Who could build social housing?

Written By: - Date published: 6:47 am, July 25th, 2016 - 226 comments
Categories: housing, national, useless - Tags: , , ,

The plan to have the private sector build social housing appears to be a flop. Simon Collins in The Herald:

1000 social homes goal well short

Government efforts to solve Auckland’s housing crisis have been dealt a major blow by a weak response to a request for proposals to build 1000 new homes for social housing tenants.

Community housing providers say they have proposed a maximum of only 239 new social housing places, because of problems finding suitable land and because capital funding for the new places this year has been capped at only $13.55 million.

This year’s Budget documents show that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) expects to contract for only 175 new homes from community providers in the financial year that started on July 1. …

We clearly need a different approach to the task of building these desperately needed houses. We need an entity with a long term commitment to the well-being of NZ society. A large organisation with the resources to actually get the job done. Wherever will we find one? Perhaps if we took off our ideological blinders it would help us with our search…


build-some-bloody-houses

226 comments on “Who could build social housing?”

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1

    Whatever you do, don’t call it “The National Party”: that brand is already associated with so much shame and failure.

    • James 1.1

      Yep 3 elections and heading for a 4th – huge popularity according to polls, and the leader of labour is on 7%.

      Thats success not failure.

      • James 1.1.1

        “Perhaps if we took off our ideological blinders it would help us with our search…”

        Now thats something I can really agree with (regardless of political view) – there should be more of this…

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1

          Stop politicising science, for example.

          And healthcare.

          And education.

          And public service.

          And Economics.

          And build some houses instead of blaming invisible hands.

        • Michelle 1.1.1.2

          Sorry James there number is up we will be mobilizing the poor to get rid of your greedy tory mates

          • Nessalt 1.1.1.2.1

            so the poor exclusively vote labour / greens? the parties of handouts not hand ups. Maori used to think that way, they’ve wised up. maybe “the poor” will too?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2

        Increasing homelessness, rising levels of infectious diseases, high youth suicide rate.

        All symptoms of increased inequality. Yes, James, they are, and the evidence is all over academic medical journals.

        This is a shit government. I note they even managed to tell lies in the linked article.

        • maninthemiddle 1.1.2.1

          Reducing crime.
          Record levels of immunisation.
          First real increase in benefits in 30 years.
          Free doctors visits for under 13’s.
          Record employment.

          This is a successful government, who rule for the majority.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1.1

            Meanwhile, for those with a functioning moral compass, governments are judged by the fate of the most vulnerable.

            • maninthemiddle 1.1.2.1.1.1

              You mean the most vulnerable aren’t victims of crime? Don’t get immunised? Don’t visit the doctor? That’s very patronising of you.

            • Nessalt 1.1.2.1.1.2

              Faced with facts the intellectually bankrupt go straight for the unmeasurable, therefore superior as it apparently can’t be argued with, caring metric.

              Oh you care more do you OAB? well good for you! FB likes and caring so much on blogs always solves societies problems doesn’t it? /sarc

          • adam 1.1.2.1.2

            Reducing crime. true sort of – happening globally and please note violent crime is not going down

            Record levels of immunisation – as an on going programme started in the 1950’s – how pathetic to claim credit for the work of many.

            First real increase in benefits in 30 years – fair enough, funny how it was gobbled up by rents though. Backhanded tax refund to speculator mates?

            Free doctors visits for under 13’s.- which was the norm before 1984. And started by Winstone with the fourth national government.

            Record employment- lie. Yeah that one is a lie. work one hour a week gets you off the stats as unemployed, does not mean much when starving. But sure use false numbers and low pay to make yourself feel good.

            Actually for 8 years maninthemiddle, that is a pathetically short list. Me thinks your name is a fib, you seem to be displaying your comitatus more and more these days.

            • maninthemiddle 1.1.2.1.2.1

              One simple answer to your diatribe…explaining is losing. If you want to blame the government for unemployment in a global recession, then you need to pull your head out of your arse and have some balance.

              Oh, and that wasn’t a complete list btw.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                No, sweety, it’s you who, in your own barely articulate reckons, blamed the government for “the application of welfarism”.

                When you weren’t blaming the unemployed and working poor and homeless, that is.

                • maninthemiddle

                  Keep taking your meds. When you confuse something I said weeks ago with an unrelated current conversation, you’re in need of upping the dose.

              • adam

                Love the cheap gib from a obvious fawning dilettante. Any chance you could offer up somthing else rather than a cheap one line from the 90’s ?

                In politeness, and to keep the debate honest, aside from your obvious shallow attempt to misrepresent what I said.

                No I did not blame government, I’m saying that your last point is a lie.

                • maninthemiddle

                  Then you’re quite deluded. Because the facts are simple. Crime is down. Immunisation is up. Employment is up. Doctors visits for under 13’s are free. Benefits are up. These are all facts. As I said, explaining is losing.

            • Leftie 1.1.2.1.2.2

              National, the government of fudged stats.

              Concerns raised over fudged police figures

              <a href="https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/concerns-raised-over-fudged-police-figures-6026306

          • Leftie 1.1.2.1.3

            Much of what you have posted are lies Maninthemiddle.

          • mosa 1.1.2.1.4

            Record credit card debt to supplement poor wages and salaries
            The benefit increase of $25 per week was eaten away by rising rent and debt servicing and other WINZ reductions.
            Record levels of destitution.
            Billions lost too the economy of corporates not paying their full tax obligations.
            GST increased too pay for the top tax rate being lowered.
            Higher external debt too pay for the 2010 tax cuts.
            House prices allowed too over inflate in most main centres threatening the economy.
            Our labour laws changed too benefit foreign corporations.
            Our independence and control of our country signed away too benefit foreign corporates.
            Wont fund plunket but will find 26 million dollars for a flag referendum.
            Covering up for an MP who broke the law and letting him stand in the general election when he faced serious charges.
            Corruption free status dropping from no 1 in the world.
            Business encouraged too hire cheap foreign labour rather than pay kiwis decent wages.
            A PM running a dirty tricks campaign from his own office with his own staff involved but knows nothing about it while it destroys peoples reputations and spreads lies and misinformation.
            A Prime ministers lawyer interfering in the process of government.
            Unemployment still ravaging the regions with no plan too address it.
            This is a successful government eh.
            I would hate too see an unsuccessful one !!

            • maninthemiddle 1.1.2.1.4.1

              So you made up a list of complete nonsense. So what?

            • righty right 1.1.2.1.4.2

              it would be a lot worse if we didn’t have john key it proves john key is holding the line under tremendous pressure we would be Greece without john key

          • Stuart Munro 1.1.2.1.5

            This is the worst government I’ve lived under – and I’ve lived in Saudi.

            • maninthemiddle 1.1.2.1.5.1

              Another supporter of barbarism over democracy.

            • Chuck 1.1.2.1.5.2

              Come on Stuart really?? you can do better than that!

              Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights records in the world as the country routinely imprisons and executes dozens of people labelled as “enemies of the kingdom”.

              I don’t think John Key will be sending around the political police to arrest you anytime soon dear chap.

              Now if you were back in Saudi Arabia and writing bad things about them…good luck to you.

              • maninthemiddle

                Leave him alone Chuck. The left have this love fest with Islam at the moment, so his inane comments are ideologically understandable.

                • Really? Did you not read the God Botherer post?

                  • maninthemiddle

                    My comments about the left and Islam relate to the obsession with supporting ANYTHING over western liberal values.

                    ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’.

                    • Well, then, your comments are obviously full of crap. The left is the promoter and guarantor of western liberal values. It’s the right who have walked away from liberal values in the last 4 decades, preferring to concentrate on enriching the tiny minority over the needs of the vast majority.

          • meconism 1.1.2.1.6

            govern not rule.

          • D'Esterre 1.1.2.1.7

            maninthemiddle: “First real increase in benefits in 30 years.”

            And nowhere near enough to make a substantive difference.

      • Anthony 1.1.3

        James, popularity does not equate with success.
        Mao was popular for decades.
        Hitler was popular for many years.
        The second amendment in the US is exceedingly popular.

        It’s success – not popularity – that Robins and so many of us are looking for from our leaders.

        Success like:
        Enough affordable, 21st century homes to end homelessness.
        A social net that stops our kids being slaughtered in their homes.
        An education system that allows all to achieve, not just those with deep pockets.

        The private sector hasn’t delivered, isn’t delivering, and by its nature cant deliver: because it’s measure is making money, not enhancing people’s lives.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.3.1

          The private sector hasn’t delivered, isn’t delivering, and by its nature cant deliver: because it’s measure is making money, not enhancing people’s lives.

          QFT

        • maninthemiddle 1.1.3.2

          1. We have a universal education system available to all.
          2. No amount of welfare will prevent mongrels killing their kids. We spend more on welfare today than ever, and yet the killing continues.
          3. Homelessness is a failure of individuals, not of government. There are multiple agencies people in need can approach, there is more than enough resources to house the homeless.

          • Stuart Munro 1.1.3.2.1

            Nope.

            Tradittionally foreigners were not allowed to buy NZ housing.

            Government changed the rules to benefit the greedy asshole sector.

            Real kiwis can no longer afford homes.

            Solution: change the rules back to the system that worked.

            • maninthemiddle 1.1.3.2.1.1

              “Tradittionally foreigners were not allowed to buy NZ housing.”

              What complete and utter bullshit. Do you even think before you write?

              http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/land-ownership/page-8
              http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/79813406/Only-three-per-cent-of-property-buyers-are-overseas-new-data-shows

              For your xenophobic edification, foreign ownership is not the problem, inept council planning and record net migration (a large portion of of which are NZ’s) are the two most significant issues pushing up house prices.

              • Stuart Munro

                You might have the memory of a goldfish, But I don’t.

                Foreign land purchases were vanishingly rare 40 years ago – now they are abundant.

                The Southland ‘coastal property boom’ pretty much kicked kiwis off the ladder down south.

                Stop that and half the ‘investment’ that is creating empty houses and puffing up the bubble goes away.

                Foreign ownership is unquestionably part of the problem. A responsible government would regulate this sector strictly. This would also reduce the attractiveness of NZ as a destination for criminals like Donghwa Liu, who prop up the microcephalic paint-stripper-drinking pack of crooks and loons that presently masquerades as our government.

                • maninthemiddle

                  “Foreign land purchases were vanishingly rare 40 years ago – now they are abundant.”

                  That’s not correct, and it’s not what you claimed. You said “Tradittionally foreigners were not allowed to buy NZ housing.” That is utter bs, as my references proved. In fact laws relating to foreign ownership date back into the 1970’s.

                  “Foreign ownership is unquestionably part of the problem.”

                  A very small part. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/79813406/Only-three-per-cent-of-property-buyers-are-overseas-new-data-shows

                  You’re mindless mantra repetition is idiotic.

                  • Stuart Munro

                    It’s not a mantra you fuckwit – it’s the truth. Bunch of folk I know were tipped out of the housing market by this crap – and your glib lies don’t make it a whit better.

                    “Only 3% Only 3%”

                    The right proportion is zero. Now fuck off.

                    • maninthemiddle

                      “Tradittionally foreigners were not allowed to buy NZ housing.”

                      If the spelling mistake wasn’t bad enough, you’ve been caught out in an absolute pile of bs. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/land-ownership/page-8.

                      What were they passing laws about in 1973 Stuart?

                    • Stuart Munro

                      Tradition and the sleazy backroom antics of governments have little to do with each other. Moron.

                    • maninthemiddle

                      “Tradittionally foreigners were not allowed to buy NZ housing.”

                      What were they passing laws about in 1973 Stuart?

                    • maninthemiddle

                      “Tradittionally foreigners were not allowed to buy NZ housing.”

                      What were they passing laws about in 1973 Stuart?

      • DoublePlusGood 1.1.4

        That is only success if your only goal is to be the government. If your goal is to run the country competently, National is an abject failure.

        • john 1.1.4.1

          According to Roy Morgan…..53% of people disagree with you.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.4.1.1

            Impressive: you’re using the same benchmark as Paris Hilton. Obviously the best possible government would be one formed by Mom and apple pie pavlova.

          • swordfish 1.1.4.1.2

            “According to Roy Morgan…..53% of people disagree with you.”

            41% according to UMR (at least as accurate as Roy Morgan, if not more so, when tested at Election time. And considerably less prone to turbulence)

          • NZJester 1.1.4.1.3

            The problem with a lot of those polls is that most only call people that have a surface phone line and not mobile phones. Most people with less monthly income to spend are dumping landlines in favor of a prepaid cell phone service that costs them less if they mostly only receive and limit the outgoing calls on it. Txt messages have become the norm for people on a budget to communicate. The whole of last year I spent only $80 on topping up my cell phone, less than 2 months worth of landline costs.
            The phone line in my room only does ADSL no telephone service on it.
            Busy people working all hours also do not have much time or are too tired to answer poll questions, as a result, those polls are getting more and more biased in Nationals favor.
            National at the last election may have received the majority of the votes cast, but they actually received less than a third of the votes of all the eligible voters in new Zealand. The majority of New Zealand does not actually vote National. The majority votes for other parties or does not vote at all. If those disenfranchised nonvoters that don’t answer poll questions decide to vote in this coming election, National could lose a lot of seats.

            • Leftie 1.1.4.1.3.1

              Agreed. Well said NZJester.

              Cellphones make political polling tricky

              <a href="http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/cellphones-make-political-polling-tricky-2014070616#axzz4FNoxyhSX

            • Chuck 1.1.4.1.3.2

              “those polls are getting more and more biased in Nationals favor.”

              What utter BS NZjester, but if it makes you feel better…

              “The majority of New Zealand does not actually vote National.”

              Using your logic NZjester then even a larger majority of New Zealand does not vote for Labour and Greens…combined!

              New Zealand 2014 General Election Official Results:

              National 1,131,501

              Labour 604,534
              Greens 257,356

              Back to the drawing board maybe?

              • Outdoor

                Keep reading, he wrote “The majority votes for other parties or does not vote at all”. All you can claim is that National got the majority of the votes cast. While that gives them the government there is enough evidence to show that their support is declining. It will take the parties on the left showing the ability to work together for common goals before we can be certain they can govern again.

      • mauī 1.1.5

        The win at all costs mentality. Zero respect.

        Te Puea Marae utmost respect.

      • Leftie 1.1.6

        James, you see the Key National government failing the majority of New Zealanders as a success based solely on dodgy opinion polling that doesn’t stack up with reality?

  2. Tautoko Mangō Mata 2

    Question:If a government entity is set up to build the houses, will this contravene TPP rules if it has not been specifically covered by the exceptions?

    • Depends on whether the government entity would affect the importing of houses from overseas. My money’s on “No.”

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1

        Importing houses, you say! How much do I have to spend at Cabinet Club to win the contract?

    • Bill 2.2

      heh – if there is no tendering process (there wouldn’t be) and a foreign company reckons that houses being built by the state has or will impact on its profits, then yes, possibly.

      The crux is that it would have to be a foreign company. No NZ company could try to have the government of the day up on it.

  3. Garibaldi 3

    A question for all you Helen Clark labourites – will Little do something massive to alleviate the appalling situation facing those who cannot afford to buy a house or will he buckle to pressure and do nothing (like Helen)?

    • Sabine 3.1

      a question to all of you John Key nationalistas – do you think John Key could do even less then he has over the last 8.5 years to alleviate the appalling istuation facing those who cannot afford to buy a house or will he buckle to ‘pressure’ (cackle) and do nothing (like Jenny Shipley and/or himself?)

      • Sabine 3.1.1

        oh my typing is bad.

        appalling situation

        more coffee will fix it. 🙂

      • Puckish Rogue 3.1.2

        Hi Sabine

        how many people in NZ own homes, because you know virtually none of those will want house prices to fall and if they have kids I’d doubt many of the kids would want to see their parents house prices fall either

        • Siobhan 3.1.2.1

          I would be happy to see my parents house value fall to a realistic level. And it would be a very big fall.
          Then my husband and I could buy a house.
          They seem to think I should be looking forward to my inheritance, but when I point out to them that, as babyboomers, and with me being a Gen X, they will probably not be moving on till I’m a hobble away from retirement.
          So basically their money will be dribbled away on my rent, some dentures, and their grandchildren student debt.
          Which is odd, as they, and their friends, all brought their first ‘doer uppers’ in Mt Eden and Ponsonby with help from their parents.
          The difference is the parents of the baby boomers didn’t spend money on kitchen renovations, overseas trips, rental properties, garden makeovers, new cars etc etc UNTIL they had secured housing for their children.

          You might think this is just my tough luck story, but I know plenty of people in the same situation.
          Most of them have just gave up and headed to Australia and the UK. And they aren’t coming back.

          • Sam C 3.1.2.1.1

            You reckon the parents of Baby Boomers went about “securing housing for their children”? Not the ones in my family.

            Oh, and those that have given up and moved to Australia and the UK? Yeah, housing is heaps more cheaper over there, eh?

            • Craig H 3.1.2.1.1.1

              It may not be cheaper, but it might be more affordable because of their higher wage-property value ratios..

          • red-blooded 3.1.2.1.2

            Actually, Siobhan, most boomers got their houses with 3% loans provided by The Stte Advances System (a Labour initiative from the late 50’s) or The Housing Corporation (its 70s version). Fixed interest, long-term mortgages provided by a government department, remortgaging options available to do up the house, spend on overseas travel …whatever. They could also cash-in the Family Benefits to get the initial deposit. Pretty damn helpful.

        • Sabine 3.1.2.2

          you should re-read my comment. Nothing in it refers to prices falling. I was discussing building. But hey, you might be the small minority that would rather have many live in ditches so that a few can live in castles. The 1300’s were a good time to live in, I think they called it the dark ages 🙂

          and I am sure the kids rather live in a ditch so that the million dollar house their parents bought in the 50 – 90’s would not drop in value. I just hope that these ditch dwelling kids will chip in when the rates bill come due. Cause you know, someone has got to pay those rate bills 🙂

          • Siobhan 3.1.2.2.1

            Hi Sabine….I was replying to Pukish Rogue.
            More coffee might be in order!!

            • Sabine 3.1.2.2.1.1

              my response was to the comment above yours. Sometimes its confusing. And yes there is never enough coffee.

      • righty right 3.1.3

        it would be a lot worse if we didn’t have john key it proves john key is holding the line under tremendous pressure we would be Greece without john key

    • Jenny Kirk 3.2

      A question for you ACT-Nationalist-lovers like Garibaldi – how about you do a bit of research and find out for yourself just how many state houses the Helen Clark Govt built or improved during their governing period ?

      It runs into thousands, and what is more the sale of state houses was dropped, and income-related rents were re-introduced to help lower income families. Along with a number of other financial measures to help lower income families into their own home.

      But people like Garibaldi just follow their Leader’s long pinochio nose, and happily tell lies non-stop. Just a tad sickening …..

  4. Sabine 4

    could someone delete 3.1 cause my typing is very bad this early in the morning. 🙂

    [Done! TRP]

  5. Enough is Enough 5

    That is the biggest question.

    It is not as if there are any builders sitting at home right now waiting for the phone to ring. The exact opposite.

    If you want a low value building job done on your house in Auckland these days, expect to wait, probably forever as builders have too much work on to worry about any sub 200k job.

    So it is fine to say lets just get on and build, but the industry is currently running at 100% capacity. Where is the extra capacity going to come from?

    • BM 5.1

      Little and Labour knows this.

      All their talk is just piss and wind and everyone can see that.

      Which is why they’re polling so badly and no one takes what they say seriously.

      • Stuart Munro 5.1.1

        You’re a fine one to talk.

        • BM 5.1.1.1

          Where are all the extra tradies going to come from ?

          Not just builders but all the other trades that are required in a house build.

          • Jenny Kirk 5.1.1.1.1

            Labour’s comprehensive housing package includes training more people, apprenticeships, and using the skills of tradies who’ve been building in Christchurch, BM – as you very well know.

            How about having a proper read of Labour’s comprehensive housing package – http://www.labour.org.nz/housing.

            • Eyre 5.1.1.1.1.1

              The trades rebuilding christchurch are still rebuilding Christchurch. And will sell rebuilding christchurch in 10 years.

            • BM 5.1.1.1.1.2

              Problem is, the majority of building companies aren’t big firms, training an apprentice takes one of your team out of the equation and can put real strain on a business, especially when you’re flat out.

            • Chuck 5.1.1.1.1.3

              The Government is already doing it…

              “Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment Minister Steven Joyce said in a pre-budget announcement today $14.4m would be injected into the industry training system over four years.”

              Which will provide additional funding for another 5500 apprentices.

              “The government also announced $9.6m over the next four years for the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training programme.”

              “Mr Joyce said the funding would place 2500 young Maori and Pasifika students in the programme this year.”

          • Stephen Doyle 5.1.1.1.2

            Good question. Now who screwed with the apprenticeships again?

            • BM 5.1.1.1.2.1

              Labour, when they sold off all the government depts back in the 1980’s

              • Pat

                bollocks…introduction of the Industry Training Act 1992….National abdicating responsibility again and relying on “the market” who failed spectacularly…as they were told it would

                • BM

                  Those government depts trained a vast number of apprentices in all sorts of trades.

                  Once they disappeared so did all those apprenticeships.

              • Leftie

                Wrong BM, it was National that cut and culled.

              • framu

                you mean the secret act party – not really a hit – more of a bunt

          • dave 5.1.1.1.3

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2

      When you do nothing, nothing happens. The alternative is to commit to doing something and then set about doing it, no matter who tells you it’s too hard, and the National Party has a whole team of them.

