The Auckland property market

Written By: - Date published: 7:29 am, November 26th, 2012 - 195 comments
Categories: housing, labour, national - Tags: , ,

The Auckland property market is back through the roof again. It seemed to be the main focus of The Herald this weekend. An anonymous editorial offered an overview and advice:

Home buyers aim too high

Our addiction to real estate has not been cured by experience, as the Government hoped. House prices, as we report today, have now climbed back to their 2007 peak, banks are again offering loans of up to 95 per cent of a purchase price and investors are back in the market, raising mortgages on the house they live in to buy another. …

The predicament for first-home seekers is now worse than it was during the boom. Prices are as high as they were then but far fewer homes are available. Nearly all are being offered by auction, as happens when a market is volatile, and new investors can usually outbid a young couple looking for a home of their own at a price that will keep a mortgage within their means. …

Realistic young home-seekers should be able to find an affordable house in outer suburbs. Like previous generations, they can improve the house and land, plant trees, form residents associations to press for amenities and see that they are well maintained. Before long, they would find their home, their school and their community had become a desirable place to live. It’s the way prosperity starts.

Kirsty Wynn wrote:

Sellers score massive gains

It’s almost as good as claiming Lotto’s first-division prize – the winners in Auckland’s frantic housing market are selling their properties for hundreds of thousands of dollars above their official valuations.

Statistics show that in the past six months there have been at least nine properties that sold for $500,000 or more above their CV, and one went for a whopping $1.2 million above valuation. … The housing boom is also making it difficult for independent valuers to put an accurate price on properties.

As ever, Bernard Hickey’s piece is required reading:

Sell out country to cash in on tax perks

I sold my house in Auckland this week to take advantage of the “heat” in the market. I’m looking to pay off my mortgage and buy a house, mortgage-free, in Wellington. …

Let’s say I have $600,000 of equity. Brokers tell me that banks are keen to lend and will allow me to buy a couple of rental properties with 5 per cent deposits. I could then buy another five with 10 per cent deposits, and the rest of the money could be used as 20 per cent deposits to buy three more. That would allow me to buy 10 investment properties at $500,000 each for a total of $5 million, including borrowings of $4.4 million. That’s an average loan-to-value ratio of 88 per cent. …

Currently there seems to be just one direction for house prices in Auckland. The Real Estate Institute’s stratified measure of Auckland house prices showed they rose 14.4 per cent in the year to October. If that happened again next year I would make implied capital gains of $700,000 on my 10 properties, adding to the $84,400 of cash profits from the rentals. That implies a return of 130 per cent on the $600,000 of equity I leveraged into rental property. …

All the incentives are telling me to buy rental property in an Auckland market with a chronic shortage of houses. They say I should borrow $4.4 million from foreign-funded banks to boost the value of existing property. They say I should increase our foreign debt to enrich myself while not employing any other New Zealanders, and not paying tax on it. So what am I waiting for? I’ve almost convinced myself I should do it.

There are many issues here that need to be addressed. Some of them are about the incentives in the economy – that’s where Labour’s capital gains tax would come in. But the most important factor is, of course, the simple and practical issue of the lack of houses available to be purchased.

Labour’s solution is to build more houses.

National’s “solution” is to complain about Labour’s solution.

195 comments on “The Auckland property market ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bill 1
    26 November 2012 at 8:01 am

    Nicely themed graphics from Labour.

    Still don’t like the blind spot with regards rental property in their housing plan. That’s where the people in real need are looking.

    I’d far rather they had rolled out a policy that would have encouraged the formation and development of housing collectives/co-operatives. But hey.

    • weka 1.1
      26 November 2012 at 8:27 am

      I’d far rather they had rolled out a policy that would have encouraged the formation and development of housing collectives/co-operatives.
       

      Which is why we need the Greens and Mana with strong representation in the next govt.
       
      Plus supporting owner/builder projects. In the 1960s my parents built their own home with the help of a professional builder. There are lots of barriers to doing that now (mostly unnecessary and only there because of the leaky building ripoff merchants and over-reaction to that crisis). There are increasing numbers of people wanting to build small, affordable homes (for a lot less than $300,000).

      • Bill 1.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 8:40 am

        Yup. Innovative (and conventional) self-build opportunities, allied with an overhaul of building regs with regards permissable materials, and a breaking up of the building cartels. Oh, and the introduction of lifetime leases for rental properties.

        All of that and more could have been a part of the policy. But no. Let’s just keep on having ‘aspirational’ people chasing jobs to then struggle to buy houses back off of the banks. That should do it.

        Until however many years down the track when it’s all, once again (apologies) ‘bubble, bubble….trouble’

    • karol 1.2
      26 November 2012 at 8:47 am

      Still don’t like the blind spot with regards rental property in their housing plan. That’s where the people in real need are looking.

      Indeed, Bill. I’m living in less than adequate rental accommodation in the outer burbs of Auckland, and on the lookout for something a little better at a reasonable cost.  It’s a dispiriting endeavour.  My response to Kiwibuild is lukewarm.

      And it’s not just about building more houses/flats, it’s how they are situated in relation to the local community, facilities and transport.

      This transport blog piece on the 5 minute pint test is a very good illustration – how far do people have to travel from their home to buy a pint of milk?

  2. infused 2
    26 November 2012 at 8:10 am

    Many holes in those arguments. As David said:

    “Statistics show that in the past six months there have been at least nine properties that sold for $500,000 or more above their CV, and one went for a whopping $1.2 million above valuation. … The housing boom is also making it difficult for independent valuers to put an accurate price on properties.”

    Bullshit statistics. How much did they invest in these properties? When were the CVs updated?

  3. vto 3
    26 November 2012 at 8:22 am

    Look, end-times are always volatile. I see nothing to support this price lift and plenty of the legs underneath wobbly as all hell.

    Good luck to all investors. I think you are going to need it.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.1
      26 November 2012 at 8:35 am

      So your solution, vto, is to leave it to the market to fix?

      • vto 3.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 8:54 am

        My opinion says that this is a mulit-headed beast and each aspect needs work. No time right now to go into detail but the problem is exacerbated by our fractional reserve banking system and the financial system, cartels in the building supplies sector (e.g. cement), Council regulations, Council charges lumping all future costs onto the first time buyer, failure of other investment sectors such as the NZX, finance companies, managed funds, lack of land supply, GST, on it goes.

        A new house is made up of many components and each one needs work. It is not a single issue problem.

        Labour’s KiwiBuild is a step in the right direction. I applaud Labour for moving down this track. What is National’s track? Well, have a look at Chch and the “leave it to the market” approach – it is terrifying if forced out to the wolves down here at the moment.

        Market approaches work well for silly things like televisions, cars and biscuits. But housing is a social issue whereby we all need to ensure our neighbours are well housed .The television doesn’t matter. Get the diff?

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.1.1.1
          26 November 2012 at 8:59 am

          Yet, half an hour ago, you claimed that housing prices were going to collapse. If that’s the case, why do we need Labour’s plan?

          • vto 3.1.1.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 9:06 am

            two different issues, although often confused by people.

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.1.1.1.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 9:19 am

              When the apocalypse comes (because of the fractional reserve banking system and the financial system), will Auckland house prices be low or high?

              • vto …
                26 November 2012 at 9:36 am

                Silly.

                Not low or high. You mean lower or higher. Which bears no relationship to affordability.

                I can expand if you wish but I suspect you know that market movement in property values is an entirely different beast from affordable housing for those least able to so afford.

                Do you want to continue with this silly point of yours?

  4. Bill 4
    26 November 2012 at 8:45 am

    Question. What does the claim that 2/3rds of houses built in the 1960’s were not affordable actually mean? What would the background stats/ calculations of that claim be…Anybody?

    • r0b 4.1
      26 November 2012 at 8:49 am

      As I understand it the claim of “affordable” is based on the ratio of the house price to the average wage. No doubt Labour have done their numbers on this, but if they are publicly available I don’t know where.

      • Bill 4.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 9:36 am

        Well, I was assuming some straight forward comparison like that. But what about the different lending criteria back then as opposed to now? Or the fact that a single wage serviced a mortgage as opposed to today where it requires a household income. And so on and so on.

      • Lanthanide 4.1.2
        26 November 2012 at 9:36 am

        It’s something like 3 times or less the median wage is affordable, 3-4 has a specific term and anything over 4 is ‘unaffordable’.

      • pete 4.1.3
        26 November 2012 at 9:45 am

        Why do they always compare against one wage?

        Women work. There are often two wages per household. So houses are affordable, just not by one breadwinner.

        • felix 4.1.3.1
          26 November 2012 at 10:21 am

          Which is just another way of saying they’re a lot less affordable than they used to be.

          No surprises there though. The rewards of the massive productivity increases of the last few decades have been distributed in profits to the owners of capital while real wages have gone backwards.

          • pete 4.1.3.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 10:30 am

            Which is just another way of saying they’re a lot less affordable than they used to be.

            Society isn’t what it used to be. Both parents seldom had full-time paid employment. That variable means households have more income. People are also putting off having children until later. Supply hasn’t kept up, due to land use restriction.

            Therefore, prices must rise.

            • Bill 4.1.3.1.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 10:40 am

              Pete. Maybe households have more income. But households also have a far higher percentage of fixed expenditures. And that results in less disposable income compared to the late 60’s/ early 70’s after costs are adjusted for inflation. And then there’s the fact that the ability to earn an income is bound around by more precariousity these days.

              • pete …
                26 November 2012 at 10:56 am

                Indeed.

                I’m inclined to agree with the left on the employment front. We have kids who have done everything right – they got the grades, they finished University. Then nothing.

                I’m not sure what the answer is. How about instead of unemployment benefit, we pay companies to have apprenticeship schemes for all sorts of roles, not just trades. i.e. computer programmers, administrators, etc? Combine it with bonding.

                • McFlock …
                  26 November 2012 at 11:32 am

                  Why bother with bonding?
                     
                  It’s just another layer of expense, with a dose of “fuck you, I [the state] will take my pound of flesh”. A percentage of newly-qualified trades staff might piss off never to return, but if NZ is a relatively nice place on the planet most will stay. And of those who leave, some will return with wide experience and assets they built up overseas.
                       
                  I actually have the same issue with taxpayer-funded tertiary education: at the moment people pay more than their portion of the public:private good ratio of their qualification, and the govt will chase them to the ends of the earth to get it. $100k debt is a great incentive to fuck off to where the money is. Make it fully funded, and most people will stay, and the consumer economy will have slightly more life breathed into it as income goes on consumption not loan repayments.
                          
                  But then we still need a 100-year plan that doesn’t rely on hypothetical technology to magic our arse out of the AGW+fuel depletion fire.
                   

                • Puddleglum …
                  26 November 2012 at 11:57 am

                  Hi pete,

                  Here’s a link that I think Bill once put me on to. It’s a lecture by Elizabeth Warren – a professor of contract law at Harvard (with a special interest in individual bankruptcy) and, since the recent election, a senator for Massachusetts, I think.

                  She notes the (lack of) impact of double incomes on improving the financial situation of households in the US. NZ is a different kettle of fish, of course, but the role of housing affordability and mortgage debt is relevant.

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.3.2
          26 November 2012 at 10:25 am

          Women work. There are often two wages per household. So houses are affordable, just not by one breadwinner.

          Single people, you’re fucked, rent for the rest of your life.

          • pete 4.1.3.2.1
            26 November 2012 at 10:33 am

            We can’t wind the clock back. We must deal with the circumstances we have today. Women work.

            If you’re single, you are in competition with working couples. You either have to save longer, buy a smaller house, live in an apartment, or move towns.

            • Lanthanide 4.1.3.2.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 10:39 am

              “We can’t wind the clock back. We must deal with the circumstances we have today. Women work.”

              No one is suggesting we “wind the clock back”. What we are suggesting is that if the growth and profit in the country was more fairly distributed, rather than going to the top 5% and capital owners, then there would be less of a need for both adults in a household to work because wages on average would be higher.

            • Mike 4.1.3.2.1.2
              27 November 2012 at 6:45 am

              I agree with the second part of your comment. The sad thing about it is that the word “competition” is used in conjunction with buying a house. This is a reflection on our entire monetary and economic system, especially over the last 30 years. We have been brainwashed into believing that competition amongst ourselves is somehow a good or beneficial thing and the system we operate under forces people to compete rather than cooperate.

            • Mike 4.1.3.2.1.3
              27 November 2012 at 7:40 am

              Pretty much all of the property investor and real estate agents blogs and websites are totally against the idea. Therefore logic would dictate that on the face of it, it might just work and might just be a good thing?

          • King Kong 4.1.3.2.2
            26 November 2012 at 1:04 pm

            “Single people, you’re fucked, rent for the rest of your life.”

            Or you could try logging out of the Standard, opening up your bedroom curtains and going out and meeting some girls.

            A word of advice, don’t bring up politics. You don’t want to scare them off by showing how rediculous you are.

  5. Chalupa Batman 5
    26 November 2012 at 8:46 am

    I agree that National needs to up its game over housing (up its game or get into the game in the first place?) but I don’t think Labours plan is feasible

    Forgetting the maths thats already been done I just don’t see how its possible to build that many houses in that short a time period

    So Labour may well have good intentions but it’ll probably come back and bite them in the arse

    • r0b 5.1
      26 November 2012 at 8:51 am

      Ten years isn’t a “short” time period. Industry reckons it can be done, but if we do fall short of the 100,000 target – just keep the programme rolling…

      • Chalupa Batman 5.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 9:05 am

        They would say that to get the work (as I’m sure you know) but 10 000 houses a year is 27 houses a day (not taking into account weekends and public holidays)

        There would need to be a huge push to apprenticeships, polytechnic training and immigration to get even close

        • r0b 5.1.1.1
          26 November 2012 at 9:23 am

          There would need to be a huge push to apprenticeships, polytechnic training

          Yes. Is that a bad thing?

          and immigration to get even close

          Perhaps all we’d need to do is stop the exodus to Australia. Perhaps KiwiBuild would give folk more reasons to stay.

          Honestly – the fact that KiwiBuild is big and ambitious is not a reason not to attempt it. Have we as a country completely lost our fire?

          • Chalupa Batman 5.1.1.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 9:37 am

            Yes. Is that a bad thing?
            – No

            Perhaps all we’d need to do is stop the exodus to Australia.
            -I don’t think theres that many tradesman and builders going

            Perhaps KiwiBuild would give folk more reasons to stay.
            -Labour will need to spell out the specifics and costings to convince those to stay

            Honestly – the fact that KiwiBuild is big and ambitious is not a reason not to attempt it.
            -I agree

            Have we as a country completely lost our fire?
            -No but we are starting to want more from our politicians than grand promises

            If (and its a big if) Labour can get some where close to what they’re thinking about this without it turning into a way for people to make a quick buck subsidized by everyone else then good on them and they’ll deserve to be in power (pref with the greens in minor role and Winston out of the loop completely)

            • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 9:40 am

              “Perhaps all we’d need to do is stop the exodus to Australia.
              -I don’t think theres that many tradesman and builders going”

              Everything I’ve heard about getting labour into Christchurch over the last couple of years has said that these tradesman have been moving to Australia, partly due to the flooding up north so there was huge demand for rebuild there, whereas CHCH is still puttering along and hasn’t really started properly.

              Now there are stories about casual workers in the construction sector in Australia losing their jobs and how a lot of them are NZers with no security of employment.

              “Perhaps KiwiBuild would give folk more reasons to stay.
              -Labour will need to spell out the specifics and costings to convince those to stay”

              Note that Labour isn’t in power yet. Anyone who chooses to move over to Australia in the next year or to will be doing so because of the current situation on the ground and National’s complete inability to do anything about it.

              Should Labour win the next election, I’m sure the details on this plan will be forthcoming and people will make short-medium term decisions then about whether to leave the country.

              • vto …
                26 November 2012 at 9:47 am

                “-I don’t think theres that many tradesman and builders going”… to Australia

                Anecdote-wise stories and actions around the traps in Chch is that the rebuild is stopping very few from leaving. So far.

              • Chalupa Batman …
                26 November 2012 at 9:58 am

                Should Labour win the next election, I’m sure the details on this plan will be forthcoming and people will make short-medium term decisions then about whether to leave the country.

                – I think people are getting pissed at parties that make vague policies before an election and fail to keep them after, this could cause a backlash

                • felix …
                  26 November 2012 at 10:03 am

                  I agree. And the backlash will put Labour and the Greens in govt.

                  • Chalupa Batman …
                    26 November 2012 at 10:17 am

                    Probably will and if Labour and the greens fail to live up to theirs they’ll be out…

                    And so it goes

                    • felix …
                      26 November 2012 at 11:10 am

                      Nah, the last govt lived up to and exceeded most of their promises, vague or otherwise. They were voted out because this lot convinced the dickhead belt of two things:

                      1. You can take more pay, pay less tax AND keep all your social services

                      2. The lesbians are coming for your lightbulbs.

              • Mike …
                27 November 2012 at 6:51 am

                I think part of the problem in Christchurch is the fact that it is Christchurch. I know of at least 3 builders who decided against going to where the work is in Christchurch simply because they didn’t want to move their families to a place recently struck by a deadly earthquake.

            • r0b 5.1.1.1.1.2
              26 November 2012 at 9:44 am

              I don’t think theres that many tradesman and builders going

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10837583

              The face of the exodus to Australia is changing as skilled trade workers in their 20s replace young, well-educated Kiwis flocking to Australia.

              Ten years ago, New Zealand was hit by a brain drain; now young tradespeople are chasing jobs and larger pay packets in Australia in a migration dubbed the “trades drain”.

            • felix 5.1.1.1.1.3
              26 November 2012 at 9:59 am

              “If (and its a big if) Labour can get some where close to what they’re thinking about this without it turning into a way for people to make a quick buck subsidized by everyone else then good on them and they’ll deserve to be in power (pref with the greens in minor role and Winston out of the loop completely)”

              Actually, my anti-democratic chum, they’ll “deserve to be in power” with the Greens if enough people vote it so.

              • Chalupa Batman …
                26 November 2012 at 10:20 am

                Semantics…

                • felix …
                  26 November 2012 at 10:39 am

                  Democracy.

                  ps “semantics” is the field of study of meaning, in this case the meaning of words. If it’s your intention to write comments on this blog without consideration for what the words mean, then please say so now so I can make a mental note to disregard them.

                  • Chalupa Batman …
                    26 November 2012 at 11:02 am

                    Semantics:

                    The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form:

                    As an example I said “they’ll deserve to be in power” you replied with “if enough people vote it so.”

                    So we’re basically agreed they’ll deserve to be in power so lets not quibble over…semantics

                    • felix …
                      26 November 2012 at 11:15 am

                      No, you said they’d deserve to be in power “if and only if” they blah blah blah.

                      In fact they don’t have to meet any of your arbitrary conditions in order to deserve to govern.

        • Lanthanide 5.1.1.2
          26 November 2012 at 9:37 am

          You know that 27 houses a day doesn’t mean they build the entire house in a single day, right?

          • Rob 5.1.1.2.1
            26 November 2012 at 9:48 am

            What it does mean is that you need to have built a repeating supply chain that will be handling over 2,000 build projects at any particular time (based on an 8 week build cycle which is very ambitious). Even in boom times for residential building (2007, when there were annualised consents for just over 30,000 homes) the largest home builders (ie Fletchers -Akl based, GJ Gardener – national, Jennian – national etc) were topping out at 600 odd homes per year.

            So any infrastructure capable of finishing and delivering 27 fvit for purpose dwellings per day is a very big co-ordinated engine in anyones terms and frankly beyond the skill and wit of this labour representation.

            • r0b 5.1.1.2.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 10:18 am

              based on an 8 week build cycle which is very ambitious

              A lot of these houses are going to be built to a standard design. Economies of scale (mass produced pre-fab kits) should see a quicker build than that.

              • Chalupa Batman …
                26 November 2012 at 10:24 am

                I hope they don’t do apartment blocks like the housing estates in England…

                • mike e …
                  26 November 2012 at 12:53 pm

                  lupi batshit check out Melbourne inner city redevelopment.
                  Cynicism is not policy or a solution doing nothing ,but that is nationals policy!

              • Rob …
                26 November 2012 at 11:01 am

                You know , the biggest hold up in building is not due to unstandardised design. It is due to the logistics and supply infrastructure supplying these projects. Specific designed Pre frame goes up in 2 days once it is delivered, which is a lot quicker than bespoke framing on site. But to build in busy communities where large trucks have to negotiate mid day traffic (espcially in Auckland where a lot of this plan is going to happen) to deliver specific material loads creates the largest aspect of the waste and down time.

                The overall point being is that there is a lot of opportunity for off site manufacturing of modular components and it does make things more acurate and reduces the site influence for mistakes, however the wasted time element is created in the delivery and off load at site. This then prompts actions like delivery outside of peak traffic times , requiring people on site outside of normal working hours etc.

                • felix …
                  26 November 2012 at 11:19 am

                  “This then prompts actions like delivery outside of peak traffic times , requiring people on site outside of normal working hours etc.”

                  Jeez, I’m glad you got there in the end. Keep thinking mate, you’re on the right track.

                  • Rob …
                    26 November 2012 at 12:14 pm

                    Really, well that will require a very flexible labour crew and a very understanding neighbourhood. Both of which have been read as major issues on this site.

                    • felix …
                      26 November 2012 at 1:52 pm

                      Yes Rob, it will.

                      It will require a huge works program, on a scale which can only be achieved by utilising the power and resources of the state.

                      Keep going mate…

      • Fortran 5.1.2
        26 November 2012 at 1:38 pm

        r0b

        That’s 196 houses completed a week.

  6. Pete 6
    26 November 2012 at 8:52 am

    There’s also the virtual monopoly Fletchers has on building materials in NZ. It costs around $1800 per square metre to build a house in NZ, while it costs AUD$1060 per square metre to build in Australia.

    • vto 6.1
      26 November 2012 at 8:58 am

      ^^ this

      this is the elephant in the room.

      the forests, the mills, the outlets, the builders, the lot all the way through from pine seedling to finished product – all dominated by fletchers.

      who has the balls to stand up to it? Key? ha ha ha ha ha – the man is a wuss, not to mention being in the back pocket of biz

  7. Barnsley Bill 7
    26 November 2012 at 9:04 am

    “Let’s say I have $600,000 of equity. Brokers tell me that banks are keen to lend and will allow me to buy a couple of rental properties with 5 per cent deposits. I could then buy another five with 10 per cent deposits, and the rest of the money could be used as 20 per cent deposits to buy three more. That would allow me to buy 10 investment properties at $500,000 each for a total of $5 million, including borrowings of $4.4 million. That’s an average loan-to-value ratio of 88 per cent. …”

    I am sick to death of Hickey. The guy is a flake.
    No Bank will allow an LvR of 88% on rental properties.
    Good luck buying a couple with 5% deposits as well.
    Despite him making those numbers up. If by some impossible confluence of circumstances he actually found a bank that would operate outside its mandated lending policies he would go broke in weeks because the rental yield on those properties would be massively in the negative half of the spreadsheet.
    The simple fact is that buying a house in Auckland today at the prices being achieved is a very bad prospect for anybody wanting to become a landlord. Houses are too expensive currently and the ,market will not sustain an increase in rent returns that would make them an affordable and beneficial investment for rental returns.
    If rents cannot increase then sale prices must come down. Once the Chinese investors realise this or find somewhere less flaky to put their cash this is exactly what will happen.

    • Lanthanide 7.1
      26 November 2012 at 9:42 am

      So who should we trust, a person who runs a widely-regarded website on NZ economics and the banking sector, or you, someone with no reputation on a blog, who says that he is wrong?

      • Barnsley Bill 7.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 9:54 am

        Mathematics is saying he is wrong.
        And I know a damn site more about the internal rules and processes that a bank manager must follow than Bernard Hickey.
        No bank is going to let you buy rentals with a 5% deposit in the current Auckland property market.
        The rental returns are yielding too low for current prices to be sustainable.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1
          26 November 2012 at 10:30 am

          The rental returns are yielding too low for current prices to be sustainable.

          Uh, Auckland house pricing is not based on rental returns. Its based on a debt fueled speculative bubble.

          And I know a damn site more about the internal rules and processes that a bank manager must follow than Bernard Hickey.

          If you read the quote carefully, Hickey mentions that the information has been given to him by mortgage brokers.

          • pete 7.1.1.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 10:36 am

            Uh, Auckland house pricing is not based on rental returns. Its based on a debt fueled speculative bubble.

            Bank loans are if you’re leveraging to the hilt as a landlord. Banks aren’t stupid.

            Rather than shoot from the hip, how about considering that some people have been there, done that, and therefore may know more about it than you do.

            Have you even owned a house? Applied for a mortgage?

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 10:39 am

              What do you have to sell me? I’m always interested in properties at least 5% under GV.

            • Barnsley Bill 7.1.1.1.1.2
              26 November 2012 at 10:47 am

              Typical, rather than go straight to the insult playbook just visit any bank website and have a look at the LvR they will allow on rental properties.
              Yes I (have and) do own houses. I have for many years worked hard to ensure I will not have to eat cat food in my old age.
              The message I am trying to get across is that the Auckland market is dangerously over cooked.
              If you look back to when GFC began;
              The banks stopped lending.
              This caused a bulge in the snake where first time buyers were locked out of the market for almost two years. This put pressure on the rental market which saw rents go through the roof in Auckland as new renters came in but not many moved out by buying their first home. The banks have started lending again which has seen a surge of people trying to get on the ladder and the recent price rises have gone too far. The market does not behave with precision. There is always an over reaction (or under reaction).

              • Colonial Viper …
                26 November 2012 at 10:50 am

                The message I am trying to get across is that the Auckland market is dangerously over cooked.

                Indeed. As mentioned on earlier threads, good luck to NZ if it continues concentrating 30% of its population in only 0.3% of the space.

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  26 November 2012 at 10:57 am

                  Let’s round them up and send them to the countryside for re-education. Year zero, we’ll call it.

          • pete 7.1.1.1.2
            26 November 2012 at 10:41 am

            If you read the quote carefully, Hickey mentions that the information has been given to him by mortgage brokers.

            It depends on your circumstances. You’d need all your ducks lined up to get that kind of leverage against rentals. You’d also need perfect headwinds i.e. no rental gaps, good tenants, and a surging market.

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.2.1
              26 November 2012 at 10:48 am

              The market is surging.

              • pete …
                26 November 2012 at 11:18 am

                Today, it is.

                Hence the risk when it comes to investing. You don’t know quite what it will do tomorrow, as many investors found out in 2007.

            • Lanthanide 7.1.1.1.2.2
              26 November 2012 at 11:28 am

              Ok, so Hickey is painting an extreme picture.

              Let’s halve what he’s saying. So now he buys 5 houses with $600k instead of 10.

              Now, is that problematic? IMO yes.

              Quibbling about the extent of his illustration rather misses the forest for the trees.

      • pete 7.1.2
        26 November 2012 at 10:23 am

        I think Hickey is being misleading by not stating the risks.

        That kind of leverage is a) hard to get loans for and b) carries considerable downside risk.

        When the market comes off a few points, the bank will want to refinance, and if you can’t meet it, they’ll sell you out. It *could* come off, but like any investing, it’s easiest done in the rear-view mirror.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1
          26 November 2012 at 10:38 am

          Highly leveraged positions do have massive downside risks. They also have massive upside risks.

          So the only question which is important – Does greed for gains or fear of collapse rule the Auckland housing investment market at the moment?

          • pete 7.1.2.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 10:44 am

            The property market is complex. We can’t put those prices down to leveraged speculators. There are a number of inputs and conditions that affect house prices.

            You may notice that Wellington house prices are fairly static. Same goes for the rest of the country outside Auckland/Christchurch. Do leveraged speculators only exist in Auckland? Or perhaps some other conditions influence price?

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 10:46 am

              Dunno.

              • pete …
                26 November 2012 at 12:34 pm

                Fundamentals.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  26 November 2012 at 12:47 pm

                  Political economic fundamentals, not market fundamentals.

                • McFlock …
                  26 November 2012 at 12:51 pm

                  “fundamentals” is a non-answer unless you can clearly demonstrate what exactly you mean and demonstrate that they are the likely cause of such significant market differences – you might as well say “prayer” or “widgets”.
                       
                  Given that population, land availability and so on are either static or relatively slow changers (barring calamity), few “fundamentals” remain to explain significant market fluctuations.

                  • pete …
                    26 November 2012 at 1:16 pm

                    Fundamentals such as (in Wellington) lower levels of immigration, flat public service numbers, meaning less demand. Existing supply meets demand. Therefore, prices are reasonably static.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      26 November 2012 at 2:23 pm

                      Leaving housing to the market = dumb unworkable idea

                      Firing public servants and high unemployment = cheaper housing?

                      Good National free market Plan.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2012 at 3:30 pm

                      Sources are wonderful things.
                         
                      StatsNZ infoshare HLFS  by regional council shows Auckland has a higher unemployment rate than Wellington Dec 2011, even though Auckland projected population is growing faster (although given that the census is well out of date, take that with a grain of salt).
                                
                      Basically, though, the fact that you can point to some “fundamentals” that might lean in a direction that might drive an increase demand for housing alongside the speculation that we know exists (it’s the basic mechanism of capitalism) doesn’t mean squat. Populations, and therefore demand, do not change as quickly as house prices fluctuate.  Interest rates and bank competition to lend as much as possible to as many people as possible do tend to bounce around a bit, though.

                    • pete …
                      26 November 2012 at 7:08 pm

                      So…you’re saying speculators simply ignore Wellington – and the rest of NZ – bar Auckland – because……speculators like nice weather?

                      Or do you think the demand/supply situation in Auckland is out of whack?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 November 2012 at 10:02 pm

                      I think the perception is that the Auckland supply/demand situation is out of whack.
                             
                      I’m not sure that the actual population:dwellings:medianIncome ratio has changed all that much. I’m not overly familiar with the nuances of the Auckland market, so am merely going on the available macro data. If you have better data, feel free to share.

      • felix 7.1.3
        26 November 2012 at 10:32 am

        Oh come now Lanth, I hardly think it’s fair to say Barnsley Bill has no reputation…

    • seeker 7.2
      26 November 2012 at 2:19 pm

      @BarnsleyB 9.04am

      What about the shoeboxes that pass for apartments in Auckland? Those tiny shoeboxes where one can stack students? Houses may be too expensive but shoeboxes don’t seem to be for investors, and the rent people ( because students are people too) are expected to pay for them is extortionate.

    • xtasy 7.3
      26 November 2012 at 8:01 pm

      “Barnsley Bill”:
      If you are sick of Hickey, then organise the long overdue “Kiwi revolt” against this government, allowing massive property speculation, the sale of sections on average about 300 k in Auckland now, and of course housing en masse to overseas buyer, who in auction rooms represent about 80 per cent of bidders.

      Hickey is just telling us how it is under present conditions! Stick your head in the sand, like an ostrich, it is the most popular past time in NZ anyway, if it has not caught on with you yet.

      The problem with this country is, it is all too many self serving “bullshit” people running and controlling it, and damned too many idiots falling for what they get served up in shit media every day.

      Shearer and Labour have today surely made themselves the “idiot on the block”, where their MPs did visit homes in South Auckland, talking to home owners, and not knowing that sections go for around 300 k to build on.

      As I suspected, after the initial nice looking figures, and a hard trying speech by Shearer, it all has looked to nice to be realistic.

      You are all being “had” for a laugh here!

      They have not done the figures, as the property market, like almost anything re investing and economic in NZ is totally OUT OF CONTROL!

      Soon 2 thirds of average Kiwis will have NO chance to ever own their own home, unless it is a shoe-box size little unit or apartment in a block. And that seems to be what Shearer and his ignorant, incompetent lot have on mind for people to “invest” in, while they offer NADA for state housing construction projects, that would really make a difference.

      To make it all work, cheap land is needed for a start, or the land must be used intensely, to build up, not on quarter acre style lots in greenlands. Or do the daring task, and “nationalise” certain tracts of land, companies and so forth, at the same time stopping overseas buying!

  9. Psycho Milt 9
    26 November 2012 at 9:54 am

    National’s “solution” is to complain about Labour’s solution.

    With his masterful understanding of NZ history, naturally Mr Key is well aware that it’s just impossible for the state to engage in a large-scale house construction programme…

    • Ed 9.1
      26 November 2012 at 11:36 am

      Didn’t Key live in a State housing area when he was a child?

      http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/we-call-it-home/the-state-steps-in-and-out

      Auckland is now at the stage where existing houses are being replaced by new developments, and to maximise profits these are generally expensive new homes. To repeat the state housing suburbs of years ago would just extend the sprawl; it may be necessary for the NZ government to either build itself higher density housing – or fund local government to do that.

      From history we learn that the National Party will not move in that direction while they remain in government, but it is certainly possible for the state to engage in a large-scale house construction programme . . .

      • xtasy 9.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 9:26 pm

        Ed: “it may be necessary for the NZ government to either build itself higher density housing – or fund local government to do that. From history we learn that the National Party will not move in that direction while they remain in government”

        That is exactly what they are planning to do with Housing NZ project and also outsourced “social housing” that will be operated by NGOs and the likes (Sallies or whomsoever).

        There are projects under way, where Housing NZ is selling lots of existing, old stocks in Auckland (e.g. Three Kings, Sandringham, etc.), where some goes to investors, and where some will be rebuilt, in the form of 3-level blocks. Those blocks will replace the old style spread out housing that Housing NZ used to rely on.

        The poor will be stacked on top in little boxes, it is happening, and the rest of the market will be left for the private investors, whether from overseas, from NZ, whether desperate 1st home buyers or else. Sprawl will be the result for them, if Nats are allowed to continue, expanding Auckland to Wellsford, Warkworth, Drury, Waiuku and so on.

  10. Matthew 10
    26 November 2012 at 10:09 am

    I was disturbed this morning on Breakfast when Peter Williams was putting Labour’s scheme down as unworkable as it meant they had to build ‘a house an hour for ten years which is obviously not possible’. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to watch Shearer’s interview about just that issue later in the show but i hope he rammed it right up that smug gits ass.

  11. AAMC 11
    26 November 2012 at 10:17 am

    Why are house prices so high..

    “An average three-bed house cost £2,000 in 1952. In 2012 it costs £162,000. That’s an inflation of 8,000%….
    the average cost of a loaf of bread in 1952 was 6p. In 2012 it is £1.25. That’s an inflation of 1,983%. Likewise an average pint of milk was 4p in 1952 and is now 49p. That’s an inflation of 1,125%…. This increased money supply in the housing market creates an increase in demand for houses. The supply of houses, as we already know, can’t match this rising demand so prices are pushed up…. Between 1995 and 2007 the UK population increased by 5%, the housing stock increased by 10% and house prices increased by 350%, meanwhile mortgage lending by banks increased by 630%.”

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/28/why-exactly-are-homes-so-expensive/

    Although I support the sentiment of the housing policy and appreciate it will give an opportunity to 100,00 middle class workers, will put builders to work, creating some extra demand in the economy, it fails to tackle the real issue behind our house prices.

    What worries me is that this policy frames the public’s understanding of affordability. The framing is around supply, which is not the only game in town. By framing it this way and continuing to allow the public to be ill informed and misunderstand why assets continue to become more expensive; other than these 100k new houses – which will quickly inflate to meet the market – we never create a platform that actually allows us to address the real issues behind affordability.

    When / if this increase in supply comes onto the market, these houses inflate to meet the market and we see no real change in affordability, where is Labour left in terms of it’s moral high ground around addressing housing affordability?

    I appreciate Labour is also doing work on CGT (no talk of LVR’s or LVT unfortunately) and on the RBNZ intervening to cool the foreign safe haven capital which is seeking yields from our interest rates and safety in our sovereign currency. Why not include this in the housing debate to bulid a mandate to better reign in the banks?

    As long as Europe, USA, UK, BRICS, Japan, China are slowing – potentially forever if you listen to Jeremy Grantham’s ‘On The Road To Zero Growth’ ( http://www.gurufocus.com/news/198413/gmos-jeremy-grantham-third-quarter-letter–on-the-road-to-zero-growth ) our banks are going to be flooded with both Fed, ECB, BoE, BoJ quantitative easing and with money looking for a safe place. And as long as our banks are full of this cash, they’re going to want to lend it out and profit from it… 5% deposit, want a free iPad with that?!?!

    This policy doesn’t address any of this, but it does continue to nourish the misunderstanding, maintaining the economic orthodoxy which got us here. We should be trying to build a platform for change which positively effects all 4.something million of us.

  12. BM 12
    26 November 2012 at 10:28 am

    Personally I think building houses for people to buy is a crap idea.

    I would prefer more state houses being built, use these houses to train up apprentice builders, plumbers sparkies etc..
    Training young people in apprenticeships is crap these days this is one area that I do think the government need to step in and get sorted and quickly as were about too lose a vast amount of trade qualified people over the next 10 years.

    Building pissy little prefabs will not produce qualified builders, you need to be building a variety of different houses, one story two story etc.
    That’s achievable with a state house building strategy not with a buy to own strategy.

    Also on another note flooding the employment market with construction workers would drive down wages significantly.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      26 November 2012 at 10:43 am

      Also on another note flooding the employment market with construction workers would drive down wages significantly.

      There’s no excess of construction workers in the market place, but a lot of demand. So wages will rise.

  13. fisiani 13
    26 November 2012 at 10:41 am

    Promising an extra 100,000 homes over 10 years means building a home every 13 minutes. No amount of fancy graphics get around the impossibility of such a preposterous claim. It is not a promise it is a fraud.Oh and since the majority will be in Auckland is there the readily available land for more than 60,000 sections.

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      26 November 2012 at 10:45 am

      30,000 building consents issued during 2003 alone.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=3546571

      • Te Reo Putake 13.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 11:04 am

        C’mon, CV, play fair. Don’t confuse Fisi with facts, you know he only operates on gut instinct and random electrical impulses to his shattered nerve endings generated by mouthing aloud the words in Cameron Slater’s spittle flecked ramblings.

      • indiana 13.1.2
        26 November 2012 at 12:52 pm

        Did those 30,000 building consents turn into actual homes? Do you need a building consent to build a car port, a balcony, a deck or make a permanent alteration to an existing house?

        Yes, new dwellings were reported in that article, but how many exactly? Certainly not the figure that is hoped to be built per year I am sure.

        • Colonial Viper 13.1.2.1
          26 November 2012 at 1:01 pm

          Correct, 30,000 dwelling consents issued during 2003 alone, according to that article.

          • xtasy 13.1.2.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 9:34 pm

            Take out the apartment dwellings for clearer figures, as that was in the midst of the apartment boom, where thousands were built, all mostly large to medium size blocks, each containing untold “dwellings”!

    • mike e 13.2
      26 November 2012 at 12:59 pm

      Blind Monetarist we built 5,000 houses a year when the population was only 1 million and met those targets considering house builds take a third of the time to do now its very doable as well as the option of kitsets and prefabing your are blindly following and wallowing in your leader poncekeys cynicism!

  14. fisiani 14
    26 November 2012 at 11:05 am

    One house every 13 minutes. Do the maths – and remember that a working week is only 40 hours and not the 168 hours. Totally utterly impossible.

    • Matthew 14.1
      26 November 2012 at 11:21 am

      Well it is if only one team is doing it…. but if you had 2-3000 tradies doing it, using prefabbed sections built off site, using maybe another 1000 workers, trucked in & Assembled like Mechano…. thats 600-700 houses on the go at any one time JUST in Kiwibuild…. tell me again how 40 of those wont be completed every week?

      • felix 14.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 11:27 am

        I think fisi wants you to prove you can do it without employing anyone or investing any money.

      • BM 14.1.2
        26 November 2012 at 11:38 am

        Why would you want to do this?
        This is factory work, not trade qualified work.

        The only up side to the government building houses is the training which you’re not going to get with cheap tiny prefabs.

      • fisiani 14.1.3
        26 November 2012 at 11:41 am

        Duh Lets use your maths then
        40 houses per week and there are 48 effective working weeks after holidays, sick leave and public holidays equates to 1,920 a year NOT the mythical 10,000 a year every year.
        Still out by a factor of 5.

        • Lanthanide 14.1.3.1
          26 November 2012 at 12:57 pm

          Hey Fisi, did you know that not everyone goes on holiday or has sick leave at the same time?

          It’s bizarre that you try and construct a 48-week year out of what is a 52-week year.

          • insider 14.1.3.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 2:01 pm

            Ususally two weeks minimum lost at Xmas – more like 3 (most don’t go back 3 Jan) plus an additional 7 days annually through public holidays which is another week and a half working days. These generally affect all employees. So not hard to get to 48 weeks only available for work.

        • mike e 14.1.3.2
          26 November 2012 at 1:03 pm

          fishy anal we were building nearly 30’000 a year before the GFC now we are down to 10’000 a year .
          So tell me how those other 20,000 houses a year got built! thats 54 a week!

          Your full of it!

    • r0b 14.2
      26 November 2012 at 11:27 am

      Christian charity “habitat for humanity” builds at least one house every few minutes (estimates from every 23 minutes to every 10 minutes) world wide.

      I don’t see any reason why the Government of NZ shouldn’t be able to match the performance of a single charitable organisation.

      Update: Oh look – a single construction company in Canada builds a house every 41 minutes.

    • Daveosaurus 14.3
      26 November 2012 at 5:43 pm

      Because on Planet Fizzy, there is only one builder in the whole of New Zealand. Meanwhile, back in the real world…

  15. Ennui in Requiem 15
    26 November 2012 at 11:35 am

    Here in Purgatory we while away eternity playing a game of camel inflation, several deceased banker devils act as bookies and promise “salvation” so long as you commit your soul to ever increasing hours of being boiled in oil. We are all betting about how high the camel can go. For each hour we spend being boiled Satan inflates the camel with further and further blasts of helium…it is now floating near the ceiling. Lucifer is a pyromaniacal devil who keeps lighting straws and tosses them into the air…..on the downside if the camel explodes and breaks its back crash landing we will be left to boil in oil for eternity. Some of us think it is just a matter of time (of which we have plenty), others say the ceiling will rise and rise…….

  16. prism 16
    26 November 2012 at 11:52 am

    If Labour wants to solve today’s and tomorrow’s needs for affordable housing, the problem of price needs to be contained and controlled to prevent future repetition. If most of those houses had the government helping people who could save a small deposit over say two years, showing willing to control their finances so as to get to a better place in the living standard and stay there that would be a good first step.

    Second step is to develop a Housing Trust, outside NZ Housing and without their increasingly authoritarian and charity-riiden attitude,. This Trust would give customers of new houses who would be from the low income group, choices in their floor plan etc. and they would have an ordinary mortgage, but there would be short mortgage holidays allowed but also with a budget advisory meeting.

