Good news for landlords

Written By: - Date published: 7:19 am, May 28th, 2017 - 141 comments
Categories: budget 2017, class war, Economy, Steven Joyce - Tags:

Property Investment NZ Advisors and Troubleshooters Newland Burling and Co sum up the advantage to landlords of the budget,

GOOD NEWS FOR LANDLORDS-RENTAL SUPPLEMENTS INCREASED
( Budget 2017: The increase in rental supplements will be good news as landlords and investors feel the pinch between sluggish rental income and increasing outgoings such as rates, insurance and repairs.
The average investor is lucky to get a net 2% return on their residential investment so this move in the Budget will go some way towards redressing the imbalance. The supplement payments will be boosted from $145 to $165 for one person rentals, a two-person household from $160 to $235 and a three-plus-person from $225 to $305 per week. It is still nowhere near enough, but a good step in the right direction.)

Budget advisor extraordinaire, Stephen Joyce, said the government would keep a ‘close eye’  on how the market responded. Woo hoo, Stephen, over there.

141 comments on “Good news for landlords ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carolyn_nth 1
    28 May 2017 at 8:29 am

    Where’s the Tax Payers’ Union when we need them?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      28 May 2017 at 8:33 am

      Taking one for the team.

    • Adrian Thornton 1.2
      28 May 2017 at 10:35 am

      More importantly, where is a Labour Party when you need them?

      • Enough is Enough 1.2.1
        28 May 2017 at 1:37 pm

        +100

      • Nick 1.2.2
        29 May 2017 at 8:25 am

        There is one and only one solution for rental price/availability. Even more so than houses for sale, which can be left empty.

        That solution is SUPPLY.

        No increase in Accommodation supplement will not be grabbed by landlords. No rent control will not reduce numbers.

        Build, baby build.

        But build RENTALS as top priority.
        Labour MUST come to the party.
        Or….what does Winston think?
        Is he the invisible roadblock, or part of the solution?

  2. BM 2
    28 May 2017 at 8:47 am

    I agree the Accommodation Supplement is a crock of shit.

    What the answer is I do not know.
    If you stop the Accommodation Supplement lots of people end up on the street. but then again you can’t have the taxpayer being endlessly used and abused by money driven landlords.

    The only long term solution is probably to make being a residential property investor as unattractive as possible.

    • Andre 2.1
      28 May 2017 at 9:04 am

      “The only long term solution is probably to make being a residential property investor as unattractive as possible.”

      Making other investments in New Zealand less unattractive would also help. Personally, I’m comfortable with my investments in the US sharemarket, apart from having to deal with Cullen’s Foreign Investment Fund rules. But every time I look at alternatives to property in NZ, it just looks like jumping into a viper pit.

    • Cricklewood 2.2
      28 May 2017 at 9:22 am

      Few things would help.
      Increase security of tenure for tennants who hold up their end of the bargain in terms of rent etc so its harder to kick someone out increase the rent and re Tennant.
      Have a proper cgt.
      Build a heap of govt housing to increase supply.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3
      28 May 2017 at 9:30 am

      You reckon there’s no alternative, but why on Earth would anyone listen to a right winger’s reckons as opposed to seeing how it’s done by successful policies in other countries first?

      Germany, for example.

      No-one expects you to have a clue what to do; you’ve had nine years. Get out of the way.

      • BM 2.3.1
        28 May 2017 at 9:38 am

        I have no idea why they let you endlessly come in and shit all over threads and start flame wars.?

        Really chap, why the need to be an obnoxious wanker all the time? do you get off on it or something?

        • weka 2.3.1.1
          28 May 2017 at 9:49 am

          He, and anyone else, get away with it to the extent that they make a political point (the robust debate principle). Ignore the abuse and focus on the point in his comment. Or you can ignore him entirely (other people responded to your comment, you can reply to those instead).

          • North 2.3.1.1.1
            28 May 2017 at 10:04 am

            BM @ 2 above – “……but then again you can’t have the taxpayer being endlessly used and abused by money driven landlords.”

            BM…….you do realise you’re giving ACT and a good proportion of the National Party a bad case of the shits ?

            • BM 2.3.1.1.1.1
              28 May 2017 at 10:14 am

              If you own a rental property you’re running a business.

              It’s not the taxpayer’s job to prop up private business.

              • weka …
                28 May 2017 at 10:25 am

                So you’re in favour of state controls to make things more fair?

                • BM …
                  28 May 2017 at 10:33 am

                  Might be the only option at the moment, if you’re getting taxpayer handouts it should come with conditions.

                  If rent freezes are the most effective measure to stop the taxpayer from being tucked, rent freezes it is.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    28 May 2017 at 11:31 am

                    Is anyone proposing a rent freeze?

                    Shift the standard tenancy conditions towards more secure and predictable tenure arrangements. The Greens.

                    Lifting low wages by moving the minimum wage to $18 an hour by 2017 and introducing a Living Wage for the core Government sector.

                    They even have a search function.

                    Labour will make Housing New Zealand into a public service rather than an SOE, and will substantially increase the number of state houses. Unlike the current government, Labour will not milk state housing for a dividend, and will end its programme of state house sales.

                    Labour.

                    Nope, I can’t find any rent freeze options mentioned. Bad luck, champ.

                • Adrian Thornton …
                  28 May 2017 at 2:48 pm

                  I would say the government giving a 2.2 million per year subsidy to land lords is a pretty overt show of state control to their benefit, so why should non property owners not expect the same level of state controls that would benefit them? that seems fair.

                  • Skyler …
                    29 May 2017 at 8:58 pm

                    I stand to be corrected but I had thought the taxpayer was forking out 2 billion annually in accommodation supplements.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                28 May 2017 at 12:42 pm

                It’s not the taxpayer’s job to prop up private business.

                True – so, why does National do it all the friggen time?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.1.2
          28 May 2017 at 10:17 am

          😆

          Your “solution” would make any party that adopted it unelectable. I’m sure that was just a completely innocent mistake on your part 🙄

        • infused 2.3.1.3
          28 May 2017 at 4:34 pm

          Of course, he does.

    • weka 2.4
      28 May 2017 at 9:51 am

      Raise wages, raise benefits, build more houses (private and social), CGT (exclusive family home), etc. It’s not like people haven’t done the work on the solutions. Put those things in place and roll back the Bennett welfare reforms, then look at what is to be done about accommodation supplement.

      Might pay to put a rent freeze on for a while too.

      “The only long term solution is probably to make being a residential property investor as unattractive as possible.”