      • BM 5.2.1

        Explain how you’d do it OAB.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1

          For one thing, I’d notice that the government, being responsible for about a third of economic activity, is the largest market force in the country: it’s far more difficult to accomplish anything when your head’s full of right wing gobshite.

          As for building more houses, if we need more skilled builders we’d better train some. They’re only problems, you know: solvable. No-one is expecting unicorns.

          • BM 5.2.1.1.1

            As for building more houses, if we need more skilled builders we’d better train some.

            Bit of a nothing response.

            I was hoping for a few more details, like how you’d go about achieving this.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1.1.1

              Weka outlined one proposal below. I note that it exposed your “can’t do” mentality again.

              • BM

                Labour destroyed that scenario with it’s building practitioner licensing scheme.

                Can’t DIY anymore.

    • Where is the extra capacity going to come from?

      It’s going to come from all the new builders we put through polytechs as an emergency response to the Christchurch earthquakes,,, oh, right.

      • Pat 5.3.1

        +1

        if ever any (lack of) decision displayed the total incompetence of this government that was it

      • BM 5.3.2

        Takes at least 5 years in any trade before you can consider some one remotely competent.

        I don’t think Christchurch would be willing to wait that long.

        • te reo putake 5.3.2.1

          A lack of commitment to training is why Christchurch has a fresh issue of finding tradies to do repairs to repairs. A smart Government would have seen that this was entirely predictable and beefed up apprenticeships 5 years ago. Instead … Brownlee.

          • BM 5.3.2.1.1

            How does one beef up apprenticeships?

            Does the government pass a law stating that businesses must train a certain number each year?

            Or ex number of school leavers must enter the construction industry?

            • Stuart Munro 5.3.2.1.1.1

              Easy – kill the work permits for cheap migrants. Businesses will train if they must.

              • Pat

                the point is they didn’t…for 20 years they didn’t invest in training, it was a cost that could be avoided and is why we now have such poor results today….another market failure.

            • weka 5.3.2.1.1.2

              Put in decent work conditions and people will want to train. It’s not that hard. We used to do it.

              • BM

                Decent work conditions?, any examples of theses terrible conditions that NZ apprentices have to suffer under?

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Mr. Peter Talley.

                • I’m loathe to join this discussion because it’s so thoroughly vile in tone, but can’t go past this. Current apprentices must pay for their own training whilst on minimum wage – the cheapest is roughly $750 per year and it goes up from there – for this they get three site visits and workbooks but no practical support unless they luck onto a generous employer with time to train them. As a result it can literally take years and years to become qualified, and meanwhile they remain on minimum wage. Oh – and they are encouraged to do a full year at a polytech first, meaning they’re lumbered with a student loan as well. My proof? My son is one of them and we have watched the struggle when employers are too busy and merely want the cheap labour. It’s a rotten system and Stephen Joyce should be ashamed of himself – he tells us they are training more but fudges details like this.
                  And as far as leaving him homeless – we have sacrificed any retirement savings to get him into a house – he now pays $100 less per week than he did when renting. The system is fucked.

            • adam 5.3.2.1.1.3

              Send the kids to Australia to be trained. As the apprenticeships system here has been wrecked beyond repair by ideological purists.

              • BM

                Sort of along the same sort of lines as I was thinking.

                NZ should add to the building code and allow for building systems like they have in the States.

                That way our builders could head over to the USA get trained or USA qualified builders could come down here and work without having to learn to build the “Kiwi way”.

                Straight off the plane and into work.

                • s y d

                  Lie again.
                  NZ has a Building Act – which is performance based. The NZ Buildijg Code simply sets out those performance requirements and then has acceptable solutions which are ONE way acheiving the required performance.

                • mauī

                  Completely dumb idea, you know America works in imperial not metric like we use right? So when the workers touch down they may as well be from a different planet.

        • Pat 5.3.2.2

          lmao….you obviously know nothing of apprenticeships or the ChCh rebuild…..how long ago was the first quake? and how many houses have been built/repaired to date?…go and do some research.

        • weka 5.3.2.3

          “Takes at least 5 years in any trade before you can consider some one remotely competent.”

          Actually complete beginners can work on a house build. You need an expert to manage and oversee that and do the trickier things, but that person can use labour that is learning on the job. Have a look at some of the Grand Designs episodes where social housing schemes in the UK used the owners to do much of the build. I’m not suggesting that should happen in this situation (although such a scheme run by the government that gave people the chance to work on the build in a rent to own scheme would be brilliant). Just pointing out that you can get building labourers up and running reasonable quickly. You need high skilled and experienced tradies in certain parts of the job but not all of it. The labourers need aptitude and willingness, the rest can be trained as they go.

          We should be teaching basic trade skills at high school too.

          “I don’t think Christchurch would be willing to wait that long.”

          Apart from they already are.

          • marty mars 5.3.2.3.1

            + 1 Yep

            I think Iwi need to be bought into the conversation early, I’d imagine a few solutions are there.

            • Chuck 5.3.2.3.1.1

              Sorted MM…funding for extra 2500 Maori and PI apprentices for building trades has been announced by the Government.

          • BM 5.3.2.3.2

            Have a look at some of the Grand Designs episodes where social housing schemes in the UK used the owners to do much of the build.

            It would be great if we could do that in NZ but unfortunately Labour removed that option with it’s building practitioner licensing scheme.

            You can do any thing remotely structural on your house these days.

            Wankers.

            • joe90 5.3.2.3.2.1

              It would be great if we could do that in NZ but unfortunately Labour removed that option with it’s building practitioner licensing scheme.

              Nope.

              DIY
              Owner-builders

              Owner-builders are able to carry out restricted building work (RBW) on their own home.

              You are an owner-builder if you:

              live in or are going to live in the home (includes a bach or holiday home)
              carry out the RBW on your own home yourself, or with the help of your unpaid friends and family members, and
              have not, under the owner-builder exemption, carried out RBW to any other home within the previous 3 years.

              DIY work

              Most DIY (do-it-yourself) work is usually minor repair, maintenance or alteration work, and doesn’t fall within the category of RBW. For this work nothing has changed and homeowners can continue to do this work as they always have.

              RBW is work that requires a building consent and relates to the primary structure of your home, or affects its weathertightness. Building work that is in the RBW category must only be done by or under the supervision of LBPs, unless you are using the owner-builder exemption. If you are a suitably skilled owner-builder and meet the criteria above, you can carry out this work, but if you have any doubts you are recommended to hire an LBP to do this critical building work.

              An owner-builder is responsible for ensuring that RBW carried out under the owner-builder exemption complies with the building consent and the relevant plans and specifications.

              As the owner-builder family members and friends can help you with the RBW to your home, as long as you are not paying them to help you.

              Future buyers will have access to information that shows the building work was carried out by the owner rather than an LBP.

              http://www.business.govt.nz/lbp/do-i-need-a-lbp/when-you-need-an-lbp/diy

              • BM

                Future buyers will have access to information that shows the building work was carried out by the owner rather than an LBP.

                That makes it not worth doing any building work yourself.

                Completely devalues any work you may do.

                • joe90

                  Completely devalues any work you may do.

                  The work must comply with consents issued to obtain a Code Compliance Certificate no matter who does the work – or you’re implying shonky Code Compliance Certificates are being issued.