    When people wanted to move, there would be a lien or such to the the Housing Trust which would buy back their houses at an agreed valuation of say term deposit interest per year cumulatively for a house in good average condition. This would keep houses out of the hands of the raw free market and ensure that prices remained at a level that was affordable to low income, new housing group.

    My comment is awaiting moderation! IAU!

  17. starlight 17
    26 November 2012 at 12:05 pm

    You can’t beat the family benefit capitalization from years ago, if only kiwisaver could
    become a genuine vehicle for home ownership for all, instead of it being income tested
    for bank loans, this is where the govt could come in and supply cheap loans to those wanting
    to buy exsisting homes and for those who want to build homes,building homes will be
    out of the reach for many.
    Phil Goff introduced the family benefit scheme years ago,he would be the one to have a
    look into how it could be intergrated into the kiwisaver funds etc.
    Phil should be spearheading this one as well.

  18. Populuxe1 18
    26 November 2012 at 12:19 pm

    The problem isn’t so much lack of housing as too many people wanting to live in Auckland. Encourage redistribution of population to smaller centres.
    Kiwibuild may very likely lead to a Clinton-esque property bubble.

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      26 November 2012 at 1:05 pm

      Encourage redistribution of population to smaller centres.

      Exactly.

      • indiana 18.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 1:11 pm

        We could start by legislating that NZ Post move their headquarters to Ekatahuna, Kiwi Rail to Mosgeil and Kiwi Bank to Gisborne.

        • Populuxe1 18.1.1.1
          26 November 2012 at 1:31 pm

          In the days of decentralisation when Internal Affairs was in Timaru, TVNZ was in Christchurch, and Radio NZ was in Dunedin, it all worked just fine.

          • indiana 18.1.1.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 1:40 pm

            Were those the same days when you could argue that the cost of living in Timaru was cheaper than Auckland, hence you didn’t need to pay the same wages as a person doing the same job in another office?

            • felix 18.1.1.1.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 2:23 pm

              You talk about that as if it doesn’t happen today. Guess you don’t get around much.

      • AAMC 18.1.2
        26 November 2012 at 2:33 pm

        I wonder, as the rest of the world slows, will we see a return of those who moved to Melbourne, London, Berlin etc, and to ‘the mines’. And will we see them settle out of the centers in search of more affordable living.

        Had a very interesting conversation with a young person looking for accomodation in Auckland the other day, she was tossing up whether to move to Melbourne or Whanganui.- suburban Auckland really isn’t that desireable for many – and was proposing this as a discussion many in her pear group were having.

  19. BM 19
    26 November 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Did Labour actually talk to any one within the Construction industry while coming up with Kiwi Build?
    Or is it all in house theory?

      • BM 19.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 1:58 pm

        Who are they, I couldn’t see any names in the article you linked to?

        • Te Reo Putake 19.1.1.1
          26 November 2012 at 2:18 pm

          Yeah, good point, BM. Your wilful ingnorance is much more credible than Brian Rudman’s well researched opinions.

          How about you find some industry organisations who are opposed to this scheme? Hint: It’s going to be difficult for you, because the industry are quite keen on the idea of government guaranteed work for ten years on top of all that lucrative government guaranteed work in Chch. It’s a win/win/win, BM. Good for industry, good for workers, good for families.

          • BM 19.1.1.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 2:31 pm

            So is Kiwi build just going to be just a group of office workers some where in Wellington dishing out tax payer coin to a few lucky building companies
            or
            Is Kiwi build going to be setting up offices up and down the country employing it’s own builders, painters, plasterers, sparkies etc.

          • xtasy 19.1.1.1.2
            26 November 2012 at 9:45 pm

            Sorry Te Reo Putake: Rudman states nothing specific, only that it is not decided yet, “where” these houses, or rather “homes”, will go. He refers to Hobsonville, which is far out from Central Auckland, and mentions Annette King saying something about Housing NZ land to be partly considered.

            So is this program going to mean: Take it from the very poor, unable to even get a deposit for a home (HNZ tenants) and then give it to prospective middle-class first home buyers, so they can cast their grateful vote for Labour next time?

            It does not make any sense, and there is NOTHING specific. 66,000 new homes in Auckland require a fair bit of land, and that won’t come cheap!

            • Te Reo Putake 19.1.1.1.2.1
              26 November 2012 at 10:05 pm

              Sorry, xtasy, but you’re vearing into strawman territory. There are plenty of options for land, including partnerships with councils and iwi. Apartments are also part of the package, so not every one will have an individual footprint. And I’m not sure why you think the plan requires 66,000 homes in Ak.
               
              I would have thought high growth areas will be targeted. Albany and the peninsular, Hamilton and Tauranga, Chch. Not Ak central or any suburb within a bike ride of K Rd. If you want to know how it might work in Ak, have a look at Melbourne; that’s the model, as I understand it. Suburbs built around efficient rail and roading corridors, not overpopulating the inner city.
               
              Edit: originally posted in the wrong place, got it right now.

              • xtasy …
                26 November 2012 at 11:56 pm

                TRP: As stated in other posts, there will need to be some controls placed on property and land value speculation, which will not just be done with a CGT. So what needs to happen is to dis-incentivise those land plot owners sitting on their plots for years, not willing to sell, as they want to wait for a high bidder offering them the best offer and highest profit.

                Maybe bring in a capital or land tax in some form after a tax exemption period, which should not be for too long. I know sections in Auckland that have been unused for years, and this is not just due to ongoing RMA issues or whatever.

                Also did I raise the option of nationalising certain lands, which could be considered of “strategic” importance with also social value, and thus be “bought” at affordable, low enough rateable value, not the speculative market values.

                Of course there are options, and I am also all for denser unit blocks, not too large apartment blocks and two level town- or terraced houses in certain spots along rail tracks, expanding existing settlements in suburbs and on the fringes. I oppose the endless sprawl though, as it will not turn out to be cheap and efficient at all in the end.

                Also the plan was to have 2 thirds of the homes built in Auckland, that makes roughly 66,666 to me. I agree, it may also be smart to give incentives to new migrants to move to other centres, rather than have so many settle in Auckland.

                But you would expected Labour to work out all this a bit more than they have done before making such big, daring announcements. That is “poor” and hopeless in my view.

      • Herodotus 19.1.2
        26 November 2012 at 5:37 pm

        From the comments and press releases I have read I doubt very much of anyone associated with the development of land has been questioned from the lack if any knowledge on how things work , the time it takes the issues with small sections and council and planning requirements and as mentioned before site coverage impervious ground retro fitting existing infrastructure eg power, fibre, mains water pressure etc

  20. vto 20
    26 November 2012 at 1:56 pm

    somebody said it above.

    John Key was raised in a house built by the New Zealand government and he says that he was very happy and thankful for that given his family’s financial circumstances. John Key takes political advantage of this.

    So why is he so against it now?

    He must answer this question given his politicising of this upbringing.

    • xtasy 20.1
      26 November 2012 at 9:47 pm

      John Key was very happy and thankful, I presume, as he feels to be a “chosen and special human being”. He obviously does NOT see it as that others “deserve” to be “happy” as well, given his and his government’s policies!

  21. fisiani 21
    26 November 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Mea culpa my maths was wrong when I said it would take 13 minutes to build a house to meet the outlandish claims by Labour
    Due to labour shortages caused by holidays, sick leave and statutory public holidays that only leaves 48 weeks
    48 x 40 x 60 = 115,200 minutes available
    Divide by the mythical 10,000 that is claimed and the Oompa Loompas have to complete every house in just 11.52 minutes without any consideration for breaks for tea, toilet or smoko or God forbid a roof shout. The Oompa Loompa union would have them out on strike for unfair working practices in the first week.

    • One Tāne Huna 21.1
      26 November 2012 at 2:22 pm

      As CV says above, that must account for 30,000 dwelling consents issued during 2003 alone.

      The reality check exposes you every time, wingnut.

      • fisiani 21.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 3:08 pm

        Repeat after me.
        A consent is not a contruction.
        Read it again and again till it gets through.
        Not even Willy Wonka would overwork the Oompa-Loompas as hard as that
        Lets have some fun with pointing out the “reality” of building a house in 11.52 minutes.