      I think the problem is the greedy end of the spectrum. People who are taking a long term view at steady income aren’t a problem. It’s not my area, but from what I understand the tools are there to do something about it but not the political will.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1
        28 May 2017 at 12:47 pm

        People who are taking a long term view at steady income aren’t a problem.

        Yes they are as history and research shows.

        It’s not my area, but from what I understand the tools are there to do something about it but not the political will.

        The problem is capitalism and all the tools designed are based around keeping capitalism and thus they won’t work either.

    • greg 2.5
      28 May 2017 at 10:03 am

      landlords need tax payer money to support the huge speculative debts they have made in a bubble market
      the fact incomes cant support those positions without massive subsidies the ponzi scheme falls over after 9 years that is a sign of failure congratulations national.

      • BM 2.5.1
        28 May 2017 at 10:09 am

        I agree, so many people only got into rentals for capital gain.

        That’s pretty much all dried up and rents would be lucky to cover mortgage payments, this extra accommodation supplement money is a godsend to these landlords, the tenant isn’t going to see any benefit of this money, it will all go in rent increases.

        Back to square one and the cycle repeats.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.1.1
          28 May 2017 at 10:21 am

          [deleted]

          [I really don’t want to spend my Sunday morning checking your comments to see if you are intent on abuse OAB. Please stop and stick to the politics. – weka]

        • Chris 2.5.1.2
          28 May 2017 at 10:23 am

          “…the tenant isn’t going to see any benefit of this money, it will all go in rent increases.”

          It’s worse than that. The AS increases mean a reduction in a person’s temporary additional support benefit, often up to 100%. So in many cases an individual’s or family’s income will stay the same, but their rent goes up in the landlord’s belief that the tenant’s income is increasing. The whole system’s fucked.

          http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1705/S00386/accommodation-supplement-increase-is-a-con-job.htm

          • Bill 2.5.1.2.1
            28 May 2017 at 12:42 pm

            Yup. So unless you’re already over the TAS limit, then AS increases mean zip.

            If you’re over the limit, then those legit costs that took you over the limit might now get covered – at least in part.

        • infused 2.5.1.3
          28 May 2017 at 4:36 pm

          No one buys rentals to get net income from rent. It’s 100% about the capital gains.

      • Adrian Thornton 2.5.2
        28 May 2017 at 11:47 am

        I agree, the problem stems ultimately from using domestic housing as a form of commodity speculation, wrong on so many levels it is hard to now where to start, but here we are… living in a country where for a large part of the population, the highest ideal is to make money from your fellow citizens through having them give you at lest half of what then earn from their labour every week, just so they have a house to live in….it is a moral and ethical outrage for the whole country that we have sunk to this base level.

    • Nick 2.6
      28 May 2017 at 10:14 am

      You build enough houses for rent, the Accommodation Supplement will die from natural attrition and by rents being undercut by affordable rental rates in the newly provided sector.

      You may ultimately get to the same place by building “affordable houses” for sale but, in the meanwhile, people who have no chance of buying will have to bear hyped-up rent rates. And those hyper-rates will be underpinned by the accommodation supplement.

      Without some sort of extra provision, preferably supplemented by a vigorous provincial policy, nothing will change at all.

      And isn’t that, at base, the National Party’s desired outcome?

      • BM 2.6.1
        28 May 2017 at 10:23 am

        I’ve mentioned this before, Labours housing policy needs to be about building rentals not building 600k first homes.

        This is the group that needs the help, not people trying to buy their first home

        You push down rental prices and that will lead to a drop in property prices especially at the lower end which is the housing band that first home buyers traditionally enter the market at.

        Build rentals and you help everyone, it just seems obvious to me I just wonder why it’s not obvious to Labour or National?

        • weka 2.6.1.1
          28 May 2017 at 10:31 am

          By rentals do you mean HNZ houses? Or private rentals?

          • BM 2.6.1.1.1
            28 May 2017 at 10:46 am

            Government owned rentals, so HNZ.

            The government needs to get into a situation where they have the ability to control the market and set prices., to achieve this they need to be building as well as buying existing rentals.

            No doubt this will have a detrimental effect on some residential property investors who will no doubt lose their shirts as prices decline.

            To stop widespread financial carnage HNZ will/should buy the rental of the private investor at an agreed price and that house can then be added to the state stock.

            This way the descent in prices can be better controlled and HNZ can rapidly grow its housing stock until it get’s itself into a position where they become market price setters.

            Once that’s achieved there will be no need for accommodation supplement, first homes will be affordable and more money can be spent in the local economy providing jobs and growth.

            That’s a policy I’d like to see.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.6.1.1.1.1
              28 May 2017 at 10:48 am

              The government needs to get into a situation where they have the ability to control the market and set prices…

              …and here we go again.

              • Chris …
                28 May 2017 at 11:06 am

                I thought buying up rentals for the HNZ stock and building houses is what’s needed. I’m surprised a right winger has made the suggestion and is certainly better than selling off the family silver to utterly filthy right wing money grubbing pigs like IHC. Ralph Jones and his band of filthy moneymen giving their mates a hand to get the hell out of the provision of state housing. I’d like to see IHC wound up.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  28 May 2017 at 11:16 am

                  Examining the detailed policy proposals Labour and the Greens have put forward would serve everyone better than BM’s suspiciously extreme position, which he suggests the Left adopts as its own.

            • Chris 2.6.1.1.1.2
              28 May 2017 at 11:00 am

              There will always be a need for the accommodation supplement as part of ensuring an adequate safety net. It’s the huge and widespread reliance on it by so many people, and on other benefits like the old special benefit and now the temporary additional support benefit to meet the cost of basic things like accommodation that’s the problem. The incomes of the poorest, usually people who rely on state support of some kind, have become so susceptible to getting upset at the drop of a hat. Whether it’s part time work or changes to the accommodation supplement, the ripple effect is huge.

              • BM …
                28 May 2017 at 11:04 am

                There will always be a need for the accommodation supplement

                If there is, it will be at a fraction of what the government is forking out now.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  28 May 2017 at 11:22 am

                  Effectively you are suggesting that the government should deliberately crash the rental and housing markets, as opposed to making housing more affordable by raising wages, for example, or adopting less extreme policies, such as the ones that actually have a chance of being implemented come September.

                  Both Labour and the Greens have very detailed policies outlining how they intend to deal with this emergency. Is there a reason you aren’t addressing them before proposing such destructive alternatives?

                • weka …
                  28 May 2017 at 11:43 am

                  Have to agree with OAB on this one BM. Have you even read the Labour or GP policies on housing? You’re coming across as an ignoramus.

                  • BM …
                    28 May 2017 at 11:55 am

                    Labour policy is pie in the sky and won’t achieve shit, haven’t read the Greens or any of the other minor parties policies.

                    • weka …
                      28 May 2017 at 12:24 pm

                      I don’t believe you BM. Because you criticised Labour for not building more rentals when that is already in their policy. Good that you acknowledge that the problem is big and can’t be dealt with by National or market forces. But your anti-Labour stance tells me that you would prefer people to suffer than to have a left wing govt.

                    • North …
                      28 May 2017 at 9:43 pm

                      Thank You Mr President Petulant Child BM. Get honest BM. You haven’t even read the fucking Labour policy. You’re in your reflexive default position like some Archie Bunker or Alf Garnett. We know you well. You’re a thick old thug when it comes down to it. Trumpish.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    28 May 2017 at 11:57 am

                    If he’s such an ignoramus, how did he know to pour poison in the well?

            • Craig H 2.6.1.1.1.3
              28 May 2017 at 11:09 am

              I would get behind that as a policy.

              Having said that, the Kiwibuild programme helps by converting 100,000 renting families into home owners, which frees up their previous rentals and reduces rental demand.

        • Nick 2.6.1.2
          28 May 2017 at 10:33 am

          We agree on that. But more, when it becomes clear that this is the Government intention, slumlords and landlords in lower-cost suburbs will fall over themselves trying to quit their investment, offering a way in for lower-price buyers.

          It’s not too late for the Left to get there. The building programme has to cover many of the bases: top end, for financial input to the plan, lower-price sale items and, especially rental construction.

          As is almost always the case, a good plan is complex and subtle, not bumper-sticker simple. But the bones are always logical and clear.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.6.1.3
          28 May 2017 at 10:38 am

          Labour’s policy is to increase state housing stock on top of the Kiwibuild program. It took me one search and two clicks to find that out.

          So your entire comment is rendered moot.

          • weka 2.6.1.3.1
            28 May 2017 at 10:42 am

            Yeah, that’s what I was thinking too. I don’t think BM has caught up on the fact that both Labour and the Greens have integrated policies, not just for housing but how that intersects with welfare and the economy.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.6.1.3.1.1
              28 May 2017 at 10:46 am

              Yes. It’s funny how these innocent mistakes relentlessly crop up in every thread BM is involved in. What a waste of everyone’s time.

          • BM 2.6.1.3.2
            28 May 2017 at 12:23 pm

            Building state housing barely rates a mention compared to building 600k “first homes”

            I went and had another look at the Labour Party housing policy.

            http://www.labour.org.nz/housing

            The only thing on that page regarding state houses was this link

            http://www.labour.org.nz/state_houses_people_over_profit

            One page of waffle and the only mention of building state houses was this one sentence

            Building more state houses and maintaining them properly, rather than selling them off.

            That’s some plan, years of work must have gone into that one 🙄

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.6.1.3.2.1
              28 May 2017 at 12:27 pm

              Building more state houses and maintaining them properly, rather than selling them off.

              If only they had a track record of doing exactly that when in office. No, wait…they do have exactly that track record.

              Go poison some other well, you nasty little man.

            • weka 2.6.1.3.2.2
              28 May 2017 at 12:28 pm

              Actually that along with the other adjunct policies is a really good plan. And you pretty much said as much above. So what I’m seeing is you saying the solution is X, but that Labour’s policy that would use solution X is shit because it’s Labour.

              We know that National won’t do anything useful. I assume you will vote Green now then.

              • BM …
                28 May 2017 at 12:34 pm

                No, I’m saying Labours plan is shit because first home buyers shouldn’t have to pay 500-600k to buy a first home.

                Seriously, 500 -600k for a first home is ludicrous, who is this policy even targeted at?

                Lets be honest average wage kiwis wouldn’t have a shit show of raising that sort of money, even if they did, they’d be in debt to their eyeballs for the next 30 years, how is that good for anyone?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  28 May 2017 at 12:47 pm

                  Cheaper than the current Auckland average lower quartile dwelling price.

                  Also note their wages policy.

                  Let’s be honest, you have no intention of being honest, nor of allowing facts to interfere with your bottle of poison.

                • Craig H …
                  28 May 2017 at 1:52 pm

                  That’s only in Auckland – outside Auckland, the aim is 350K or less. If it turns out there is limited demand for the houses due to prices, then Labour will have to consider taking a loss on the houses.

                  • BM …
                    28 May 2017 at 3:55 pm

                    Correction
                    The taxpayer will take a loss, Labour would be looking at a generational time period in the political wilderness if that situation happens.

                    • Craig H …
                      28 May 2017 at 5:01 pm

                      Personally I think it could be sold to the electorate, but the scheme is going to cost some money anyway, it’s just a matter of how much. The savings on the Accommodation Supplement would go a long way toward funding any losses.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.6.2
        28 May 2017 at 12:53 pm

        And isn’t that, at base, the National Party’s desired outcome?

        Yes it is. Nothing changes but more government money goes to the rich making them richer.

        • David Mac 2.6.2.1
          28 May 2017 at 1:14 pm

          The vast majority of NZ rentals are owned by couples that worked jolly hard for 30 years and went without many of the ‘nice-to-haves’ in order to do so. They are not rich, they’re doing what they can to be able to be comfortable when they can’t work anymore.

          They are not greedy vampires sucking the goodness out of your wellbeing. They are investing in what is currently the best superannuation plan available in NZ. We are all to blame for this situation.

          As we are discovering, this is not the ideal path going forward but you spitting in the faces of people doing what they can to take care of themselves becomes a little tiresome.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.6.2.1.1
            28 May 2017 at 1:43 pm

            They are not rich, they’re doing what they can to be able to be comfortable when they can’t work anymore.

            Which shouldn’t be needed.

            They are not greedy vampires sucking the goodness out of your wellbeing.

            Except for the fact that is exactly what they are whether they believe it or not. That’s simply the nature of the system that they’re using for being comfortable.

            We are all to blame for this situation.

            Yes because we continue to allow capitalism.

            As we are discovering, this is not the ideal path going forward but you spitting in the faces of people doing what they can to take care of themselves becomes a little tiresome.

            I’m just stating the facts.

            The truth about the present system needs to be known and understood before the necessary changes can be brought about.

          • Craig H 2.6.2.1.2
            28 May 2017 at 4:32 pm

            Most rental stock is owned by larger investors or is social housing of one sort or another.

            • Peter 2.6.2.1.2.1
              28 May 2017 at 10:50 pm

              The results from recent surveys show that just over 90% of landlords own only one or two rental properties.

              • Craig H …
                29 May 2017 at 3:01 am

                The vast majority of landlords own 1-2 rentals, but the statement was that “the vast majority of NZ rentals are owned by couples…”.

          • North 2.6.2.1.3
            28 May 2017 at 10:01 pm

            And apologists like you David Mac are very tiresome. I don’t personally blame people for taking steps in their own behalf (which is what you’re saying?)……but what fuck evidence do you have to show that for years and years these people ‘deprived’ themselves ? For 30 years they had and held down a job. Wow ! Lucky them. They got themselves into a property owning position (good on them) and then the leeches stepped in and offered them money against their spectacularly enhanced equity. Then they got airs about themselves and voted for that effete prick Key and became leeches themselves. Not that most of them consciously intended to but they did. Start weeping about kids with rheumatic fever and I’ll say you’re not a facile thinking prick.

            • David Mac 2.6.2.1.3.1
              29 May 2017 at 11:15 am

              Hi North, the nature of my business requires me to hold conversations with the owners of rental homes about their rental homes and what they’ve been up to. Over the last 10 years I’ve held 1000’s of them. 12 this morning.

              You are of course perfectly within your rights to sell your house for half of it’s market value. I think you’re being a bit unrealistic to expect others to do the same.

              I don’t care what you think of me North. I’m sure there are plenty of folk that think I’m a facile thinking prick. I’d be setting myself up for heartache if I thought I could be outspoken and have everyone agree with me. If it’s any consolation, I still like you.

      • georgecom 2.6.3
        28 May 2017 at 2:09 pm

        yup pretty much. build thousands of state houses and redirect the accommodation supplement to that. Reduce house prices 30 percent and dry up the demand for landlords buying rentals.

    • RedBaronCV 2.7
      28 May 2017 at 10:38 am

      Redirect ( not all at once) the accommodation supplement ( before budget over $1b per year) into building housing. Investment not subsidy for landlords.
      Build the housing firstly in the areas where we pay the most out in accommodation supplements. ( Have one set of calc’s for Auckland and another for the regions)
      Right across the board redirect the “landlord subsidy” into measures or “subsidies” to help people own their own homes. When home ownership goes up land lording becomes a marginal economic life style.

      This is a classic case of a poorly directed government “subsidy” producing sub optimal community outcomes.

    • saveNZ 2.8
      28 May 2017 at 10:53 am

      @ BM – make being a residential property investor as unattractive as possible.

      What in a rental shortage?????

      Where do renters live then, Planet Key? I personally don’t think the 39,000 new houses under National that are $600k plus and100,000 new houses under labour over 10 years over $500,000+ going to do anything when we have 70,000 new citizens arriving yearly and 188,000 working visa’s being issued?

      What annoys me most about the housing debate is that everyone keeps trotting out the same old discourses they want more rental houses but don’t want more landlords but we can’t get the government to build any new affordable houses fast enough.

      What does that make? A huge fuck up!!! The average joe understands but for some reason all the analysts and commentators don’t. If you want to know what housing is not helping Labour in the polls – it’s because the average joe can do the figures of incoming and out coming population growth.

      What’s even worse is that Labour keeps the fire and brimstone attacks on landlords in every speech, but they themselves have many MP’s who are landlords – are they have these evil speculators too in their own party!!! Of course so does National but people expect that.

      What people like about Corbyn is that he’s consistent. The facts makes sense. Labour still are doing a Natz and trying to work the discourses in their favour but their facts on property don’t match the discourses.

      The other thing about Corby is that he does not attack and blame people. Labour still have a tendency to blame in most speeches it seems to be property speculators as villains. Since most of NZ economy seems to be about construction and cows I’m not sure that is the most politically sensible villain to tout as we have become a ponzi scheme industry.

      Everything about housing in this country is wrong. But at least be honest about what’s going on and why people including Labour MP’s invest in property and how hopeless NZ developers are, including the government.

      There little investment in NZ to take up – look at all the financial scandals and the banks don’t even guarantee deposits here! So that’s why people buy property.

      National’s immigration policy has driven up the price of houses as well as lowering wages, and creating a huge under supply, so now locals can’t afford to buy or in many cases even rent a house.

      People can’t live on wages so buy houses if they can afford to do so.

      Developers know a bust is only around the corner so are only interested in making short term bucks, affordable housing is not profitable and although developers in NZ tend to be P heads with IQ’s under 100 or offshore investors money laundering cash – they do tend to understand there is no money in affordable housing when the luxury market is booming.

      With insecure work and lower and lower wages, very few locals can afford to buy a house unless they already had a house to use as equity (that they probably bought under the Labour government in the Helen Clark years…) so developers are reliant on the immigration policy to prop up the new houses that locals can’t afford.

      But that does not solve the housing shortage and wage shrinkage for locals on local wages.

      Housing is a cluster fuck and nobody in government has any good answers on this issue because it has to be sorted incrementally and carefully and not via sound byte with fire and brim stone speeches that don’t add up.

    • Adrian Thornton 2.9
      28 May 2017 at 11:34 am

      The accommodation supplement is just one thing, and one thing only..tax payers propping up an unsustainable housing market, for both landlords, investors and private individuals flipping houses for capital gain….a market that is nothing but pure fantasy, a fantasy that ironically enough, gets to exist, with these subsidies, outside the supposed natural laws of the free market.

      No accommodation supplement, no working for families=no million dollar houses in Auckland, it is that simple, how to extract our selves from this ever decreasing closed loop is not so simple.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.9.1
        28 May 2017 at 11:47 am

        outside the supposed natural laws of the free market.

        We’ve seen enough poorly regulated markets to know that economic bubbles are well within their nature.

        How to extract ourselves? Step one is to change the government.

        • Adrian Thornton 2.9.1.1
          28 May 2017 at 11:53 am

          What exactly has Labour proposed in their manifesto that would help…
          1. tenants pay less rent, have long term security
          2. Stop domestic housing being used as a commodity for largely unfettered capital gains.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.9.1.1.1
            28 May 2017 at 12:03 pm

            1. Increase state housing stock – that’s just one proposal.
            2. Make foreign speculators build – again, just one proposal. All this stuff is literally front page from their website.

            • Adrian Thornton 2.9.1.1.1.1
              28 May 2017 at 12:27 pm

              I have read their site thoroughly, a few times thanks.

              1. Increasing the housing stock so more people can get on the ‘property ladder’ is not gong to do anything to stop the unfettered fetish of housing speculation in New Zealand, so I fail to see how this will help the country in the long term?

              2. $500,000 affordable houses in outer Auckland is not going to help the tens of thousands of workers who will, by this level of affordability, set by Labour, be effectively shut out of the possibility of ever owning their own homes.
              If you research the figures on average incomes for factory workers, cleaners etc, average rents etc, you will soon see that this is the reality.

              3. Where is there even a mention on Labours website of anything Labour is going to do to help tenants achieve long term security in their housing needs and any kind rent rise security?…or are they going to leave renters to the ‘invisible hand’ of the free market?…because that’s what it looks a lot like.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                28 May 2017 at 12:33 pm

                1. Maybe a cgt and other measures will do that.

                2. Depends on what happens with wages. Also assumes that good stable housing cannot be delivered via tenancy arrangements; cf: Germany.

                3. Here. I searched for “tenancy”. It wasn’t the only hit.

                • Adrian Thornton …
                  28 May 2017 at 1:59 pm

                  Well that link is from 2014…

                  “Labour will work with landlord and tenant representative groups to investigate options for increasing security of tenure in the private sector and ensure a better balance of rights between tenants and landlords.”

                  …as with most of Labours positions on the working poor of New Zealand…nothing but platitudes, if Labour actually were going to do something meaningful about this issue, it would now ne enshrined in their manifesto for the 2017 election.

                  As far as wages go, when asked about this at the end of a speech Andrew Little gave at Clive hall a month or so ago, Little said “we will have to keep pushing wages up from below, and look at worker productivity”

                  I asked Little after the speech, “what do you mean, look at worker productivity ? you know as well as I do worker productivity is the highest it has ever been recorded, yet wages and conditions have gone backwards”, he had no answer for me.
                  So I wouldn’t hold my breath on that count.

                  • weka …
                    28 May 2017 at 2:10 pm

                    Have Labour released a 2017 manifesto? I was under the impression that they were still working on policy and releasing it over time. Ditto the Greens.

                    • Adrian Thornton …
                      28 May 2017 at 2:37 pm

                      Sorry you are right, I guess I meant to say… the stated positions as outlined on the Labour website.

            • Craig H 2.9.1.1.1.2
              28 May 2017 at 12:40 pm

              To add to OAB’s points:

              3. Ring fence residential rental property losses to rental income
              4. Extend the bright line test to 5 years (not CGT but a reasonable approximation for speculators)
              5. Build 100,000 houses and sell them to first home buyers, which removes those families from the rental market, thereby reducing demand, which should lead to decreased or stagnant rents.
              6. Pare back immigration to some extent (I concede that they have not published any policy yet)
              7. Aim for full employment (if rents don’t go up and median household income does, that’s a win)

              • Adrian Thornton …
                28 May 2017 at 2:10 pm

                @ Craig H,
                While I agree with all you suggestions, I still fail to see how these light weight actions will curtail the obsession with capital gains to made on housing in New Zealand over the long term, which is the origin of the ongoing crisis.

                That 100,000 houses build over all of New Zealand for first home buyers will do sweet FA to adjust the cost of rentals, that much is for sure.

                At best these suggestions are like a plaster on major wound, nice thought, but ultimately pointless if it doesn’t stop the bleeding.

                As far as full employment go, this Labour party has no intention of creating full employment, it is not a workers party, and hasn’t been for over 25 years.

                • Craig H …
                  29 May 2017 at 3:09 am

                  Individually they may not seem like much, but I think cumulatively they will have a big effect. There are a number of aspects increasing supply and reducing demand in the package, and they add up.

                  Also, a 5 year bright line test coupled with eliminating the ability to offset losses against personal income will push at least some speculators into other investments – the tax advantages are gone, so may as well invest in shares or other markets.

          • saveNZ 2.9.1.1.2
            28 May 2017 at 2:03 pm

            One of the issues is that property speculation is part of the NZ way of life. Look at all the popular shows, My first home, The block, who knows how many other’s are out there.

            Rightly or wrongly, property speculation has been encouraged as a desirable mainstream activity.

            The reason there is now a housing crisis, is that NZ has one of the largest migration per capita in the world.

            Property speculation has been around for decades in this country – what has changed is the National party policy and the numbers of people coming into the country to live that need housing. In addition globalism gives other nationalities the ability to speculate without even living here – again it’s National party policy like the 0% offshore tax havens with no questions asked about the persons identity.

            So to win, as Corbyn says, For the many not the few. In NZ property speculation a National pastime for the many – not the few.

            So you need to bear that in mind if you want a change of government. So many people are complaining not enough is being done and suggesting a whole range of measures that don’t address the main issue of demand that is causing the problem.

            Look at Sweden. They have no rental houses it’s almost impossible to rent there because they have massive rent controls. So if you have a rental house, all’s good. If you are looking for one, there is none available.

            Housing shortages will be MUCH worse under National – than Labour because National don’t consider there to be a housing crisis, they want to sell off all the state houses cheap to their mates, and import as many people as possible to NZ – even if there is not enough houses to house them.

            Let alone enough jobs, schools, hospitals, prisons, courts or public transport to cope.

            That’s the difference in policy.

            • Adrian Thornton 2.9.1.1.2.1
              28 May 2017 at 2:31 pm

              So are you saying a half arsed centrist NZ Labour Party is better than National?

              If you are, I have to respectfully disagree.
              I believe we now need a party and a leader who have to courage to come out have a open and honest conversation with the citizens of New Zealand, and just say,what we all already know, that this neo liberal system of economics just isn’t working, even people who aren’t engaged politically instinctively know that the housing market is pure fantasy, our low wage economy is not fair, income disparity is completely out of control etc etc

              Yes you are right property speculation is part of the NZ way of life in certain circles but then so was drinking and driving. that doesn’t mean it was a good thing, or that the behavior can’t be changed.

              • David Mac …
                28 May 2017 at 2:51 pm

                Yep, I agree Adrian. Between good intentions and a job well done is the abyss.

                We’re all fed up with the lip service and no action.

                It needs a Masterplan bigger than anything I’m seeing now. Labour’s pat “Oh we’ll get lots of the unemployed into building trade apprenticeships” solution is just what the Nats have been feeding us. If that was easily doable, we’d be seeing it.

                I think it needs a broader plan. eg: Skew overseas students towards the building professions, town planning, engineering, architects etc. Once qualified, bond them to work in NZ for 3 years and earn residency for their part in the Grand Solution.

                Get retired hard-case character builders, there’s plenty of them about, their backs are buggered but their mouths aren’t, to tour schools and talk to 16 year olds about the opportunities in the construction and suburb creating business.

                We all want to see more homes, make NZ believe you can do it and NZ will back you.

                • Adrian Thornton …
                  28 May 2017 at 3:18 pm

                  @David Mac, Yes I really believe this is the time for that to happen, many people are ready to get behind and work for a common vision of shared interest.. when I had a chat with Little, I actually said something like this to him…. “NZ is waiting for a transformative leader, that could be you, you could be the leader of a Labour party that will always be remembered, or like so many others, forgotten in the banality of time,” he thought that was pretty funny,
                  I thought it was a pretty serious proposition, but I guess you are either that person or you aren’t, and there probably isn’t really anything in between, so maybe I was being a bit unfair in saying that to him.

                  • David Mac …
                    28 May 2017 at 3:37 pm

                    Ha, it’s a great question Adrian, I think it would catch most of us unawares. ‘This is your chance to be an Abe Lincoln Andrew, you gonna take it?’ Ha… I’d ask if I could email you back.

                    People squirm a little even when they know that question is coming. I see it when the hosts enquire of a contestant “Do have what it takes to win Britain has Talent?”

                    Sing like an angel or a hoax act, they all say “Yes”. It’s odd that those with the most uncertain of ‘Yeses’ are often those that sing like angels.

              • saveNZ …
                28 May 2017 at 3:08 pm

                @Adrian, but the National party are not going to change their spots.

                Kiwis are still considered wealthy on the world stage (apparently we have about $300,000 in assets per person on average). In short not enough voters are poor enough for a Corbyn style approach, yet.

                Half assed policy is better than all guns ahead in the titanic of National housing policy. I don’t want to be stepping over 100,000’s of homeless on the streets including Mums and Dads with kids if National get in again, because the Labour supporters want to ‘punish’ them for not getting their exact wish list correct.

                Labour went down the gurgle last election with their pro capital gains property policy.

                I want a change of government and trying to point out what motivates ‘middle NZ’ and what might put them off.

                Some people are very badly off, but not enough and not voting enough. Some people especially the 65% of homeowners are doing ok and some are doing very well, thanks.

                If Labour keep to the centre and articulate a vision that resonates and Greens go to the left of centre then everyone should be happy and Labour get back in the 40’s not the 20’s they have plunged too, and Greens hopefully get 15% plus.

                It’s reliant on left voters being able to compromise and support Labour and Greens to stop the Natz carnage.

    • r0b 2.10
      28 May 2017 at 11:49 am

      > I agree the Accommodation Supplement is a crock of shit.

      > What the answer is I do not know.

      The answer is affordable state-provided accommodation to set a baseline price in the market.

  3. Halfcrown 3
    28 May 2017 at 9:25 am

    “you could always just take the nice safe 3ish % a savings account with kiwibank would give you”

    Wouldn’t “bank” on it now we have The Double Dipping Dickhead from Dipton’s OBR

    PUN intended

    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation-and-supervision/banks/open-bank-resolution

    • bwaghorn 3.1
      28 May 2017 at 10:17 am

      yes i’m aware of that , but no money is 100% safe, they only take the money above $100 k ? i think,
      Of course it is the very fear that their money will vanish that makes people put their money in property.

    • greg 3.2
      28 May 2017 at 10:23 am

      halfcrown kiwi saver accounts have been opened up as well for confiscation on default.
      obr is directly aimed at savers i worry about the level debt house holds have taken on

      • smokes kreen 3.2.1
        28 May 2017 at 4:32 pm

        It is a real worry. The other thing is that New Zealand is now the only OECD country which does not have a Deposit Guarantee scheme in place. Even in Australia the “big four” Australian banks which operate here (ASB, BNZ, ANZ and Westpac) all have their depositors’ funds guaranteed up to $250,000. Their New Zealand depositors however do not have any such protection for their funds.

        Even when the OECD urged bank deposit insurance for savers, the then Finance Minister Bill English ruled this out in a 2011Press Release saying that “The Government does not favour compulsory deposit insurance. This is difficult to price and blunts incentives for both financial institutions and depositors to monitor and manage risks properly.”
        (https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/maintaining-confidence-financial-system)

        The other OECD countries had no such difficulty.

        • greg 3.2.1.1
          28 May 2017 at 6:42 pm

          another scary fact is the concentration of home loans on these banks books there not what you would call diversified i just see housing/mortgages as a ticking time bomb that is totally dependent on record low interest rates which by coincidence is screwing over savers that are not being compensated for the risk that is being taken. speculators will be the first to default followed by house holds who used the homes as atms .the squealing for bailout will be deafening

  4. jcuknz 4
    28 May 2017 at 10:06 am

    The person with whom I shared a flat in pre-owning days told me when I subsequently visited him that every time he got a CoL raise from his govt job the landlord put the rent up so he was no better off for the raise.

    • Nick 4.1
      28 May 2017 at 10:17 am

      Exactly!
      Everything the market will bear.
      Accomm. supplement goes up? Rents go up.
      Sure as night follows day.

  5. Foreign waka 5
    28 May 2017 at 10:16 am

    Can somebody help me understanding this?
    The government can take land for public works purpose, yes? The Government can use their employee base in other institutions i.e. Universities to accept contract work, yes?
    The Government can allocate funds for building infrastructure/housing and employ a house building company, or even creates one if no other avenue is available for a limited time (i.e. 10 years?) to get builders employed, yes?
    If all those questions would herald a yes, even with some prep work required and given that this would not be a secret in any of the circles giving advise presently – why is nothing being done in this atrocious situation?
    What would the motivation be to hold the majority of working people and the poor at ransom?
    I am really not getting this, is there some kind of perverse sadism involved? Do some of the powerful get a kick out of having the poorer people begging? Are this some last genetic remnants of a time well past? What is it, I really hope someone can tell me.

    • gsays 5.1
      28 May 2017 at 10:24 am

      Hi fw,
      Landlords vote, lots of tenants do not, perhaps.

      • Foreign waka 5.1.1
        28 May 2017 at 10:30 am

        Time to get those who are affected into the voting boots perhaps?
        Not sure whether this would change the mindset of some seemingly sadistic people.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2
      28 May 2017 at 10:24 am

      Indeed. Any earthquake or flood that put 10,000 people on the street would quickly be declared a state of emergency. Accommodation would be commandeered if necessary.

      The contrast is telling.

      • weka 5.2.1
        28 May 2017 at 10:43 am

        Um, Chch. Where people lived in vehicles for a long time after Chch2.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1
          28 May 2017 at 10:44 am

          …and the government took emergency powers to deal with it, in contrast to the current situation.

    • Nick 5.3
      28 May 2017 at 10:26 am

      If you philosophically believe that the Government neither can nor should aspire to do anything at all, you will find reasons NOT to intervene, not look for things you can usefully do. And to do JUST ENOUGH to calm the population, without actually changing the essential advantage of the already well off.