                  • BM

                    No it means when you go to sell your house you’ll have all sorts of hassles.

                    • joe90

                      No it means when you go to sell your house you’ll have all sorts of hassles.

                      These hassles, do tell…..

                    • Graeme

                      Probably less, because the buyer will be more inclined get a decent inspection done rather than rely on the LBP charade. And will have a much better idea of what they are buying. The sad reality of all our building failures is that they involve qualified, professional builders at the same proportion to those peoples presence in the industry.

                      It’s not about building $400K houses for $200K, it’s about building $200K houses, and how you go about doing that. The expectation is that they will start as affordable houses and stay as affordable houses, not be a speculators plaything.

                    • BM

                      Any buyer with more than two brain cells would use that as a bargaining point to push down your sale price.

                      The person doing the pre inspection report will point this out and they’re not going to be very positive.

                    • joe90

                      So, first up it was all Labour removed that option and when it was pointed out to you that you were dead wrong it was all because issues and now it’s two brain cells – what’s next …the dog ate the plans ?

                    • s y d

                      devaluing any work you do….. as if the only reason anyone would want to build their own house was to sell it as a commodity in order to make some cash.
                      These are homes, not tinned goods or whole milk powder or bitcoins.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Completely devalues any work you may do.

                  You’re assuming that the work done has any value. Unfortunately, most people who DIY haven’t got a friggen clue as to what they’re doing and so fuck things up making the work worthless and, in many cases, outright bloody dangerous.

                  If you’re going to have work done on your house get a professional to do it. It’ll be done faster, better and, in many cases, cheaper than doing it yourself.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.3.2.3.2.2

              It would be great if we could do that in NZ but unfortunately Labour removed that option with it’s building practitioner licensing scheme.

              Pretty sure that was actually National. My nephew didn’t become an LBP until ~2010/11 as he didn’t need to before then. Also, National have been putting in ever more rules that protect the developers from any risk and put the entire risk on the builders which is, of course, resulting in experienced builders leaving the industry despite the demand for builders.

            • s y d 5.3.2.3.2.3

              Lie again (assuming you meant can’t not can)
              There are several exemptions under consentable work, including structural items. Work still must comply with the Building Code.
              Stop repeating lies and get yourself some actual knowledge.

        • Psycho Milt 5.3.2.4

          Takes at least 5 years in any trade before you can consider some one remotely competent.

          And the Christchurch quake was over five years ago, so if they’d done the obvious thing at the time we’d have plenty of remotely competent people for experienced builders to supervise now.

          I don’t think Christchurch would be willing to wait that long.

          Hasn’t had much choice about that, has it?

        • risildowgtn 5.3.2.5

          it has been over 5 years since the quakes fool

          this govt response was to bring in imported labour…. look @ how well that has worked out…. thousands of repairs need to be redone

    • Graeme 5.4

      Well, we’ve done it before, in the late 70’s Outfits like Keith Hay and Neil’s in Auckland were cranking them out. Mostly financed (or deposited) by capitalising the family benefit. They were very basic 80m2 homes, basically standard plans with very little extras. They went up very quickly and didn’t leak. Probably not up to current insulation and ventilation standards but the gave people somewhere better than the slumlords of the day, and they were pretty grim.

      There’s no reason it can’t be done today. At the labour end, as in the people who actually put them together, it’s labour only gangs, and wouldn’t need to be LBPs especially if the houses were really basic designs. Could even be owner built (sweat equity sort of thing) for suitably skilled people. The ” Government Agency” would take care of the design, consenting and supervision. And give the Building Act a suitable adjustment.

      One of the reason we don’t /can’t build cheap, entry level housing is that the industry is set up around building one-off housing, just about every house become unique through the selling of extras. The consenting system also has every house considered as a unique building. Builders make their profit out of sales and project management, not erecting houses.

      • BM 5.4.1

        Yep, builders actually do surprisingly little when it comes to building a house.

        Like you say it’s more project management and project management takes a lot of skill and experience.

        • Graeme 5.4.1.1

          “Like you say it’s more project management and project management takes a lot of skill and experience.”

          Especially when the industry is incentivised to make every project as complex as possible, because that’s where the profits are.

          If we don’t start building simpler houses a very large proportion of our population are going to have nowhere to live.

          • BM 5.4.1.1.1

            If we don’t start building simpler houses a very large proportion of our population are going to have nowhere to live.

            People expect larger houses with multiple bathrooms,en suites walk in wardrobes.

            The 100m2 box doesn’t really cut it anymore.

            • Graeme 5.4.1.1.1.1

              For the builder / developer, yes. And supposedly for the realestate trade for the wider market. It’s this sort of sales shit that’s created the problem, selling us more than we need and can afford.

              But for someone trying to get out of a shitty rental, 80m2 that can be easily extended, for a sharp price would be very attractive. Maybe talk to some young couples trying to get a home rather than viewing it from your perspective.

              This is also about providing homes for people as the first objective. Investments is somewhat further down the priority list.

              • BM

                I think the big issue is still the land.

                Need to bring the cost of a section down to around 100k for a 500 m2

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  The big issue is still the National Party: even if they gave a shit they’d still be utterly clueless.

                  • BM

                    Why are you shitting all over this thread ?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Because I noticed that your observation that builders do very little but supervise directly contradicts your assertion that “training an apprentice takes one of your team out of the equation”, and therefore concluded that you are here to poison the well.

                      As usual.

                    • BM

                      Floor set up, truss and frames positioning, finishing work.

                      They still do a bit just no where near as much as they use to.

                      Organising and overseeing sub trades is a big part of the build these days.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  No, it’s not the land. Plenty of land available.

                  The problem is many fold but includes low density housing, high immigration, speculators foreign and domestic, and foreign ownership.

                  • srylands

                    Really? So why is urban land so expensive?

                    BTW .. Your idea of creating a Ministry of Works is a step backwards (waste, not a role for government). It will never happen, not even under Andrew Little.

                    How to build social housing?

                    1. Reduce urban land prices. Will require radical change to urban planning, and sacking Auckland Council and replacing it with Commissioners. Goal should be to reduce section price to no more than 1/3rd of average residential housing.

                    2. Buy kit sets from China

                    https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/China-modern-European-style-villa-prefab_60269943838.html?spm=a2700.7724857.0.0.akg0wL

                    3. Import 2,000 Chinese builders to build the houses.

                  • Chuck

                    “No, it’s not the land. Plenty of land available.”

                    Yes plenty of land, but outside the MUL. Its the elephant in the room and pretending its not there will not make it go away.

                    The Metropolitan Urban Limit is the number 1 problem …Auckland Council has stuffed up massively on the model they used to underpin the MUL.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Yes plenty of land, but outside the MUL.

                      Nope, 6 and half years inside it.

                      The elephant in the room is the landbankers and the incredibly more expensive sprawl that National MPs and other politicians think that we need when wht we really need and want is higher density – terraced housing, town houses, and medium to high rise apartment buildings in brown field development.

                      The Metropolitan Urban Limit is the number 1 problem

                      Nope, RWNJs who haven’t got a clue as to real economics are the number 1 problem.

                    • Chuck

                      I know you are not a Labour man Draco, and I rarely agree with Twyford but he is on the money here…

                      “The Auckland Council’s statement today shows they don’t understand the problems created by the urban growth boundary, says Labour’s housing spokesperson Phil Twyford.