        http://www.b4ubuild.com/resources/schedule/6kproj.shtml

        1 1 Contracts 0.00d . Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        2 1.1 – Supply Lot Sale Agreement 0.00d . Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        3 1.2 – Supply Construction Agreement 0.00d . Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        4 1.3 – Supply Contract Plans 0.00d 3 Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        5 1.4 – Supply Contract Specifications 0.00d 3 Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        6 1.5 – Supply Contract Site Plan 0.00d 3 Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        7 1.6 – Secure Financing 0.00d . Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        8 1.7 – Construction Loan Settlement 0.00d . Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        9 2 Document Review & Revision 25.00d . Thu 6/5/12 Wed 7/9/12
        10 2.1 – Review & Finalize Plans 15.00d 4 Thu 6/5/12 Wed 6/25/12
        11 2.2 – Review & Finalize Specifications 20.00d 5 Thu 6/5/12 Wed 7/2/12
        12 2.3 – Review & Finalize Site Plan 1.00d 6,10 Thu 6/26/12 Thu 6/26/12
        13 2.4 – Print Construction Drawings 5.00d 10,11,12 Thu 7/3/12 Wed 7/9/12
        14 2.5 – Approve Revised Plans 0.00d 13 Wed 7/9/12 Wed 7/9/12
        15 2.6 – Approve Revised Specifications 0.00d 13 Wed 7/9/12 Wed 7/9/12
        16 2.7 – Approve Revised Site Plan 0.00d 13 Wed 7/9/12 Wed 7/9/12
        17 3 Bids & Contracts 24.00d . Thu 7/10/12 Tue 8/12/12
        18 3.1 – Make Copies of Plans 3.00d 14 Thu 7/10/12 Mon 7/14/12
        19 3.2 – Make Copies of Specifications 2.00d 15 Thu 7/10/12 Fri 7/11/12
        20 3.3 – Distribute Plans & Specifications 1.00d 18,19 Tue 7/15/12 Tue 7/15/12
        21 3.4 – Receive Bids 10.00d 20 Wed 7/16/12 Tue 7/29/12
        22 3.5 Review Bids 5.00d . Wed 7/30/12 Tue 8/5/12
        25 3.6 – Execute Subcontractor Agreements 5.00d 23 Wed 8/6/12 Tue 8/12/12
        26 4 Grading & Building Permits 17.00d . Thu 7/10/12 Fri 8/1/12
        27 4.1 – Schedule lot stake-out 1.00d 13 Thu 7/10/12 Thu 7/10/12
        28 4.2 – Stake lot 1.00d 27FS+3d Wed 7/16/12 Wed 7/16/12
        29 4.3 – File Grading Permit Application 1.00d 16 Thu 7/10/12 Thu 7/10/12
        30 4.4 – File Building Permit Application 3.00d 14,15,16 Thu 7/10/12 Mon 7/14/12
        31 4.5 – Post Lot Identification 1.00d 28,29,30 Thu 7/17/12 Thu 7/17/12
        32 4.6 – Meet Sed. Control Insp. 1.00d 29FS+2d,28,31 Fri 7/18/12 Fri 7/18/12
        33 4.7 – Walk Lot w/ Owner 1.00d 32 Mon 7/21/12 Mon 7/21/12
        34 4.8 – Install Construction Entrance 1.00d 32,33 Tue 7/22/12 Tue 7/22/12
        35 4.9 – Install Sediment Controls 2.00d 32,33 Tue 7/22/12 Wed 7/23/12
        36 4.10 – Sediment Control Insp. 1.00d 34,35 Thu 7/24/12 Thu 7/24/12
        37 4.11 – Grading Permit Issued 1.00d 36 Fri 7/25/12 Fri 7/25/12
        38 4.12 – County Permit Process 10.00d 30 Tue 7/15/12 Mon 7/28/12
        39 4.13 – Building Permit Approved 1.00d 38,37 Tue 7/29/12 Tue 7/29/12
        40 4.14 – Pay Permit Fees and Excise Taxes 1.00d 39FS+2d Fri 8/1/12 Fri 8/1/12
        41 4.15 – Building Permit Issued 0.00d 40 Fri 8/1/12 Fri 8/1/12
        42 5 Site Work 7.00d . Mon 7/28/12 Tue 8/5/12
        43 5.1 – Clear Lot 3.00d 37 Mon 7/28/12 Wed 7/30/12
        44 5.2 – Strip Topsoil & Stockpile 1.00d 43 Thu 7/31/12 Thu 7/31/12
        45 5.3 – Stake Lot for Excavation 1.00d 43 Thu 7/31/12 Thu 7/31/12
        46 5.4 – Rough grade lot 1.00d 43,45 Fri 8/1/12 Fri 8/1/12
        47 5.5 – Excavate for foundation 2.00d 39,45,43,46 Mon 8/4/12 Tue 8/5/12
        48 6 Foundation 24.00d . Wed 8/6/12 Mon 9/8/12
        49 6.1 – Layout footings 1.00d 47 Wed 8/6/12 Wed 8/6/12
        50 6.2 – Dig Footings & Install Reinforcing 1.00d 49 Thu 8/7/12 Thu 8/7/12
        51 6.3 – Footing Inspection 0.00d 50 Thu 8/7/12 Thu 8/7/12
        52 6.4 – Pour footings 1.00d 51 Fri 8/8/12 Fri 8/8/12
        53 6.5 – Pin Footings 1.00d 52 Mon 8/11/12 Mon 8/11/12
        54 6.6 – Stock Block, Mortar, Sand 1.00d 53 Tue 8/12/12 Tue 8/12/12
        55 6.7 – Build Block Foundation 15.00d 53,54 Wed 8/13/12 Tue 9/2/12
        56 6.8 – Foundation Certification 0.00d 55 Tue 9/2/12 Tue 9/2/12
        57 6.9 – Draw #1 (Location Survey) 0.00d 56 Tue 9/2/12 Tue 9/2/12
        58 6.10 – Fill Block Cores w/ Concrete 1.00d 55 Wed 9/3/12 Wed 9/3/12
        59 6.11 – Steel Delivery 1.00d 58 Thu 9/4/12 Thu 9/4/12
        60 6.12 – Set Lintels, Bolts, Cap Block 2.00d 59 Fri 9/5/12 Mon 9/8/12
        61 6.13 – Lumber Delivery 1.00d 58 Thu 9/4/12 Thu 9/4/12
        62 6.14 – Waterproofing and Drain Tile 1.00d 61 Fri 9/5/12 Fri 9/5/12
        63 7 Rough Carpentry 44.00d . Tue 9/9/12 Fri 11/7/12
        64 7.1 – Set Steel 1.00d 60 Tue 9/9/12 Tue 9/9/12
        65 7.2 – 1st Floor Deck Framing 4.00d 64 Wed 9/10/12 Mon 9/15/12
        66 7.3 – 1st Floor Wall Framing 4.00d 65 Tue 9/16/12 Fri 9/19/12
        67 7.4 – Draw #2 (First Floor Deck) 0.00d 66 Fri 9/19/12 Fri 9/19/12
        68 7.5 – 2nd Floor Deck Framing 2.00d 67 Mon 9/22/12 Tue 9/23/12
        69 7.6 – Draw #3 (Second Floor Deck) 0.00d 68 Tue 9/23/12 Tue 9/23/12
        70 7.7 – 2nd Floor Wall Framing 3.00d 69 Wed 9/24/12 Fri 9/26/12
        71 7.8 – Set Roof Trusses 2.00d 70 Mon 9/29/12 Tue 9/30/12
        72 7.9 – Frame Roof 7.00d 71 Wed 10/1/12 Thu 10/9/12
        73 7.10 – Install Roof Plywood 5.00d 72 Fri 10/10/12 Thu 10/16/12
        74 7.11 – Install Windows & Doors 2.00d 73,111 Wed 10/22/12 Thu 10/23/12
        75 7.12 – Frame Basement 3.00d 72,81 Fri 10/10/12 Tue 10/14/12
        76 7.13 – Frame Basement Bulkheads 2.00d 75,87,93 Thu 11/6/12 Fri 11/7/12
        77 8 Concrete Slabs 8.00d . Thu 9/18/12 Mon 9/29/12
        78 8.1 – Basement Slab Preparation 2.00d 65,91 Thu 9/18/12 Fri 9/19/12
        79 8.2 – Termite Treatment Basment Slab 1.00d 78 Mon 9/22/12 Mon 9/22/12
        80 8.3 – Slab Inspection 1.00d 79 Tue 9/23/12 Tue 9/23/12
        81 8.4 – Pour Basement Slab 1.00d 80 Wed 9/24/12 Wed 9/24/12
        82 8.5 – Prep Garage Slab 1.00d 81 Thu 9/25/12 Thu 9/25/12
        83 8.6 – Termite Treatment Garage Slab 1.00d 82 Fri 9/26/12 Fri 9/26/12
        84 8.7 – Pour Garage Slab 1.00d 83 Mon 9/29/12 Mon 9/29/12
        85 9 H.V.A.C. 17.00d . Fri 10/10/12 Mon 11/3/12
        86 9.1 – HVAC Layout & Measure 1.00d 72 Fri 10/10/12 Fri 10/10/12
        87 9.2 – HVAC Rough-in 5.00d 86,111 Wed 10/22/12 Tue 10/28/12
        88 9.3 – HVAC Set Indoor Units 2.00d 81,87 Wed 10/29/12 Thu 10/30/12
        89 9.4 – HVAC Temporary Heat 2.00d 88 Fri 10/31/12 Mon 11/3/12
        90 10 Plumbing Rough-in 37.00d . Tue 9/16/12 Wed 11/5/12
        91 10.1 – Plumbing Sub-slab 2.00d 65 Tue 9/16/12 Wed 9/17/12
        92 10.2 – Plumbing Layout 1.00d 91,87 Wed 10/29/12 Wed 10/29/12
        93 10.3 – Plumbing rough-in 5.00d 92 Thu 10/30/12 Wed 11/5/12
        94 11 County Plumbing Sub-slab Inspection 0.00d 91 Wed 9/17/12 Wed 9/17/12
        95 12 County Plumbing Rough-in Inspection 0.00d 93 Wed 11/5/12 Wed 11/5/12
        96 13 Electric Rough-in 19.00d . Fri 10/24/12 Wed 11/19/12
        97 13.1 – Set Electric Boxes 2.00d 74 Fri 10/24/12 Mon 10/27/12
        98 13.2 – Install Electric Service Panel 2.00d 97 Tue 10/28/12 Wed 10/29/12
        99 13.3 – Electrical Walk-through 1.00d 98 Thu 10/30/12 Thu 10/30/12
        100 13.4 – Electrical Rough-wire 14.00d 99 Fri 10/31/12 Wed 11/19/12
        101 14 Specialty Rough-ins 5.00d . Thu 11/20/12 Wed 11/26/12
        102 14.1 – Central Vacuum Rough-in 5.00d 100 Thu 11/20/12 Wed 11/26/12
        103 14.2 – Alarm System Rough-in 5.00d 100 Thu 11/20/12 Wed 11/26/12
        104 14.3 – Telephone System Rough-in 5.00d 100 Thu 11/20/12 Wed 11/26/12
        105 14.4 – Television System Rough-in 5.00d 100 Thu 11/20/12 Wed 11/26/12
        106 14.5 – Audio Visual Rough-in 5.00d 100 Thu 11/20/12 Wed 11/26/12
        107 15 County Electrical inspection 0.00d 96,101 Wed 11/26/12 Wed 11/26/12
        108 16 Draw #5 (Rough-ins complete) 0.00d 95,107 Wed 11/26/12 Wed 11/26/12
        109 17 County Framing Inspection 0.00d 95FS+1d,107FS+1d Thu 11/27/12 Thu 11/27/12
        110 18 Roofing 68.00d . Fri 10/17/12 Tue 1/20/13
        111 18.1 – Roofing Paper Installed 3.00d 73 Fri 10/17/12 Tue 10/21/12
        112 18.2 – Draw #4 (Roof, windows, doors) 0.00d 74,111 Thu 10/23/12 Thu 10/23/12
        113 18.3 – Stock Roof Shingles 1.00d 112 Fri 10/24/12 Fri 10/24/12
        114 18.4 – Install Roof Shingles 7.00d 113,119 Mon 1/12/13 Tue 1/20/13
        115 19 Exterior Finishes 56.00d . Fri 10/24/12 Fri 1/9/13
        116 19.1 – Siding 3.00d 74 Fri 10/24/12 Tue 10/28/12
        117 19.2 – Exterior Trim 7.00d 116 Wed 10/29/12 Thu 11/6/12
        118 19.3 – Brick Arch Forms 1.00d 117 Fri 11/7/12 Fri 11/7/12
        119 19.4 – Brick Veneer 45.00d 118 Mon 11/10/12 Fri 1/9/13
        120 20 Insulation 5.00d . Fri 11/28/12 Thu 12/4/12
        121 20.1 – Caulk & Air Seal 1.00d 109 Fri 11/28/12 Fri 11/28/12
        122 20.2 – Draft & Fire Stop 1.00d 121 Mon 12/1/12 Mon 12/1/12
        123 20.3 – Batt Insulation 3.00d 121,122 Tue 12/2/12 Thu 12/4/12
        124 21 County Insulation Inspection 0.00d 123,120 Thu 12/4/12 Thu 12/4/12
        125 22 BGE Energy Wise Inspection 0.00d 124 Thu 12/4/12 Thu 12/4/12
        126 23 Drywall 26.00d . Fri 12/5/12 Fri 1/9/13
        127 23.1 – Stock Drywall 1.00d 124 Fri 12/5/12 Fri 12/5/12
        128 23.2 – Hang Drywall 5.00d 127 Mon 12/8/12 Fri 12/12/12
        129 23.3 – Remove Scrap Drywall 1.00d 128 Mon 12/15/12 Mon 12/15/12
        130 23.4 – Tape and Finish Drywall 15.00d 128,129 Tue 12/16/12 Mon 1/5/13
        131 23.5 – Sand Drywall 1.00d 130 Tue 1/6/13 Tue 1/6/13
        132 23.6 – Drywall Point-up 3.00d 131 Wed 1/7/13 Fri 1/9/13
        133 24 Draw #6 (Insulation & drywall applied) 0.00d 128,126 Fri 1/9/13 Fri 1/9/13
        134 25 Floor Finishes 76.00d . Tue 1/13/13 Tue 4/28/13
        135 25.1 – Ceramic Tile 15.00d 142 Tue 1/13/13 Mon 2/2/13
        136 25.2 – Install Hardwood Floor 4.00d 146 Fri 3/27/13 Wed 4/1/13
        137 25.3 – Sand, Stain, Seal Hardwood 5.00d 196 Thu 4/16/13 Wed 4/22/13
        138 25.4 – Install Carpet 4.00d 137 Thu 4/23/13 Tue 4/28/13
        139 25.5 – Final Coat Hardwood 2.00d 196 Thu 4/16/13 Fri 4/17/13
        140 26 Paint 59.00d . Wed 1/7/13 Mon 3/30/13
        141 26.1 – Prep Drywall for Prime Coat 2.00d 131 Wed 1/7/13 Thu 1/8/13
        142 26.2 – Prime Paint Drywall 2.00d 141 Fri 1/9/13 Mon 1/12/13
        143 26.3 – Prep Trim for Prime Coat 2.00d 142,152 Wed 1/21/13 Thu 1/22/13
        144 26.4 – Prime Trim 2.00d 143 Fri 1/23/13 Mon 1/26/13
        145 26.5 – Finish Coat Trim 10.00d 144,156 Mon 2/23/13 Fri 3/6/13
        146 26.6 – Finish Coat Drywall 14.00d 145,132 Mon 3/9/13 Thu 3/26/13
        147 26.7 – Caulk Exterior Windows & Doors 1.00d 146,117 Fri 3/27/13 Fri 3/27/13
        148 26.8 – Finish Coat Exterior Trim & Siding 1.00d 147 Mon 3/30/13 Mon 3/30/13
        149 27 Draw #7 (Roofing, masonry, siding) 0.00d 114,157 Tue 3/31/13 Tue 3/31/13
        150 28 Interior Trim 29.00d . Tue 1/13/13 Fri 2/20/13
        151 28.1 – Interior Trim Delivery 1.00d 142 Tue 1/13/13 Tue 1/13/13
        152 28.2 – Install Interior Doors 5.00d 151 Wed 1/14/13 Tue 1/20/13
        153 28.3 – Install Interior Trim 15.00d 152 Wed 1/21/13 Tue 2/10/13
        154 28.4 – Install Cabinetry 5.00d 153 Wed 2/11/13 Tue 2/17/13
        155 28.5 – Install Appliances 1.00d 154 Wed 2/18/13 Wed 2/18/13
        156 28.6 – 1st Punch-out Interior Trim 2.00d 155,144 Thu 2/19/13 Fri 2/20/13
        157 29 H.V.A.C. Trim 1.00d 140 Tue 3/31/13 Tue 3/31/13
        158 29.1 – Install Grills & Registers for Paint 1.00d 131 Tue 3/31/13 Tue 3/31/13
        159 29.2 – Set Outdoor Units 1.00d 165 Tue 3/31/13 Tue 3/31/13
        160 30 Plumbing Trim 5.00d . Thu 4/2/13 Wed 4/8/13
        161 30.1 – Set Fixtures 4.00d 135,136,146,154 Thu 4/2/13 Tue 4/7/13
        162 30.2 – Connect Appliances 1.00d 161 Wed 4/8/13 Wed 4/8/13
        163 31 County Final Plumbing Inspection 0.00d 160 Wed 4/8/13 Wed 4/8/13
        164 32 Exterior Landscaping 32.00d . Mon 1/12/13 Tue 2/24/13
        165 32.1 – Rough Final Grade 1.00d 119 Mon 1/12/13 Mon 1/12/13
        166 32.2 – Patios 7.00d 165,119 Tue 1/13/13 Wed 1/21/13
        167 32.3 – Porches 5.00d 166,119 Thu 1/22/13 Wed 1/28/13
        168 32.4 – Sidewalks 7.00d 167,119 Thu 1/29/13 Fri 2/6/13
        169 32.5 – Decks 7.00d 168,119 Mon 2/9/13 Tue 2/17/13
        170 32.6 – Driveways 2.00d 165,169 Wed 2/18/13 Thu 2/19/13
        171 32.7 – Final Grade and Seed 3.00d 170,166,167,168 Fri 2/20/13 Tue 2/24/13
        172 33 Electrical Final Trim 160.00d . Thu 6/5/12 Wed 1/14/13
        173 33.1 – Switch & Plug 2.00d 142,100 Tue 1/13/13 Wed 1/14/13
        174 33.2 – Install Fixtures 1.00d . Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        175 33.3 – Connect Appliances 1.00d . Thu 6/5/12 Thu 6/5/12
        176 34 Hardware 12.00d . Fri 3/27/13 Mon 4/13/13
        177 34.1 – Door Hardware 2.00d 145,146 Fri 3/27/13 Mon 3/30/13
        178 34.2 – Bath Hardware 2.00d 145,146 Fri 3/27/13 Mon 3/30/13
        179 34.3 – Mirrors 5.00d 178 Tue 3/31/13 Mon 4/6/13
        180 34.4 – Shower Doors 10.00d 178 Tue 3/31/13 Mon 4/13/13
        181 35 Draw #8 (Prime paint, cabinets, doors) 0.00d 142,152,154 Tue 2/17/13 Tue 2/17/13
        182 36 Draw #9 (Trim, furnace, hrdwd, tile, rails) 0.00d 153,181 Tue 2/17/13 Tue 2/17/13
        183 37 Draw #10 (Plumbing & elec. trim, final paint) 0.00d 146,182 Thu 3/26/13 Thu 3/26/13
        184 38 Final Building Inspection 0.00d 183 Thu 3/26/13 Thu 3/26/13
        185 39 Use & Occupancy Certificate 0.00d 184FS+3d Tue 3/31/13 Tue 3/31/13
        186 40 First Walk-thru 0.00d 185 Tue 3/31/13 Tue 3/31/13
        187 41 Draw #11 (Final payment per contract) 0.00d 186 Tue 3/31/13 Tue 3/31/13
        188 42 Final Punch-out 9.00d . Wed 4/1/13 Mon 4/13/13
        189 42.1 – Punch Out Walk-thru List 4.00d 186 Wed 4/1/13 Mon 4/6/13
        190 42.2 – Trim and Adjust Doors 2.00d 184,189 Tue 4/7/13 Wed 4/8/13
        191 42.3 – Paint Touch-up 3.00d 190 Thu 4/9/13 Mon 4/13/13
        192 43 Cleaning 14.00d . Fri 3/27/13 Wed 4/15/13
        193 43.1 – Windows 3.00d 145,146 Fri 3/27/13 Tue 3/31/13
        194 43.2 – Rough Clean 3.00d 193 Wed 4/1/13 Fri 4/3/13
        195 43.3 – Final Clean 2.00d 176,188 Tue 4/14/13 Wed 4/15/13
        196 44 Final Walk-through 0.00d 187,188,192 Wed 4/15/13 Wed 4/15/13
        197 45 Move-in 0.00d 196FS+1d Thu 4/16/13 Thu 4/16/13

