roads as a method of stimulating the economy?”
        Where did I say National were any better? Better than “doing nothing” though, I guess.

        “Surely building shelter for those in need and to ensure a good start for our youngest while stimulating the economy is no less “wacky”?”
        Oh! Your intentions are good!? I had no idea! That makes it all better then. Also, govt spending doesn’t “stimulate” the economy. It takes resources from one area and puts them into another.

        • fatty 13.1.1.1
          1 February 2013 at 4:09 pm

          Also, govt spending doesn’t “stimulate” the economy. It takes resources from one area and puts them into another.

          As a statement, that’s far too simplistic to be of any use to anyone.
          Government spending can stimulate…or it can depress the economy.
          All governments, regardless if they are laissez faire in nature, or of a more socialist bent, will assist in transferring resources from one area to another. On the right side of the ledger, resources go from the needy to the greedy. On the left, resources go from the greedy to the needy.

          Whether one ideology stimulates a given economy more than another ideology depends on so many factors. In addition, ‘stimulating’ the economy should not be seen as our primary goal. We can throw money at corporations which would ‘stimulate’ the economy, but we only find ourselves further under their control than we already are. That is nothing to be proud of

          • Rusty Shackleford 13.1.1.1.1
            1 February 2013 at 10:07 pm

            You are 90% right. I would argue that righties distribute resources to their mates in business to the detriment of everyone else including other people who happen to be in business but aren’t politically connected. The lefties distribute resources to their mates in the unions and to airy fairy causes that rarely aid the people they claim to be looking after, to the detriment of everyone including workers and those who are genuinely in need.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.2
      1 February 2013 at 9:17 am

      Don’t need, nor want, standalone 3 bedroom houses. What we need is terrace housing and apartment buildings with no parking.

      • tracey 13.2.1
        1 February 2013 at 10:49 am

        and those cannot be in the areas National is demanding get land freed up

      • Rusty Shackleford 13.2.2
        1 February 2013 at 3:54 pm

        Go build some then. Or invest in a company that does. If you are willing to put other peoples money into it, you should be willing to put up your own.

        • McFlock 13.2.2.1
          1 February 2013 at 3:58 pm

          Um, yes. Via government, because it has the economies of scale to make the plan add up.

          • Rusty Shackleford 13.2.2.1.1
            1 February 2013 at 9:55 pm

            “Via government, because it has the economies of scale to make the plan add up.”
            Why doesn’t the govt produce everything then? If they have the economies of scale (and ability to guide the factors of production which is far more important) in housing then it stands to reason that they have the same advantage in every other sector of the economy.

  14. Addison 14
    2 February 2013 at 9:32 am

    Well I have a check for $300k waiting for the leader of Labour or the greens. All they have to do is build me a 3 bedroom house in Auckland ,including land and all fees for that amount. They can take up my offer any time!