                      “I have been the first to defend the Auckland City Council when Bill English has been blaming them for the housing crisis over the last few years, however reading their latest press release, maybe he has got a point.

                      “Their statement from an unnamed council bureaucrat shows they just don’t get it.

                      “The Auckland Council doesn’t understand the reality that having an urban growth boundary where land is cheaper on the outside and more expensive on the inside is a magnet for land bankers and speculators.

                      “And that periodically adding new land to a highly speculative land market just feeds that speculation.

                      “I am not surprised Council Chief Executive Stephen Town was too embarrassed to put his name to this nonsense,” says Phil Twyford. (interest.co.nz)

                • Graeme

                  Take it out of the equation all together and look a decent leasehold or shared ownership models. Land will always be finite to some degree, so our current speculative freehold system is going to spit out continual boom cycles.

                  It’s a fallacy to say you can always open up / release more land. We live on an island, sooner or later we do actually run out of usable land, or land that can be better used for something other than putting houses on. Auckland and Queenstown are probably quite close to this point now.

                  We also see some aspects of this social phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania in the market too. Their February will come, but a what cost to society.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Auckland and Queenstown are probably quite close to this point now.

                    Auckland is way past that point. It’s already too expensive to live on its outskirts.

            • srylands 5.4.1.1.1.2

              “If we don’t start building simpler houses a very large proportion of our population are going to have nowhere to live.”
              ___________

              I agree 100%. The problem is that developers have no incentive to develop innovative, high quality small houses. This is because section prices are nuts. people have never seen high quality small houses with no wasted space. If people need space for their camping gear and other crap they use once a year they can put it in a storage unit.

              So no the 100m2 box doesn’t cut it. But the alternatives should not be either a 400m2 McMansion or staying in a shitty drafty rental. But to change that model you first must reduce urban land prices – like by 50%. And both the Government and the Opposition are two scared to say that.

              • Graeme

                Pretty simple to fix that, de-incetivise the speculation on land. At present the tax, and social / peer system strongly incentivises gross speculation.

                Other option is lease or mixed ownership models for the land component.

              • Draco T Bastard

                The problem is that developers have no incentive to develop innovative, high quality small houses. This is because section prices are nuts.

                /facepalm

                You just managed to prove, quite conclusively, that the market doesn’t work because the developers obviously don’t know what people want and the high section prices should be encouraging developers to build high quality small houses and apartments close to the city centres.

              • framu

                ” The problem is that developers have no incentive to develop innovative, high quality small houses. This is because section prices are nuts.”

                your own ideology says that developers will max it out as much as possible

                having cheaper land will not in anyway get developers to make smaller, and thus lower price houses

          • Heather Grimwood 5.4.1.1.2

            To Graeme 5.4.1.1 I couldn’t agree more, especially with your final sentence.

            • Graeme 5.4.1.1.2.1

              Thanks Heather. Unfortunately for New Zealand BM, and the rest of the 101st keyboard brigade see a house not as something in which you abide, giving you physical shelter, but only as something to give you financial advancement beyond your peers.

      • s y d 5.4.2

        Graeme,
        my experience is actually that builders make their profits from the gain in capital value of the land they are building on.
        Locally in the Western BOP large group building companies will buy pretty much ALL the available sections before they are released to the general public. This land then sits until such time as they can get a contract in place. Land values are rising at approx $100k per annum, so if you sit on your section for 6-12 months there is your profit. They have to build the houses otherwise the developers won’t seel them sections in future.
        Small profit margins in building but big margins in land speculation

    • Sabine 5.5

      they could actually import some decent builders from France, Germany, Italy, the eastern european countries etc etc etc .

      All these countries have high standards re building industry, their builders actually have gone through a few years of apprentice ship, a few years as journey man and then a few years to go through a master training and exam before any of them would call themselves a master.

      You could use these guys then to set up with NZ builders a training program for young people all through a “masters” certificate to assure that this country has a few guys in the future that actually now how to build a house from scratch rather then just assemble concrete lego blogs imported from China or elsewhere.

      But we could also do nothing and explain that we can’t do anything cause profit for the few trumps the wellbeing for many.

      • Graeme 5.5.1

        Could also have simple, standardised designs that could be built by lower skilled people, with basic supervision. That’s how we used to build, and it’s really not that hard. There’s plenty of examples of kitset houses in New Zealand, Colonial and McRaeway down here from the 80’s are two examples.

        Our first home was a Colonial kitset, bought the package in 1988 for $21K and put on a section at Frankton that cost $26K, cost us about $6K to put it together ourselves. In a downturn mind, but shows what can be done.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.6

      So it is fine to say lets just get on and build, but the industry is currently running at 100% capacity. Where is the extra capacity going to come from?

      Amazing. A question about actual economics.

      Now, I’m not Labour but I suspect that if we started a new Ministry of Works, hired a few builders on PAYE (many are getting pissed off with the contract position that leaves them worse off) and trained up another few of the people presently on the UB we could probably do it. It would start off slow and ramp up over time.

      Of course, we would also have to secure the resources to do build but, as government, that’s not too hard.

      • s y d 5.6.1

        NZ Railways back in the 1920’s I think had a factory in Hamilton where they prefabricated workers hosuing and then transported all over NZ….been done before, nearly 100 years ago.

        But I suspect Nationals solution would be to import fully built up units directly from the Peoples Republic of China – I will leave you to imagine the quality, notwithstanding any ‘certification’ provided.

  6. johnm 6

    Terminate buy to rent out for Capital Gain with a 95% CGT backdated 15 years and tens of thousands of houses will be freed up and house prices will drop. Buying to rent out must be illegal it’s a greedy vice helping to destroy the social cohesion of NZ. Also state housing must be restored to its former place: Do up these houses don’t demolish them and rent them out to the homeless. One of these gave little Johnny key and his mummy key a good start in life.

    • johnm 6.1

      The house I bought in 92 which is my home for $92000.00. Had a GV of $88000.00. Now has a GV of $340000.00. If it were saleable just at 92thou still I’d be happy because I wanted a home not a capital gain bonanza.
      The same for all the housing market.
      Think of all the dosh going to Australian banks because of overpriced housing and think of the debt deflation of couples trying to pay these crazy prices off. Though on good salaries they have no disposable income left.

  7. Garibaldi 7

    To Jenny and Sabine…I am not a right winger, I am far more left than you. Imo the last good govt NZ had was Norm Kirk’s. 1984 destroyed what Labour stood for and it has never recovered. I support the Greens and Mana and would love to support Labour if it could stop being National lite.

    • Sabine 7.1

      who cares mate.

      You asked, i answered. Currently the government is run by National. labour has left teh house 8 years ago and they together with the Greens are the opposition. So i don’t see why you would talk about Labour if the current issue is the current government.

      Personally i believe that there will always be a shortage of truly affordable house. With seven billion people and counting on this planet i doubt we will ever build enough to house all.
      However, it does surely not help to point the finger at those that are not currently the problem, or even those that have put forwards plan to alleviate the current problem – both Labour and the Greens have come forward with comprehensive housing plans – while ignoring the elephant in the room – the National Party of NZ that is the current government which has done nothing over the last 8.5 years to do anything.

      So take your offense and have a cuppa.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

        Yeah, don’t think that response was the most diplomatic.

        And I actually picked Garibaldi as Left-wing from his first comment.

