Daily review 29/10/2024

5 comments on “Daily review 29/10/2024 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. SPC 1

   29 October 2024 at 9:18 pm

   Hundreds of millions spent in development of new housing projects by Kainga Ora

   All stopped – and so the government is now under-writing private developers because of a decline of new building work.

   https://archive.li/b7ETJ#selection-3877.0-4088.0

   Is the running down of pubic health also deliberate to validate transfer of assistance for private health industry growth?

   It seems there is a pattern to reduce government provision and grow the profit making sector.

   ECE, charter schools.

   ACT wants government to lease, not own, school and hospital buildings. From there a short step to charter hospitals etc.

   Given ACT’s step by step strategy, would the continued underfunding of aged care be of just such a plan to bring in outside social providers (including offshore investors in the buildings?) or to exploit hardship to incentivise loosening of .. you know rules as to .. lawful assistance to access some remaining inheritance. All to reduce the tax burden of those who have lifestyles.
   • Graeme 1.1

     29 October 2024 at 10:16 pm

     “ACT wants government to lease, not own, school and hospital buildings. From there a short step to charter hospitals etc.”

     Leasing works for the occupier / tenant if they have choice of other buildings and landlords when the lease term expires, generally this is every 3 – 7 years. You have to have a market to be able to set the lease price.

     Hospitals and schools don't have the option of another available building sitting there, so leasing is a really dumb idea. Really good for the building owner who gets a captive tenant they can screw over at each lease review.

     Leasing just puts another cost into the equation, some developer / pension fund with their paw out. Ownership will always be cheaper. You can't say there's any transfer of the risk of the occupier not lasting the life of the building, a hospital will always be needed in that place.

     The only possible positive is that the Government doesn't have to finance the build cost, but the landlord does, then extracts that from the tenant, plus a margin. So always more expensive overall.

     Do they really think we are that stupid.
     • mpledger 1.1.1

       30 October 2024 at 9:24 am

       The person leasing the building can build dodgy to save money. Then when the problems show up they can stall and stall and stall and then declare bankruptcy. And then the govt has to pick up an even bigger bill.
       • Graeme 1.1.1.1

         30 October 2024 at 12:53 pm

         Totally agree.

         For single use buildings ownership is the only viable option. Bringing in an outside building owner just adds an un-needed layer of complexity and conflict.

         There's one aspect of a single use build where leasing can play a constructive role, that's with land acquisition. In the case of a hospital build that's going to occupy most or all of the site, the land use will just be for the life of the building, say 30 -40 years, then another hospital will need to be built on another site. This is the situation / problem with Dunedin Hospital at present, and will repeat once the new hospital reaches end of life. Leasing the land could have saved the initial purchase cost, allowing more cash for the build, but the building owner will most likely pay more over it's life.
   • Drowsy M. Kram 1.2

     29 October 2024 at 10:23 pm

     ACT's purpose is to defend and foster "Division by Wealth" – National MPs love it.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS