- Date published:
5:30 pm, June 30th, 2022 - 28 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
Heh! I know it always look better on paper, and Labour cannot put its feet on the table, far from it.
More and more frontline cops! This Government is making steady progress in an area that seems to be on people’s minds a lot.
National made a stupid post today, got burned again. Some really excellent replies but IMO Clint Smith topped them all
The perfect response!
That record fails to capture how utterly dire and corrupt National were on housing under FJK. A fake meth scandal, demolishing state houses, massive sell-offs, and throwing our most vulnerable people out onto the street, to live in cars or tents.
Meanwhile house prices doubled under National’s watch and FJK said t was a sign of “success” and a “rock star economy”. A bloodsucking banker by nature, he knew it was basically a Ponzi scheme, but he passed the parcel before the music stopped.
And John Key’s new mini-me is no better, calling the victims of neoliberal austerity “bottom feeders”.
Never vote National.
A must-see (hope you can see it).
how many kiwi build homes? How many Kai Ora houses?
why so many living in motels? Something doesn’t add up here
150,000 houses built under Labour
That high number does possibly come from the number of new homes consented under Labour.
Thick end of 90k new homes consented over the past 2 years so 150k in 5 sounds about right.
I'll use the RBNZ figures from the Financial stability update here Using AK with 12 month rolling av.
Code of compliance 13319.
New electrical connection node.9036
Analysis new builds less demolition of existing housing (infill etc) nets 68% of new construction.
Given the average house lasts about 80 years, in very rough terms you need to replace about 1% of the total stock of 2m every year just to keep pace with replacement. That is about 20,000 houses per year, or 100,000 over 5 years.
So the net total gain in since Labour has been in power is about 50,000 or 10,000 per year.
Which sort of points to National quietly running down the housing stock, while pumping up the population with immigration.
Reasonable analysis and it is less if you include population growth,(of which under national decreased the housing stock)
As we have the highest construction costs in the oecd,and one of the largest population growths (similar to oz) we end up with the highest cost unaffordable houses in the OECD.
The sum of each of the 4 years 2018-2021 ending July is 151,006 new homes consented.
While this is good news the original claim is 150,000 homes completed. It’s not really accurate to call a successful consent a completed home is it?
It was a brilliant tweet on Twitter to provoke a response, which Clint did get, as intended and as expected. Had he made it here on TS, it would have been a slightly different kettle of fish.
FWIW, I offered a plausible explanation and I think it is reasonable to assume that many new homes consented by end of July 2021 may have been completed by now, one year later.
All in all, a provocative statement with a solid kernel of truth to it, IMO.
BTW, did you some of the responses on Twitter? Some obviously cannot properly read English, which I thought was a prerequisite for effective communication and venturing on Social Media. My bad.
reading comprehension on social media? you must be new 😛
Yes, I know, I’m not on Twitter, but one can at least expect a basic understand of the English, one would have thought. Perhaps it’s more that people react & respond to the message and pop a few veins at the back of their eyes reading it, i.e., seeing Red …
Well that would be seriously marvellous.
I can’t find any info on that though. Does anyone have a link?
That's code of compliance as a proxy for completed dwellings, but the figures are also obviously much higher more recently and lower in the 2010s even with the Canterbury earthquakes as a boost (although GFC would have been a decline as well).
yes, exactly. Let's have some evidence.
But… changes to tenancy laws were going to drive rents up.
Rental properties are sitting vacant because new tenants are hard to find, and landlords need to recognise it is now a “tenant’s market”, property managers are warning.
Yep. I think there are about 3-4 apartments untenanted in my block at present. Longer times to get suitable tenants. But a matter of a few weeks. Rental stock is getting eaaier to find.
BTW: I settled on the sale of my old apartment on the 10th. Tenant left to go overseas in April. Decided it was time to get more space for home offices. Both of us now remote work. A 55 sq metre apartment doesn't make that easy.
Buying more space by selling both apartments and buying a house will cut the costs of hiring a workspace. Looks like house prices are dropping too. Pity I am not allowed to depart Auckland… I am a native Aucklander – but I would like to get out of here. But my southlander partner doesn’t want to waste the time she spent getting used to it.
Also the cat will (maybe) appreciate a garden. And we'd save on cat litter….
Time to move all those poor souls in motel units into those empty apartments. Sure be cheaper than motels
The triumph of greed.
Who frames the argument, wins the argument
Private landlords and property managers are claiming that, “tenants are hard to find”
The large numbers of families stuck in temporary emergency accommodation, in motels, awaiting a permanent home to rent, give lie to that claim.
The large numbers of families on the state house waiting list also gives lie to the claim by landlords and property managers that tenants are hard to find.
State house rents are pegged at 25% of a tenants income.
Not so, private rents.
What these middle class Mum & Dad landlords and property managers are really moaning about, is not being unable to find tenants, but being unable to find tenants who can afford the rents they are demanding.
With falling house prices, the middle class 'Mum & Dad' investors are no longer making the capital gains they hoped would pay for their retirement, and now on a falling market are stuck with loss making rental houses they can't sell. Despite falling house prices rents are still unaffordable, for most low income families. Mum & Pop landlords will try and screw the money they were hoping to make from the capital gains out of their tenants.
What these middle class landlord property investors and their property managers are really moaning about, is a lack of tenants able to afford the rents they are demanding.
To stop the tragedy of families living under sheets of polythene in alleyways, while tens of thousands of rental properties stand empty, the government has had to pay for the motel accommodation for homeless families to the tune of $1 billion.
I notice here that Chris Bishop does not offer any solutions. But I can guess where people like him are coming from. Under a National administration, state house sell offs will continue, the emergency accommodation benefit will be slashed. Low income families will be FORCED onto the private rental market and the tender mercies of the Mum & Pop landlords and their property managers, National voters all.
Meanwhile the real villains behind the scene, the Aussie owned banks are making record profits.
Neo-liberal dogma, (from both sides of the House), is that we can't interfere with the market, no matter what social wreckage is left in the wake of these eye watering returns.
The result, more low income families will be squeezed with exorbitant rents and housing insecurity.
For middle class Mum & Dad investors their plans for retirement will be bust.
Great post Jenny.
If those Mum and Dad investors are forced to sell, it should mean more properties on the market, thus keeping prices down. The professional landlord class may then buy and rent out at new market rates.
That is great news for renters. It only seemed like late last year there were numerous articles about rents increasing, and numerous potential tenants turning up at viewings or trying to rent the one property.
I think this year the increases may be lower, as big increases had previously already gone through. Landlords will simply have to lower their rents to match the demand.