        • Leftie 7.1.1.1

          In your eyes did Sabine have to be diplomatic? I thought Sabine’s response was spot on. I thought Garibaldi is a right winger, one of those pretend lefties.

        • Sabine 7.1.1.2

          i actually don’t think that Housing is a left or right wing thing. Humans need houses.
          And after years of manure being flung by active fans on all of us i am done being polite with stirrers of manure.
          I want some action now. Those that support the can’t do anything camp cause house prices would drop and won’t no body think of those that have bought houses – move, those that support the can’t build cause we are out of resources and won’t nobody think that training resources costs money no one wants to spend – move, those that want to joke about how people bring it upon themselves with their silly notions of wanting a roof over their heads and a hot meal a day move.

          I have used up all diplomacy over the last 6 years and i am now officially out of fucks to give.

          • adam 7.1.1.2.1

            I agree Sabine we need to have alacrity on housing. But, self interest is a hell of a road block.

            This is why I think much of this discussion will keep going in circles, until we socialise land, and in particular housing.

            We take houses, and move them around, we no longer accept 2 people in a 14 bedroom mansion on the north shore. We move in families looking after 15 children. And the two people can have a nice two person place.

            We take homes which are empty and we move people in. We take homes which only have people in them part of the year, and occupy them full time.

            Housing is a right ,not a privilege, a need, not a want.

            Socialise housing Now.

            Anything else is just more neoliberal tinkering.

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.2.1.1

              adam – first step – all houses sold in NZ will be bought by the NZ government (a monopsony) at a price set by the NZ govt.

              These houses will either be held on to by the govt as social housing, or on sold back into the private sector at a fixed price, prioritising buyers who meet specific criteria.

              • adam

                Sheesh Colonial Viper, the state housing programme is flawed. It will not be respected by a change away from a left wing government so we will have the same problems.

                Why make monopolies when they seem to be a part of the problem as well.

                Simpler to communalise housing, and be done with it.

                I not suggesting people miss out on a house, I’m saying we move people in to homes which fit their needs, not their bank balance or some sense of entitlement.

                Also if these so called self made people have done so well before, they can do it again in a smaller house. We not stopping them from reaching their potential. Just stopping the waste of space in a finite universe for them to prove how well they have done, or who they accidently were born too.

                If it is about showing how much money you have made, or how good you are, we have the internet for that outlet, let them do it virtually.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Simpler to expropriate houses, and be done with it.

                  My edit, as that is what your suggestion appears to me like.

                  Well, good luck with that. Because I don’t see any one accepting the government taking their family’s homes and their children’s homes.

                  • adam

                    Start with empty homes first.

                    Who’s family home, the family in a empty house. Or the house with 14 rooms and one person living there.

                    I’m lost how is that a family home? Are you saying people should live in cars so people can have sentimental attachments?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      I’m not much of a capitalist, but once the government starts taking houses away from people, you will have full scale capital and labour strikes on your door step within weeks.

                      Re: empty houses, you can have a programme to force their sale to the government, but you will have to compensate owners at market or near market rates. Or again, you will have massive action against the government very quickly.

                      Are you saying people should live in cars so people can have sentimental attachments?

                      Tell me how you intend to provide the needs of one group by screwing over another group?

                      There is low cost housing throughout all the regions; moving to expropriation of peoples houses as your first call is going a bit far IMO

                    • adam

                      Moving people to the regions, with no family support and social services, who is being extreme?

                      I’m not trying to as you crudely put it “screw” anyone. My aim is simple get people in homes. Empty house are empty houses, who going to led this strike you talk of, when they are not even in the country. My guess landlords will quickly fill up their houses at any price – a step in the right direction for people who need them.

                      And anyway, If the neoliberal revolution has taught us anything – no one is going to lift a finger. No one has for nearly 40 years. Who going to bemoan people getting a home in a empty house.

                      I’m just saying it reasonable to have people homed, as a right not a privilege. And we start with empty the houses. Which I’m sure we can prove. Then if people are stupid enough to not sell their houses to people who need them at this point, then a little expropriation as you say, will go a long to encourage people to change their attitudes.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Moving people to the regions, with no family support and social services, who is being extreme?

                      Think man, think.

                      I will bet you that at least 1 in 4 Kiwis who live in Auckland today are from the regions and would be more than happy to move back to the regions – where their families and roots are.

                      As for not having social services in the regions, that’s something which should be reversed, yeah?

                    • adam

                      I agree if it is back with support. And people want to. Me I’m from the regions but, I prefer Auckland.

                      As for the social services decline, can it be reverse? The last time I was on The Coast it looked like the set of a horror movie. So many towns either dead or at the point of dying. Speaking of empty houses…

                      If we, as Bill says, pull up the restraints and let people operate in the gaps – then I think we can get a revival. Centralisation does no one any real favours.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Simpler to communalise housing, and be done with it.

                  And what else would you call state housing?

            • BM 7.1.1.2.1.2

              What a ridiculous comment.

              No government is going to socialise anything.

              • adam

                True Bm, none of the parties in parliament at the moment are committed to socialism, as you have rightly pointed out. That said, this is a page dedicated to the interest of working people – Socialising houses would be for the benefit of working people. I think it is well deserved to be talked about.

                And socialised housing, seems to be the only option left on the table. Have a look around no one is saying or doing bugger all. It really is a lot of hot air.

                So time to socialise housing and be done with this pointless circular debate you all seem to be having.

            • srylands 7.1.1.2.1.3

              “Socialise housing Now.

              Anything else is just more neoliberal tinkering.”
              ____

              That last statement is quite a stretch.

              Could you point to any countries in the world that have successfully adopted 100% socialised housing? i.e private ownership of housing is prohibited? By ‘successfully adopted’ I mean where the government has expropriated everyone’s property, and redistributed the housing, and where the society in question is relatively happy and prosperous?

              • adam

                Show me a state where by private ownership has produced a society which is now relatively happy and prosperous, without homelessness. I think the burden is on you as you. Seeing as you have had quite a while to get this right, and have not. I mean almost four centuries, and we still have a society here with homelessness, people dispossessed, and wealth garnered at the expense of others.

  8. Garibaldi 8

    Sabine I am not offended. I just want to see the left be the left and get unified. The days of the ‘ third way ‘ are over.

    • Leftie 8.1

      Sabine already pointed that out. Didn’t you read Sabine’s post properly, Garibaldi?

      • Sabine 8.1.1

        To concerned about his left credentials to read.

        • Leftie 8.1.1.1

          That’s what I thought.

          • In Vino 8.1.1.1.1

            Well, I think Draco TB was right, and that it is Sabine and Lefty who need to read a little more perceptively before rushing into hostile polemic.

            • Leftie 8.1.1.1.1.1

              Well, I for one, disagree with you In Vino.

              • In Vino

                Well, maybe we both have a slight penchant for adopting a minority opinion?… I generally agree with both you and Sabine.

            • Sabine 8.1.1.1.1.2

              Vino, just in case any more people get their kinckers in a twist due to me not being lady like enough,,,

              this is the comment and my response.
              You will see i did nothing else but turn it around and insert national where there was labour and i did remind the poster that we are having a current National led government. I did not refer to the leftness of Garibalidi and i think I was even polite. (i did not insert and fukcity fucks at all~)

              Garibaldi 3.0
              A question for all you Helen Clark labourites – will Little do something massive to alleviate the appalling situation facing those who cannot afford to buy a house or will he buckle to pressure and do nothing (like Helen)?

