Nick Smith 0.75% successful on Auckland housing!

Written By: - Date published: 7:18 am, May 24th, 2016 - 26 comments
Categories: housing, national - Tags: , , , ,

Yesterday Nick Smith announced – Deals signed off for 740 more Auckland homes

The Government has signed off deals to build 740 homes on spare land in Auckland, some of which must be sold for “affordable” prices.

Housing Minister Nick Smith confirmed this afternoon that the Government had completed negotiations on three sites in Manukau, Mt Albert, and Waterview.

The biggest development was a 1.85 hectare site at Manukau Station Road, where up to 600 apartments would be built. The land was bought off the Auckland Council.

A 0.91 hectare site on Great North Road in Waterview would fit another 80 new homes. It was previously owned by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and was leased to a boarding hostel.

The 0.47 hectare site in Mt Albert, on the corner of New North Road and Soljak Place, was bought from the NZTA and a private landowner and will fit 60 townhouse apartments.

In total 3.23 ha of land for housing. Can it be only a year ago that Nick was promising 430 ha? I make that a 0.75% success – three quarters of 1% – in one year. At this rate Nick will have fulfilled his promise in just 573 short years. The Brighter Future strikes again.

26 comments on “Nick Smith 0.75% successful on Auckland housing!”

  1. miravox 1

    A portion of the houses built on each site must be sold for an “affordable” price – around $600,000.

    I wonder what sort of income / deposit a first home buyer would need for that affordable mortgage.

    • Rosie 1.1

      Not remotely affordable.

      This is more like second home territory for two people within a household who work full time and aren’t carrying any debt and have good savings – a 20% deposit of $120K would be required.

    • Colonial Viper 1.2

      I wonder what sort of income / deposit a first home buyer would need for that affordable mortgage.

      AFAIK an income to price ratio of 3:1 is considered affordable; at 4:1 it is considered unaffordable; at 5:1 is is ‘highly unaffordable.’

      In this system at $600,000 for it to be “affordable” you would require a household income of $200,000

      If you were earning “only” $120,000 such a house would be considered “highly unaffordable.”

      Today’s low mortgage interest rates do soften this a bit however.

      • miravox 1.2.1

        Ta. A bit of spin by the Housing Minister.

        I don’t see many people who are currently unable to afford rent or households living on one income seeing these places as anywhere near ‘affordable’.

  2. vto 2

    tired

    useless

    past his use-by date

    move over numbnuts

  3. RedBaronCV 3

    If he got the land from NZTA – (surplus roading land?) then was it subject to offer back to the original owners and did this actually happen?

    • Gangnam Style 3.1

      There’s a few of these questions running around, like the land the school sold off for laptops down south, were original owners offered their land back.

  4. Ad 4

    The story I particularly liked this morning was Kim Campbell the CE of the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association advocating that the state undertake a massive house-building programme to help the housing crisis, just like we did in the 1930s (This is NEMA, one minor age bracket removed from the Northern Club).

    Mr Twyford, I have another donor for you!

    • dukeofurl 4.1

      The State was doing big housing programs , especially in Auckland during the 1970s, till Muldoon arrived

      The current house build numbers havent yet exceeded those years

  5. jcuknz 5

    I agree that the ‘state’ should build many more houses for rental, not sale, and such properties should be to meet the ‘needs’ rather than ‘desires’ of prospective renters.
    The pre-fab concept of post-WWII Uk comes to mind rather than the idealistic concepts of some well meaning folk.

    I guess it is rather hard to make serious headway against an intransigent ACC and idealogical concepts as to who pays. It is a national problem and the government should come to the party rather than bothering about attaining surpluses … people first, money second.

  6. Lanthanide 6

    430 hectares does seem like a really good amount of land that would solve (or at least, go a very long way towards solving) the problem, so I can see why they promised it.

    But it’s also an extraordinary figure to promise, precisely because it is such a large volume of land. It’s unlikely that you could just ‘discover’ large parcels of land that had been underutilised – all the low-hanging fruit have been picked.

    So they should have known from the start that actually making this land available would be complex, time-consuming and possibly expensive.

  7. Smilin 7

    Thanks for that Natwatch I wondered why it was takin so long to get a state house but progress is slow when some people won’t see the bleeding obvious and they keep throwing up excuse after excuse for 8 yrs
    Could have been all go on housing by now if Key and Smith hadnt been sidetracked with ego issues like Kimdotcom ,doing in Sth Canterbury finance,Dirty Politics,Orivida, Fonterra ,Warner Bros , Ak waterfront issues with the council ie doin in the watersiders ,The flag

    Over spending on WW1 commemorations,Royal visits ,TPPA ,up grading high as a kite commissioner residences and generally saving the bacon of the rich and foreign trusts
    Look at how much focus they would have had without that but its their own fault isnt it ?

  8. Sabine 8

    so according to this article from 2015
    the Crown has 150,000 hectars of ‘land’ in AKL and is considering freeing up 430 hectars for urgend housebuilding with some being ‘affordable’.
    I guess the affordable houses were to be build on the site of the grave yard or the substation, or other ‘free land’

    Quote: John Key today denied any houses would be built on the site of the substation, saying there was a lot of vacant land to choose from.
    He had been advised by Building and Housing Minister Nick Smith about 430 hectares of land of the Crown’s 150,000 hectares in Auckland would be used for housing, he said. ” Quote End.

    article here http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/no-houses-will-be-built-on-substation-site–john-key-2015052715#axzz49W9gvrJW

    While Mr. Smith was not able to procure anything even remotly looking like 430 hectars of free land to build houses – with ‘some’ of them ‘affordable’, he did manage to spend the full budget allocated for the 430 hectars. Which will make what ever houses are build on the little land Mr. Smith managed to acquire quite expensive for the tax payer.
    Ahhh, lucky Mr. Smith has the tax payer to milk for cash, and no oversight on how he spends said cash. IT must be nice working for National. 🙂

    Quote”: Just before last year’s Budget, Housing Minister Nick Smith revealed plans to free up 500 hectares of surplus Crown land in Auckland to build houses on.
    He was given $54 million to do that.
    Nearly a year on and he’s spent all that money – and told ONE News just 25 hectares of land has been secured.
    That’s just five per cent of the promised land.” Quote End.

    article here https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/governments-auckland-housing-project-moving-snails-pace

    so we can conclude the timeframe of 573 years is in fact rather optimistic, considering that he Minister has run out of funds.

    Question: Was a single house build since the honorable Minister Nick Smith and his mates in Parliament freed up all that vacant abandoned Crown Land in AKL or are these ghost houses to go with the ghost jobs that were created that have been given to our Ghost unemployed? And are ghost homeless people rich enough to rent these Ghost houses?

  9. TC 9

    Twyford needs to line smith up like an opponent in a team sport and keep smashing him, going past him, niggling at him etc etc.

    Time to get stuck into the batshit crazy loon as he is a very weak link and phil needs to prove his worth in the court of public opinion.

    • Sabine 9.1

      oh there are many good moments with Twyford and Nick Smith on parliament tv.

      just go watch. It is very sad, but also very entertaining, but above all sad. a

      • TC 9.1.1

        Parliament tv is for political anoraks, swinging and non voters dont care about it and nact understand this so they behave appallingly.

    • Reddelusion 9.2

      Hes done that, and p off NZ Asian community

  10. Rosie 10

    On newshrub last night a scowling tight lipped Nick Smith denied there was a housing crisis.

    All other parties in parliament were asked if there was a crisis. All answered yes, even Rimmer. All were asked what they would do to solve it. All gave a variety of solutions, that combined would add up to a whole package of useful tools in which to seriously address the problem (with the exception of Dunne and Rimmer’s, whose response were rather Blah, but Dunne’s idea of a housing taskforce would be a good first step, not a solution in itself)

    Nick Grumpy Cat Smith comes on and says, quite emphatically there is no housing crisis.

    So a .75% achievement rate is to be expected from a Minister who never saw there was an issue in the first place.

    Furthermore, it transpires the SHA Accord is more useless than I first thought. All this land put aside has no conditions on it. The developers can sit on it for however long they like, landbank it effectively. When questioned about the usefulness of the SHA and and apparent lack of conditions on developers Nick Smith replied with a non threatening “I can send them a letter to ask them hurry up”.

    Sure those developers are shaking in their boots.

    • Lanthanide 10.1

      When questioned about the usefulness of the SHA and and apparent lack of conditions on developers Nick Smith replied with a non threatening “I can send them a letter to ask them hurry up”.

      Sure those developers are shaking in their boots.

      Strictly speaking, Parliament is sovereign so the government could pass any new legislation it likes regarding the land, including confiscation without payment.

      Of course since we have a National government who looks after their mates, that is unlikely.

      • dukeofurl 10.1.1

        Thats not necessary, as a development permit granted can be revoked, dropping the value of the land overnight.

        A year ago this exactly what was threatened ( april 2015)

        “PM Key says Government sending letters to owners of 14 Special Housing Areas in Auckland that they must develop the land, or lose the Special Housing Area status”
        http://www.interest.co.nz/property/75094/pm-key-says-government-sending-letters-owners-14-special-housing-areas-auckland-they

        Has Smith followed through on this or was that just a brain fade until Key was pulled into line by developers

        • Rosie 10.1.1.1

          Interesting article. It would appear that Key didn’t tell Smith about plans to send letters out to those 14 SHA developers who had not yet applied for resource consent.

          The article was dated 20th April. It was last week on newshrub when Smith mentioned he could send a letter, but it was only when he was pushed by the reporter for a response to the lack of building in Akld since the SHA was passed. Even then it seemed like an afterthought.

  11. b waghorn 11

    nick smith ” its a figment of peoples imagination”
    key ” there is no crisis”
    bennett ” its a crisis for some”

    The cracks are appearing

    • TC 11.1

      Yes but note how the msm never challenge the arrogant responses with some facts that debunk the assertions.

      So the spin stands rather than any BS response they would give.

  12. save nz 12

    How One Colorado City Instantly Created Affordable Housing
    Relaxing rules on “Accessory Dwelling Units” drastically increased affordable housing stock in the small city of Durango.

    http://www.citylab.com/design/2016/05/how-one-colorado-city-instantly-created-affordable-housing/483027/

    That would be the quickest and cheapest way to add more housing, because the land and infrastructure is already in place. But the council fights tooth and nail to stop granny flats and takes anyone to court. Remember the TV presenter who put up a yurt and got prosecuted or the family that tried to put a granny flat in their back yard for Grandma?

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Safety focus in improved drug driver testing
    Improving the safety of all road users is the focus of a new public consultation document on the issue of drug driver testing. Plans for public consultation on options to improve the drug driver testing process have been announced by ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Making it easier to get help from Police
    Police Minister Stuart Nash says calling a cop suddenly got a whole lot easier with the launch of a ground-breaking new service for non-emergency calls. “The single non-emergency number ‘ten-five’ is designed to provide better service for the public and ...
    2 weeks ago
  • More Police deployed to the regions
    Frontline Police numbers have been boosted with today’s deployment of 77 new officers to the regions. Police Minister Stuart Nash today congratulated the recruits of Wing 325 who graduated at a formal ceremony at the Royal New Zealand Police College. ...
    2 weeks ago