      If the Left does not exploit this hole in the Right mindset during the on-coming election, they will only have themselves to blame for a loss and a continuation of this horrifying situation. At present they don’t seem to have identified this glaring internal contradiction in National Party mentality.

      The political Right have this position baked into their DNA, or whatever the cliche is. But New Zealanders as a whole still hope that the Government can make their lives better.

      They can. But with no change of administration they won’t.

      • Foreign waka 5.3.1
        28 May 2017 at 10:45 am

        Thank you all for the response, so I take it the building of social housing is doable but the government is only inclined to drip feed perception that they do “assist” (whom is anybody’s guess) without being found out that the overarching philosophy is actually at its core feudalistic. If this is so, than it also explains the coalition with the Maori party, being structured along the lines of a monarchy.
        It also means that if National does not change policy and stays in government, nothing will change and we have more and more people homeless and lacking basics.
        That NZ has already the same charity fund as 3rd world countries, sponsor a child, is telling.
        I think immigrants deserve to know as well as people investing in SRI funds.

  6. North 6
    28 May 2017 at 10:21 am

    Ever spent time in suburbs formerly stacked out with Housing NZ rentals now full of private rentals ? Ever seen the hurt look on the face of the private landlord when his tenant tells him he/she is leaving because the rent is unaffordable. It’s SO fucking sad !

    PS: this comment may be construed / misconstrued to appeal to every point on the spectrum.

    Congrats’ to Foreign Waka @ 5 above.

  7. RedBaronCV 7
    28 May 2017 at 10:43 am

    We probably also need a register held by MSD identifying all landlords that have rents high enough to attract rental subsidies.
    Social investment studies you know.

    • Craig H 7.1
      28 May 2017 at 10:53 am

      MBIE have the information already from tenancy bonds, so would be very interesting to see it.

      • RedBaronCV 7.1.1
        28 May 2017 at 11:11 am

        Oh for an accidental information leak!

        That way we could see which landlords needed to be weaned off their state subsidies – maybe cold turkey them – they have to sell the houses for what they paid for them less the accommodation supplements the tenants had collected over the years less the tax rebates they have collected for the same rental activities -anything above that sale price taxed at the highest marginal rate.

        Actually we could have a tax claw back on sale of a property of all the rental losses deducted over the years – hints of that would put plenty of houses into play.

        • David Mac 7.1.1.1
          28 May 2017 at 11:46 am

          Information with regard the rent paid for various house types in the separate regions of NZ is freely available to all. The number of tenancies started in any month, upper quartile rents paid in those regions, the median etc. There is quite a bit of info available to us all. Landlords and property mangers regularly use the information, it’s one of the tools used when establishing the market rent for a particular property.

          For obvious reasons what it doesn’t do is give you the name and address of those lodging these bonds. MBIE have access to that information.

          The problem with placing too much weight in this information is that 2 three bedroom homes can be 500m from each other and one can have a market value twice that of the other.

          Often those setting the rent level is not the owner of the property. Property Managers are in the % game. The higher the rent, the better their bottom line. I suspect property managers are more to blame for escalating rents than the Mum and Dad owners, they usually run with the perceived expert’s advice.

          http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/housing-property/sector-information-and-statistics/rental-bond-data

          • Peter 7.1.1.1.1
            28 May 2017 at 10:54 pm

            Divide the rental income from HNZ houses by the number of such houses and you can see that HNZ makes a loss of $100 per week on every house.
            Where does that $100 come from?
            You and me, the taxpayer.

            • David Mac 7.1.1.1.1.1
              29 May 2017 at 10:55 am

              I’m more concerned about people than I am money Pete. I think we all should be. But even from a financial aspect, we’re paying $1000 a week for people to live in Motels. $100 a week looks cheap.

  8. North 8
    28 May 2017 at 11:06 am

    Great to see even the right wingers acknowledging that yes we DO have a crisis ! Standby…….crossing to Maui.

  9. The decrypter 9
    28 May 2017 at 11:18 am

    Dickens has a good angle on things in the herald now.

  10. millsy 10
    28 May 2017 at 11:22 am

    Ironically, even with the Accomodation Supplement, people still pay 60%-70% of their income in rent anyway, so the payment isn’t even that great.

    For example a single mother with 2 children under 18 paying $400 per week in rent would get $557 per week, which means that after paying her rent, she would be left with $157, subtract utilities, and you get $87 for things like clothes, school fees, transport and the like, plus medical care for her.

  11. Draco T Bastard 11
    28 May 2017 at 11:32 am

    Exactly as I predicted – the tax cuts and other moneys going to the poor in the budget will be rapidly grabbed by the rich by the simple expedient of rising prices.

    And I’m pretty sure that the government planned it that way. It’s government money going to the rich which the government can say that they gave to the poor.

  12. David Mac 12
    28 May 2017 at 2:20 pm

    I think the free market would work just fine for housing when there are more homes than people looking for one. I don’t think that is going to happen anytime soon and shelter is too important a need to leave to it’s current spiral of unaffordability.

    As a nation, I think we agree government intervention is required. The friction arises when we consider how best to go about that.

    We all seem agreed that the best way to go is to try and push the situation towards a status quo whereby market forces do work. More homes for rent and for sale than there are people looking.

    Again, we all seem agreed that the best way to get what we want is to build. Lots and lots of houses/apartments/flats.

    What the hell is going on National? Steady hand on the tiller? “Show me the houses!”

    Land? I travel Highway 16 when I go to Auckland, I don’t see much more of the outlying areas. There are 1000’s of hectares between Helensville and Wellsford. Move the goddam cows off it and build. Start handing some eviction notices to cows instead of Grandmas.

    You’ve had nine years. You’re as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike. Get outta my sight, you piss me off.

    • saveNZ 12.1
      28 May 2017 at 2:52 pm

      @David Mac Yes, fly in on our jet packs of the future to beat the traffic to our minimum wages jobs!! Go Auckland Strategy! BTW, the houses are 1 million bucks now in that area, so prey tell, how the average worker can afford to rent or buy it, I’m not seeing any high paid job creation in anybody’s strategies.

      • Craig H 12.1.1
        28 May 2017 at 4:37 pm

        Kiwibuild will create a lot of jobs, and most of them should be relatively well-paid.

    • Jeremy 12.2
      28 May 2017 at 3:05 pm

      Hi David,

      There is stacks of land out West with an existing motorway extending into farmland, however just throwing houses up isn’t that easy.