              Reply
              Sabine 3.1
              25 July 2016 at 9:12 am
              a question to all of you John Key nationalistas – do you think John Key could do even less then he has over the last 8.5 years to alleviate the appalling istuation facing those who cannot afford to buy a house or will he buckle to ‘pressure’ (cackle) and do nothing (like Jenny Shipley and/or himself?)

              so frankly everyone take your concerns they are noted and i still have found no extra fucks to give.

              • In Vino

                The point is that even Draco The Bastard perceived that you were wrong to accuse him of being a Nationalista. You don’t have to give lots of fuckity-fucks. Just calm down, and look a little more before you leap.
                (Sorry about the ‘even’, DTB)

                • Sabine

                  i did not accuse him, i only took his comment and turned it around to reflect the current politics and the party who runs them.

                  Nowhere did I say that he/she is a nationalista. As I said, maybe its better to wear no knickers, so they don’t get twisted that easily.

                  Also it is obviously ok for him’/her to offend ‘Helen Clark Labourites” which i am not. I am good old fashioned german SPD. Something that Laobur is not, but still labour is better then National. So there…..

                  • In Vino

                    You may not have intended to accuse him, but your words were “all of you John Key Nationalistas”. You were only mimicking his words, but your mimic makes it sound very like you are accusing him of being just that. We sometimes write quickly without foreseeing all implications.

                    Never mind – I think we are all basically on the same side.

                    As for knickers – I agree we could do without them. But another metaphor is ‘tits in a tangle’. I don’t think we can do without tits.

                    But I don’t want to start a debate about sexist metaphors – there are far too many of them.

                    Lebe wohl. SPD hat Ehre, meiner Meinung nach.

                    • Sabine

                      knickers in a twist is a term that can be used irrespective of gender considering that we all wear them on any given day.

                      so take your concern about

                      sexist metaphors, this is what the english dictionary says

                      Meaning of “get your knickers in a twist” in the English Dictionary

                      British
                      “get your knickers in a twist” in British English

                      See all translations
                      get your knickers in a twist
                      uk informal humorous

                      to become confused, worried, or annoyed about something

                      So again, leave it. Just fucking leave it.

                    • In Vino

                      The first paragraph was what mattered. I am not bothered about knickers, metaphors.

                    • In Vino

                      To make it clear for you, my point was that you did unintentionally accuse Garibaldi of being a Nationalista.

                      I should not have mentioned knickers, etc. You are using it as a diversion.

  9. Leftie 9

    Who could build social housing?

    A Lab/Green coalition government can and will do it, they already have the big plans.

    • Chuck 9.1

      Great, so come 2023 a Lab/Green coalition might be able to dust off their big plans.

      • Leftie 9.1.1

        As usual, you are not being remotely realistic Chuck. Time you got off planet key, isn’t it?

      • Sabine 9.1.2

        Chances are that by then even you would rather live in a house build by the Labour Creen Coalition than trying to buy one of the National Party Affordable Ghost houses.

      • Chris 9.1.3

        What makes you think Labour will want to do anything they say they’ll do for the poor when their track record since 1991 suggests the opposite is more likely?

  10. NZJester 10

    I have watched programs on TV that show simple design houses are easily able to be put up on site in a day or two if you streamline the process from start to finish.
    What is needed is a production line for houses like those kit set houses overseas where the majority of the build including paint and wiring is done offsite in a factory and the finished product is well insulated and ready to move into the very next day after construction.
    A model A style house produced on a production line would cut costs enormously and speed up the building process. One thing that holds up a lot of houses is the workers having to sit around at certain stages of the build while their work is inspected and signed off or for another tradesman like a plumber or electrician to complete their work before they can move onto the next part of the construction or they are unable to work due to bad weather. If a large percentage of the work is done indoors before the house is shipped to the site, a lot of delays can be prevented.

  11. whispering kate 11

    I agree with BM, the cost of land is way too expensive for what you get. Why would any developer who has bought and developed the site want to build economic homes which is what we badly need and lots and lots of them, it wouldn’t pay for them to do so. Why is the land so expensive, what is so special about Auckland that has brought about this rorting of land prices. The Council is smiling all the way to the bank with rate increases on the land values and everybody seems to be clipping the ticket on the way to the buying and building on the land. Its no wonder we have these 5 bedroom, 4 bathroom mansions.

    I have a close relative who lives in the US, they are a 20 minute walk from down town Baltimore in a lovely suburb the equivalent of Herne or St. Mary’s Bay. They have bought a beautiful home which is made with quality hard timber, fixtures and fittings are expensive, not the junk we get in our new homes, no plasterboard walls in their place. No kitset kitchen installed either. All high end stuff. They paid $465,000 US or thereabouts and they even have parking for a car if need be. It makes no sense that we have such high prices for land and homes here.

    We may be a desirable country to live in and so we are inundated with new immigrants buying our housing stock but it doesn’t make sense that we need 10 times our incomes to buy a home here. Would a burst bubble bring down the price of land, I don’t think so, I think the land would still remain far too expensive for what is offered and our homes are too expensive as well as well, most of our high end cost homes still have inferior building materials in them and fixtures and fittings. Its only mega wealthy homes which import lovely stuff from overseas for their homes because they cannot be got here. We are being suckered in this country.

  12. Sabine 12

    Fact is, that we need to do so much more then just build houses.

    We need to bring people back to the regions. As CV aptly stated above there would be quite a few people in AKL that would love to move to the country side but can’t for lack of job or only one parent could find a job which might not be enough, or they have a child with special needs and and and.

    So essentially what needs to be done is to rethink our whole idea of living and working.

    Business Migrants should be able to come to NZ with their business Investment and they should be allowed to settle anywhere but AKL, WLGTN, CHCH, Tauranga etc. IF they want to open a business that can only function in the Centres they can do that in their homecountries centres.
    The governement can provide grants to businesses to settle elsewhere, why does a call centre needs to sit down town akl, why not whangarai, morrinsville or invercargill?

    We need to get rail into this country, fast, efficient and on time (Jawohl!) so that people that would not mind a train commute could live a bit further out of town and still have work.

    And then we need to take time and look at what we build vs what we need.
    Do we need stupid 150 sqm houses with 5 bdrm and 4.5 toilets? Really do they think all these people gonna have diarriah at the same time? Heck there are many countries on this planets where healthy families live in 80 sqm and raise their children easily. Mind these houses/appartments have noise insulation, standard insulation to protect from heat/cold, have cellar spaces for bicycles/skis/brick a brack, they often have an attic space to do hang their laundry, however non will have a guaranteed parking space.

    There is so much that could be done with the correct heart and mind in place. Alas our current overlords at the National Party led Parliament don’t see it so, they rather protect the interests of the very few while the many can rot in a ditch, a garage, a room for a family, a car, a van or die in a carton press or in a shrub at beach.

    blue pill, red pill the choice is our, even if it is not really, cause at the end of the day we all need shelter from the elements to be save, sane and live a healthy happy life.

  13. Rodel 13

    ‘social housing’? ‘affordable housing’? All housing is social even if it aint affordable.
    Call a spade spade. Call it state housing and be proud of it.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago