NRT: National’s failure on housing

Written By: - Date published: 1:54 pm, October 21st, 2014 - 25 comments
Categories: housing, national, same old national, spin, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

no-right-turn-256Reposted from No Right Turn

A year ago National passed the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013. In his speech introducing the bill, then-Housing Minister Nick Smith laid down some clear targets:

It is an ambitious agreement, and sets out a plan to consent 9,000 homes in the first year, 13,000 homes in the second year, and 17,000 homes in the third year. That will have us consenting three times as many homes over the next 3 years as have been consented over the last 3 years.

Its now been a year since the bill was passed, so how many houses have actually been built under it? Five. And according to the Herald, the total number of consents issued is 294. The government is making excuses about this being a long-term project, but whichever way you look at it, they’ve failed to meet the targets they set for themselves. Which makes you wonder whether those targets had any basis in reality, or whether they were just chosen to sound good in a speech.

25 comments on “NRT: National’s failure on housing ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Kevin 1
    21 October 2014 at 2:49 pm

    …and your mob dream they can build 100,000 in ten years….

    • Tracey 1.1
      21 October 2014 at 2:57 pm

      so if you imagine the opposition cldnt achieve their goal, notwithstanding their not being in govt, that makes this govts lies ok?

    • hoom 1.2
      21 October 2014 at 3:15 pm

      A Government with determination to do so absolutely can.

      If a law is in the way it can be changed by simple majority vote.

      If a Dept or other Govt organisation is properly funded & legally empowered to do something like that, who is going to stop them?

      More importantly, if not the Govt what market mechanism is supposed to actually generate the number of low cost houses in the right places?
      The existing market has & will continue to completely fail at it.
      Having failed, with no sign of rectifying, the onus is on Govt to actually get stuck in there & do something.

    • fambo 1.3
      21 October 2014 at 3:35 pm

      They would only have to build ten and they would be doing twice as good

    • adam 1.4
      21 October 2014 at 3:50 pm

      Versers five from your side – what a pathetic argument Kevin. Oh wait we get to argue with 2 year olds now – let me put this simply language then. Kevin, it is better to be overly ambitious and aim for the top – than seem weak and pathetic.

    • Treetop 1.5
      21 October 2014 at 5:54 pm

      5 into 13,000 could someone do the percent figure for me please?

      Labour works out to 10,000 per year, which is about a third less than the other side.

      • Murray Rawshark 1.5.1
        22 October 2014 at 1:09 am

        0.04% In other numbers, the target was missed by 99.96%.

        • Treetop 1.5.1.1
          22 October 2014 at 8:57 am

          Thanks for that.

          Missing the target by 99.96% suggests to me that the outcome is not going to come close to being a solution. A solution which works is required.

          Immigration 45,000 came into the country in the last 12 months, 7,000 more than expected. 21,000 settled in Auckland.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.6
      21 October 2014 at 6:51 pm

      They could – National can’t because they’re pretty much relying on the houses building themselves.

    • dave 1.7
      22 October 2014 at 6:52 am

      five ,five you built five a government lead by a rock star pm built five houses

  2. Tracey 2
    21 October 2014 at 2:58 pm

    has anyone done an OIA on smiths estimates…

  3. Treetop 3
    21 October 2014 at 3:19 pm

    I have never seen housing in such bad shape across all levels, I also expect it to worsen before it gets any better.

    The cost of sections are increasing.
    The cost of building materials are increasing.
    The cost of permits and infrastructure is increasing.
    The cost of rent is increasing.
    The criteria to be on a HNZ or council waiting list has a high threshold.
    Kiwisaver is being relied on to purchase a first property.

    Delivering 5 houses in Auckland in a year is an embarrassment. Had the government purchased sections and managed it themselves, this would have kept the cost of a section down.

    The next kick in the guts will be a bigger than expected rates increase.

    NOTHING positive when it comes to the government improving housing across all levels.

  4. boldsirbrian 4
    21 October 2014 at 3:39 pm

    .
    I hope that others have seen my comment in “Open Mike” earlier today.
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-21102014/#comment-914474

    In Hamilton, the housing failure of National is compounded by the extreme pensioner housing failure of the Hamilton City Council.

    The public watch helplessly as National Government and City Council point the finger at each other.

    The city council is being criticised by both left and right! It’s morally repugnant to be sure. Those on the right are also, or alternatively, outraged by the fiscal irresponsibility of the Council plans.

    The same could happen by any regional government near you

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ANNOUNCEMENT
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Public Meeting; Hamilton
    Thursday 30 October, Midday
    Garden Place
    Funeral : Death of the Common Good: Pensioner Housing
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Mr. Botany (B.)

    • Treetop 4.1
      21 October 2014 at 4:42 pm

      The government don’t want it (pensioner housing) the council do not want it.

      Why not?

      “Not my problem, not our problem” seems to be the response. As for having any compassion, that is what social housing is going to be for “IDIOT.”

      So pensioners are now considered as being idiots. Idiots for thinking that there is a social resposibility by the government or the council to house them.

      The real IDIOTS are the government and the council, as all they will achieve is to stress out the pensioners at Work and Income (increased rental and medical costs will need to be met) and there maybe an increase of beggars outside the Hamilton City Council foyer.

      Social housing is a bit like the Auckland housing accord. A FAILURE.

      (Sorry if the word idiot was offensive to anyone).

  5. dave 5
    21 October 2014 at 3:40 pm

    But all is well there is no housing problem ,there is no house hold debt problem
    New Zealand has a rock star economy there is no poverty you must all lower your expectations for a roof education health food or that brighter future thing. john
    eys poster girl for failure Aroha’ Ireland has found her brighter future in Australia the message is clear new Zealand is only for key and his mates .

  6. ropata mako shark 6
    21 October 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Even the Libz think National is just in the housing market to line pockets for their mates, not to help Kiwis into homes.

    http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/windfall-profits-for-some-at-expense-of.html

  7. Wht NEXT 7
    21 October 2014 at 6:12 pm

    Nick Smith : How do we keep this a secret any longer John
    John :Whats that ?
    Nick :I really dont give a shit about the poor and state housing

  8. Draco T Bastard 8
    21 October 2014 at 6:58 pm

    And what’s not mentioned by I/S is this one:

    In the wake of massive increases to Auckland’s property valuations Prime Minister John Key suggested yesterday that first-home buyers needed to consider an apartment instead of a standalone house.

    Which is rather amusing considering National’s usual cry of more land for more homes to decrease costs. Everything that National has done has only fueled the speculators profits.

    H/T

    • hoom 8.1
      22 October 2014 at 9:05 am

      I’m reminded of this http://englishrussia.com/2014/07/20/good-news-a-new-district-has-been-built/

      Not as a model to be followed but as a very clear cut example of how little land can be needed to house a significant amount of people & these are only 3 storey buildings.

      All together in a monolithic block like that is obviously awful but spread out across the isthmus near arterial roads & train stations you’d hardly notice them.

      Or mix up open spaces, some single storey, some taller buildings, mixed use & you could get maybe 2/3 as many people in the same area with a much more pleasant environment.

  9. Gotta Change 9
    21 October 2014 at 9:03 pm

    The ineptitude of National is quite unbelievable. Rushing through zoning and consents does absolutely nothing to change the land banking going on on the outskirts of town, the huge profit margins that developers expect, or who is going to pay for the infrastructure for these new suburbs. The houses being delivered are around $700k to buy – how the hell is that adressing affordability?

  10. Adrian 10
    22 October 2014 at 5:43 am

    294 consents issued does not mean 294 homes consented. Most of those consents would be for subdivisions with multiple houses.

    • miravox 10.1
      22 October 2014 at 7:35 am

      “Most of those consents would be for subdivisions with multiple houses.

      Or they could be for anything that requires:

      formal approval, under section 49 of the Act, for an applicant to undertake building work. Building work includes work in connection with the construction, alteration, demolition or removal of a building.

      The article doesn’t exactly specify that the consents were all for new house construction and Nick Smith notes that, without the reported expanding on it.

    • RJL 10.2
      22 October 2014 at 8:47 am

      If those 294 consents are for more than 294 actual dwellings, then Nick Smith would have been telling everybody that very loudly.

      So either they are single dwelling consents, or he doesn’t have a clue what is going on.

      Also, even if the consents are for multiple dwellings; does that make it better or worse that only 5 have actually been built.

  11. Treetop 11
    22 October 2014 at 9:13 am

    I am not sure where the most sugar coating around housing by the government is e.g. social housing. I do know that the sugar coating has to be removed. I expect that there is little substance once the sugar coating is removed.