        • vto 21.1.1.1
          26 November 2012 at 3:12 pm

          Well that was a waste of time.

          You do realise that along with consent without construction there is also construction without consent

          • fisiani 21.1.1.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 3:19 pm

            You are not seriously claiming that Labour wants to build unconsented slums???????

            • vto 21.1.1.1.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 3:25 pm

              lordy it is slow work engaging with some on here.. or maybe they are intentionally pig-headed. talking construction works carried out each year in the construction sector.

              here is a more simple question for you – if in the recent past (2007) there were 30,000 homes built per year and now there are 10,000 homes built per year, how many does that mean there is spare capacity for?

            • mike e 21.1.1.1.1.2
              28 November 2012 at 4:15 pm

              Fishy anal thats what happened under National remember $30 to $40 billion dollars of leaky homes with consent you idiot!

        • One Tāne Huna 21.1.1.2
          26 November 2012 at 3:15 pm

          Thirty thousand dwellings a year, eh? Busy little builders.

        • Puddleglum 21.1.1.3
          26 November 2012 at 3:44 pm

          Isn’t that a project schedule for a 6,000 sq foot double story house (with decking on first and second floors) in Maryland (presumably USA?)?

          What does this have to do with a 90 sq m, prefabricated dwelling in New Zealand? 

          • One Tāne Huna 21.1.1.3.1
            26 November 2012 at 3:54 pm

            “What does this have to do with…?”

            It’s a straw to clutch at while Fisi drowns in four inches of water.

          • felix 21.1.1.3.2
            26 November 2012 at 5:23 pm

            It’s also a schedule for ONE HOUSE, so all the consents and plans and reviews and revisions and copies and finance and bids and tenders and contracts and subcontracts and land sale agreements etc etc occur simultaneously for large numbers of homes.

            fisi is still trying to imagine each house being finished before the next is begun.

        • prism 21.1.1.4
          26 November 2012 at 10:11 pm

          fisiani
          That is an exhaustive (exhausting) list. Would it happen that somewhere in there was a control that stops leaky, fungusy housing being erected. If you can’t trust your builder to know what all this is about, you’re stuffed as the average joe wouldn’t cope.

    • r0b 21.2
      26 November 2012 at 2:29 pm

      In other news, about 60,000 babies are born in NZ every year year. Somewhere out there a woman is having a baby every 10 minutes! Impossible!

      • infused 21.2.1
        26 November 2012 at 2:40 pm

        and there’s what, 2 million women, yeah, what are the chances?

        How many builders do we have again?

        • r0b 21.2.1.1
          26 November 2012 at 2:46 pm

          The question isn’t how many builders we have, it is how many we can ramp up over 10 years. Lots of new jobs. Two birds with one stone. Very clever policy. Eh?

          • BM 21.2.1.1.1
            26 November 2012 at 3:17 pm

            Kiwi build will create plenty of hammer hands and labourers, no tradesmen though.

            • Te Reo Putake 21.2.1.1.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 3:30 pm

              Electricians, plumbers and builders. All tradesmen. All needed before construction is complete.

              • BM …
                26 November 2012 at 3:50 pm

                Apart from a couple to oversee and sign off work, you don’t need tradesmen to knock up up the pre fabs.

                What Labour seems to be proposing is factory work not building work, also the amount of money labour has put aside for each house costs are going to be cut to the bone == unskilled labour.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  26 November 2012 at 3:57 pm

                  Yes you do need tradesmen. You need electricians, plumbers and builders. They will be assisted by hammer hands and labourers, but the law requires tradesmen to oversee and sign off the work. That sysem applies to prefab houses being built now, and it’s not going to change under this scheme. What will change is the country’s housing stock, which will go up and the country’s unemployment, which will go down.

                  Oh, and I expect the levels of unionisation will improve in the industry too, which will be good for the wage rates of workers in construction everywhere in the industry.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  26 November 2012 at 4:08 pm

                  And yet I know four people who just got jobs in a pre-fab place as apprentice builders.

                  • BM …
                    26 November 2012 at 4:12 pm

                    Building pre -fabs doesn’t equal qualified tradesmen.
                    A qualified chippie should at the end of his/ her five year apprenticeship be able to set out and construct a one story home and two story home from scratch using brick cladding, timber cladding, solid plaster,etc
                    Also he/she should be able to construct these houses on level and sloping ground.
                    How is an apprentice going to achieve these skills building 90m2 boxes in a factory?

                    No offence but these guys aren’t going to be qualified builders at the end of their apprenticeships.
                    I’d certainly wouldn’t want them building a house for me.

                    It’s almost the equivalent of creating Hello World and then calling yourself a software developer.

                    • felix …
                      26 November 2012 at 4:58 pm

                      Totally agree – a lot of it will be factory-based work which will at best train hammerhands.

                      Problem?

                    • BM …
                      26 November 2012 at 5:20 pm

                      Yeah I have a couple.

                      1. Labour saying that there’s 2000 apprenticeship opportunities, which isn’t quite correct.

                      2.If the government is going to build houses it should be state houses, increase the state house building program and train apprentices within that.The opportunities exists to build a wide variety of houses on all types sections so you will end up with really qualified tradesmen/women.
                      We desperately need to transfer the information from the older tradesmen to the younger guys before they retire, government run apprenticeships offer a great environment for learning because you can take a bit longer and get it right

                      3. Building more state houses would actually take the heat out of the property market by providing cheaper rents, this would force down the price of property and provide opportunities for younger people to purchase their first homes.

                      Build state houses, not private houses.

                    • felix …
                      26 November 2012 at 5:33 pm

                      I agree with all of that.

                      I’m not particularly enamored of this policy when compared to the state house option, but it’s the best thing on the table so far.

                      Two options, neither of them ideal. Do nothing? Or build some much needed homes and provide some much needed jobs?

                    • BM …
                      26 November 2012 at 5:52 pm

                      Definitely go the state house option and in all honesty it’s some times best to do nothing.

                      For example in stock and currency trading there’s 3 positions
                      1.Long
                      2.Short
                      3.On the sidelines.

                      You only have a certain pool of money to work with so you want to protect it, throwing it away on a long shot isn’t a particularly wise strategy.

                      With Kiwibuild, Labour has a bit of a problem in that they’ve shown every one their cards, they can’t change direction without looking totally incompetent.

                      Labour will get torn to shreds regarding this policy leading up to the election especially if Shearer is the one doing the selling.

                    • mike e …
                      26 November 2012 at 6:09 pm

                      Blind monetarist what BS you talk prefabs still need carpenters electricians plumbers Roofers etc!

                    • BM …
                      26 November 2012 at 6:13 pm

                      Fuck, you’re an idiot.
                      Not sure why I’m even replying.

                    • felix …
                      26 November 2012 at 6:30 pm

                      That’s where we differ BM, I don’t see jobs and homes as a “long shot” – they’re a bloody necessity.

                      You can make any position seem reasonable by talking about it in the abstract, but this isn’t currency trading.

                      It’s people’s lives.

                      ps I reckon anything they put up will get them torn to shreds if Shearer is fronting it…

                • mike e …
                  28 November 2012 at 4:18 pm

                  Blind Monetarist when you don’t have an argument you give up I work in the building industry,with someone who worked in a factory producing 32 hoses a week.
                  So your argument is very week!

          • infused 21.2.1.1.2
            26 November 2012 at 3:39 pm

            Then what happens when we are finished? Same spot.

        • vto 21.2.1.2
          26 November 2012 at 2:51 pm

          Enough builders to build 30,000 homes every year, like was done during the last boom.

          Now we are building 10,000 per year.

          infused, starter for ten, what does 30,000 minus 10,000 equal? And how does that answer relate to Labour’s proposal?

          • infused 21.2.1.2.1
            26 November 2012 at 3:41 pm

            It doesn’t relate or answer anything.

            “Our target is to ramp up to building 10,000 houses a year by the end of our first term (or as
            swiftly as the availability of skilled labour allows), and to continue at this level for around ten
            years.”

            ‘ramp up’ to 10,000 additional houses per year over 3 years with a nice little out clause.

            • vto 21.2.1.2.1.1
              26 November 2012 at 3:43 pm

              i give up

              • infused …
                26 November 2012 at 3:45 pm

                you never started. There’s not enough builders, time, space or money. The entire policy is a load a bs.

                Wait and see.

                • vto …
                  26 November 2012 at 3:50 pm

                  ffs,,, ” There’s not enough builders, time, space or money”

                  Five years ago there were enough builders, time and space and money to build 30,000 homes every year.

                  Now there are only 10,000 homes being built every year (the lowest since about the early 70s actually).

                  Two questions;

                  1. what does 30,000 minus 10,000 equal?
                  2. how many homes does this policy want to build each year?

                  Now, I give up because I have to go and build a house. Egg

    • Draco T Bastard 21.3
      26 November 2012 at 4:03 pm

      Mea culpa my maths was wrong…

      We already knew that and proved it the other day and you’re still talking out your arse as per normal.

      48 x 40 x 60 = 115,200 minutes available

      and then multiply that by the thousands of people we have available to do the work. You know, like the 3334 (that’s 384,076,800 minutes just in case you’re too stupid to use a calculator) builders that it would take to build those ten thousand houses in one year.

      There really is no point in engaging you as you’re far too stupid to know WTF we’re talking about.

  22. vto 22
    26 November 2012 at 5:53 pm

    It is noted that fisiani and infused and various other naysayers constantly raise the issue of capacity in New Zealand to build an extra 10,000 homes per year.

    It is further noted that fisiani and infused abd other naysayers have refused to answer when it is explained to them that five years ago NZ built 30,000 homes per year and now builds only 10,000 homes per year (lowest since early 70s as I recall, and another indictiment on Key’s brighter future), leaving capacity for an additional 20,000 homes per year.

    Why would they avoid this point do you think? And what implications are there for their lack of honesty on this? I know we are not supposed to make assumptions when it appears a commenter runs for cover but ffs it is blatant on this thread and destroys what should be a robust and honest debate. So strike me down.

  23. Herodotus 23
    26 November 2012 at 6:00 pm

    Re land cost currently you could buy a bulk site for$400/m2 for 7000m that would allow 50 dwellings problem is that council contributions of $10-$20 kper lot water connection $8k so we aproach $100k for land and that is a high density situation apartment or attached housing , approx 1 year to get planning and resource consenting then to build

    • mike e 23.1
      26 November 2012 at 6:06 pm

      Hero it could be done quite easily by but would not take off straight away ! this govt has already changed the resource consent and planning times! by the time CH CH rebuild is winding down Auckland will be ready to take off!
      What we need is a wide ranging CGT to stabilize house prices!
      Sections would not be so much of a cost with low rise apartments being built!

      • Herodotus 23.1.1
        26 November 2012 at 8:24 pm

        From the time a coy has identified a site it takes time to complete due diligence. Review planning requirements, design a plan, working drawings etc. Then you have to apply for a sub division consent that aligns where the individual titles are to the high density block, construct and obtain titles (get the building and title process wrong then there could be major issues later on as your house may not be fully on your land !!) Also my figures above are GST exclusive. Every time council has a question or requires clarification the clock stops in regard to the time a consent is to take and the KPI’s that council use to monitor this type of process.
        And this costing is based on the lowest price I have come across in Auckland !!!

  24. xtasy 24
    26 November 2012 at 8:23 pm

    This thread of comments appears to have ended at about the 6 pm news. No surprise, as the news on ONE and 3News revealed what the market situation is re section costs in Auckland, where 2 thirds of Labour’s 100,000 new “homes” are supposed to be built over 10 years. An average section alone costs about as much as what Labour want to offer the whole properties for, for first time buyers.

    So maybe bring your tent, once the section has been acquired!

    Then Newlands, quoted as an expert in property, stated that the figures presented by Labour would NEVER stack up. It is impossible to build those homes at such costs over 10 years.

    Also was there an item on both news showing how Goff, Shearer and Sio were going around new developments in South Auckland and meeting new home owners there. One gave them his dim view, and Shearer, asked about section prices in Auckland, had no real answer (as usual).

    It was followed by the comments that average sections in Auckland cost about 300 k, and that is just the average, without a home on it.

    Go onto Trade Me Property, the Real Estate websites of the following perhaps:
    http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/CategoryAttributeSearchResults.aspx
    http://www.realestate.co.nz/residential/search/districts/223/property_types/9/page2

    Then you can see yourselves, what is out of control in Auckland.

    This whole country is out of control under this government, and sadly in some ways NZ has mismanaged for the last 2 or so decades, selling off to overseas investors, having revolving migration, where disillusioned locals move to Australia and get placed by hopeful, desperate, new migrants from other places, forced to work for often low pay and getting sold a shit dream of a future, that does not exist here.

    NZ is STUFFED. And Labour is DEAD, as they have not even got the advisors they need to present sensible policies anymore.

    Shearer is a total embarrassment now, and wait until he will get his lashing in Parliament’s Question Time tomorrow, the Nats and Key just love it!

    A large scale state housing program is needed, not this silly plan Shearer now sells to dreamers and ignorant as his great plan and his great speech. Also stiff controls to stop overseas property buying in housing here, same as nationalization of some strategic lands and assets, and much more will be needed.

    This IDIOT Labour as caucus elected is a total liability as he is the laughing stock of any intelligent person on the LEFT and even RIGHT now!

    Step down Shearer, you are useless! An new party on the Left is needed, starting from scratch, to incorporate also Mana and the Greens, nothing else will get us anywhere.

    • Draco T Bastard 24.1
      26 November 2012 at 10:27 pm

      +1

      To be honest, the more I read about this plan of Labours the more I hate it. It really is just a plan to get people borrowing more so as to provide an artificial boost to growth.

      • Colonial Viper 24.1.1
        27 November 2012 at 12:19 am

        Get middle class people borrowing more and then handing the cash over to corporate outfits like Fletchers. Great.

Links to post