      There are two problems that I see. First, the Government would have to write legislation overriding the MULs and existing zoning and consent laws, I’m not sure how great a precedent that would be, however a lot of the current restrictions are quite crazy and you could argue it is necessary and the council would have amended these issues by now if they were going to. So many building types are outrighted banned which means you are effectively required to build a detached single family dwelling with multiple off street parks at current land prices. I know a home developer who has been building houses for 25+ years in Auckland, when he started it took him an average of 1-2 weeks to get consent, now it is 8 weeks +. All these problems are significant council generated problems, that the government can’t really do anything about without overruling legislation.

      Second, even if all the MULs, zoning and restrictions were removed, we simply don’t have the tradesmen to build everything, it would take mass short term immigration, or a huge apprenticeship programme and many, many years to get through the backlog, and then what happens to the immigrants or apprentices after we catch up?

      I don’t care if the market or the government does the development, but until the above issues are resolved, with a clear definitive plan, both National and Labour’s housing plans are pie in the sky nonsense.

      • David Mac 12.2.1
        28 May 2017 at 4:06 pm

        Yes it is a bit of a catch 22 mess.

        The Super City don’t charge $1000’s to hook a pipe up because that is a fair price. The ‘gotta pay’ interest payment is due, offshore it goes. They’re dead scared of a house in Auckland costing $300k. They need the rating income that $750k houses generate.

        Pity the Mad Butcher isn’t 20 years younger.

        “I don’t care about your laws. I’m the boss, I make the laws. The 4.5 million people of New Zealand put me in this chair to do a job and by fuck, that is what I’m going to do. Put it in the house order, we’ll vote these bullshit laws out next Tuesday and start getting these houses whacked up. Who’s shout is it?”

        • Craig H 12.2.1.1
          28 May 2017 at 4:40 pm

          Movements in average value of houses don’t change rates – rates are set based on RV vs average property value, not just RV alone. Dropping the average value of Auckland houses to $300,000 wouldn’t do anything to the rates.

          • David Mac 12.2.1.1.1
            28 May 2017 at 4:54 pm

            Yes, that’s the pat response. I’m not talking about ‘movement in the average price’. I’m talking about building houses like the Brits built Spitfires.

            What if a govt builds a suburb of 2000 $400k houses, will their rates bill be the same as the guy that just paid $850k for an exec home in Henderson Heights?

            I think the Super City is budgeting on every house being $850k’s worth.

  13. saveNZ 13
    28 May 2017 at 2:46 pm

    This is typical of the one dimensional thinking. http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/05/opinion-there-s-only-one-way-left-to-solve-the-housing-crisis.html

    To save you the trouble reading it, their answer is we build up in the CBD.

    What is unsaid is when we build up, there has been nothing stopping this in the CBD. Previously developers built leaky buildings that nobody wanted to live in and there was so little regulation, someone could build up right along side another apartment block within 1cm and block out an entire apartments sun and views. At the same time banks refused to lend to most first home owners on CBD apartments requiring a 40% deposit.

    Eventually this problem was solved with immigration. People who had cash, did not need bank approval and were used to small, dark apartments. Nowadays this has morphed into more luxury apartments but they are no longer affordable.

    So even if we build a lot more apartments in the CBD, in 5 years we have all these new apartments, where are all the new jobs in Auckland (or Wellington), where are all the money for new schools, hospitals, infrastructure, police and so forth???

    Every time it rains, sewerage goes into the harbour.

    Before we import the people – maybe work out is this a good idea, and what are they going to do here?? Level 5 IT support workers, chefs, tilers and petrol attendants for minimum wages and the tax payer supporting them with accommodation benefits, working for families, and social support is not sustainable and a radical rethink of policy is necessary, especially since 93,000 Kiwis are neither in work or on a benefit. Let alone the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, or those in work, who work 1 hour a week on a zero hour contract.

    • David Mac 13.1
      28 May 2017 at 3:19 pm

      Apartments, sheesh, how wrong can we get it. We’ve been told to like apartments but families just don’t.

      Our primary shortage is dwellings for families. Ask 100 parents how they feel about raising their kids on the 18th floor? Regardless of the marble finishes, I think over 90% of them would much prefer a back-yard. That’s just us. We’d rather commute and bowl a ball to our boy on our own back lawn.

      So be it, nothing new. This aerial pic of a new state housing estate from 1947. State houses as far as the eye can see, all done long before nail-guns and power tools.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/State_Housing_in_Oranga%2C_Auckland%2C_1947.jpg

      • saveNZ 13.1.1
        28 May 2017 at 3:35 pm

        Terraced housing is the best options for affordable family living. You can have 3 stories, no body corp (otherwise the Body corp just eats up the affordability) and a garden. It’s a good compromise for families and higher density, but all around in central Auckland and suburbs houses are getting bigger and more expensive, not more affordable.

        The national party an Auckland council unitary plan at work, supported by Labour and the Greens who got duped big time.

      • saveNZ 13.1.2
        28 May 2017 at 3:40 pm

        State houses were often built with returned service men workers. Job creation and more houses. Win, win.

        Does not really replicate with neoliberal solutions of cruise ships with imported cheap workers living there, building houses and infrastructure for the 70,000 new migrants per year paid for by existing local tax payers, while our productivity plummets under neoliberalism and the endless search for a low wage economy and austerity to cut costs using cheap labour from offshore.

        • David Mac 13.1.2.1
          28 May 2017 at 4:28 pm

          Yes, photos from the early 60’s look the same except they were houses for people to buy. Suburbs of them.

          I think you’re right, the fundamental difference between then and now is the motivation. People vs Money. In those building booms the fire underneath blazed because we were housing families. At the moment it seems to be money that’s important. It doesn’t need to be.

        • mauī 13.1.2.2
          28 May 2017 at 9:24 pm

          Absolutely savenz, my relies were given a house by the government after the war and were set up in the building trades for life probably with free training too.

          These days the government will give you a motel room to live in and you’re asked to pay for it yourself, or you’re accused of smoking p and soon after evicted. The whole apprenticeship thing is in a dire state too.

  14. WILD KATIPO 14
    28 May 2017 at 9:52 pm

    Ayyy….. One of my favorites, … Just gotta love the imagery…

    Black Sabbath “Tomorrow’s Dream” – YouTube

    • WILD KATIPO 14.1
      28 May 2017 at 9:57 pm

      And in order to understand the above imagery ,.. you need to dig into a little of this…

      Enjoy.

      Genesis 6 Conspiracy: Nephilm (Giants) Plan to enslave Mankind …
      Video for gary wayne genesis 6 conspiracy▶ 1:17:11

    • Incognito 14.2
      28 May 2017 at 10:00 pm

      The audio and visual complemented each other very nicely.

Links to post