http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were
built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014 respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on
people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a
crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them
out for a party that will build houses!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were
built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014 respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on
people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a
crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them
out for a party that will build houses!
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:slowed down under the current mob.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702 >>
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of
requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were
built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014
respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building
consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on
people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise
private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a
crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them
out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least it
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702 >>
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of
requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were
built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014
respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building
consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on
people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise
private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a
crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them
out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure: >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least it slowed down under the current mob.
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 13:11:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:shit. Leaving aside where Armstrong has given his support in the past,
On Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of
requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were
built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014
respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building
consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on
people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise
private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a
crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them
out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least it slowed down under the current mob.
Actually it started earlier than the Labour-led governments, but it is
also true that there was still a problem in 2008 when a National-led
government was elected.
See John Key on the subject here:
http://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/53038
Home ownership
We also want to ensure that every young New Zealander who works hard
and is disciplined about saving can expect to own their own home and
thereby have a real stake in the economic future of this country.
Today, I want to talk in some depth about the declining rates of home
ownership in New Zealand.
. . . . . .
It wasnt so long ago, in the 1990s, in fact, that New Zealand had a
high level of home ownership compared to other countries. Not so
anymore. We now have what has been described as the second worst
housing affordability problem in the world.
Make no mistake; this problem has got worse in recent years. Home
ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just
62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding
five years had been stable at 67.4%.
If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying
facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40 dropped
significantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people the people we
most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain are really
struggling to get onto the property ladder.
This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends,
the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to
plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest factors
influencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the
difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home.
This problem wont be solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And it
wont be curbed with one or two government-sponsored building
developments.
Instead, we need government leadership that is prepared to focus on
the fundamental issues driving the crisis.
. . . . .
The second and most important reason for the home affordability crisis
is one of supply. It explains why houses have become so unaffordable
for so many people. Quite simply, not enough new houses are being
built in New Zealand. This is a recent phenomenon. In many parts of
the country, increases in demand for housing are now outstripping
supply.
That imbalance is vividly illustrated in Auckland. In the five years
to 2006, the supply of housing stock has failed to keep up with
population growth. Again to put that into context, over the 15 years
to 2006 the housing stock grew at a faster rate than population. So
the supply problem is a recent one.
. . . . .
Central and local government should always be aware of environmental
and community concerns regarding new housing developments. But if we
are serious about dealing with the housing affordability crisis, if we
are serious about protecting the Kiwi Dream of home ownership, then we
need to get a better balance between those concerns and their eventual
impact on home affordability. To not do so is to ignore a fundamental
long-term driver of the housing affordability crisis.
Nationals infrastructure plan will go hand in hand with our efforts
to confront the housing affordability crisis. We will free up more
land to build on while ensuring new developments are served by the
infrastructure they need.
Conclusion
Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We
are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The
crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to
get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It threatens
a fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and,
ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal
with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis. Not
just with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to an
issue that has long-term implications for New Zealands economy and
society.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our
commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to buy
their own home.
Its a worthy goal and one I hope you will support us in achieving.
Thank-you.
and again here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455931
But I want to assure our young people that they needn't despair. A
National Government will actively preserve and promote the
home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. We are a party
founded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver on
that principle.
. . . . .
. . . National has a concrete plan for making housing more
affordable. It has four parts to it:
Ensuring people are in a better financial position to afford a house.
Freeing up the supply of land.
Dealing with the compliance issues that drive up building costs, and
Allowing state house tenants to buy the houses they live in.
I want to talk about these points in a little more detail.
No 1. We will make sure people can better afford to purchase and pay
their mortgage on a home. We will lower personal income taxes, which
will ease the burden of mortgage repayments, and will also help people
who are saving for a house deposit.
We will also keep interest rates down by growing the productivity of
the New Zealand economy. That will make a huge difference to people's
ability to service a mortgage.
No 2. We will take the legislative actions required to ensure there is
an increased supply of suitable land available to build houses on.
Difficulties with the Resource Management Act, and disagreements
between various arms of local government, too often slow the release
of land. This drives up its price and the cost of its development.
Any changes we make to streamline and speed up the process of zoning
or land release will require developers to build on that land within a
reasonable timeframe. This will prevent the land-banking that is
currently choking off the supply of land.
No 3. A high legislative priority for National will be amending the
Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality
through greater commercial accountability.""
____________
So it was a crisis then, but that was before they were elected. Now
its worse - so what happened to the recognition of a crisis, and the
promised actions? Why have National failed?
Well here's one view, from a long time National supporter:
The Governments handling of housng crisis lurches from chaotic to
shambolic
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-governments-handling-housing-crisis-lurches-chaotic-shambolic
Read and weep for lost oportunities, broken promises and incompetence
John Armstrong is not a "long time National supporter", you lying little shit. So you disagree with my opinion - but perhaps you are the lying little
On Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>slowed down under the current mob.
wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of
requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were
built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014
respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building
consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on
people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise
private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a
crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them
out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure: >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least it
Actually it started earlier than the Labour-led governments, but it is
also true that there was still a problem in 2008 when a National-led government was elected.
See John Key on the subject here:
http://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/53038
Home ownership
We also want to ensure that every young New Zealander who works hard
and is disciplined about saving can expect to own their own home and
thereby have a real stake in the economic future of this country.
Today, I want to talk in some depth about the declining rates of home ownership in New Zealand.
. . . . . .
It wasn’t so long ago, in the 1990s, in fact, that New Zealand had a
high level of home ownership compared to other countries. Not so
anymore. We now have what has been described as the second worst
housing affordability problem in the world.
Make no mistake; this problem has got worse in recent years. Home
ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just
62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding
five years had been stable at 67.4%.
If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying
facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40 dropped significantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people – the people we
most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain – are really struggling to get onto the property ladder.
This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends,
the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to
plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest factors influencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home.
This problem won’t be solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And it
won’t be curbed with one or two government-sponsored building
developments.
Instead, we need government leadership that is prepared to focus on
the fundamental issues driving the crisis.
. . . . .
The second and most important reason for the home affordability crisis
is one of supply. It explains why houses have become so unaffordable
for so many people. Quite simply, not enough new houses are being
built in New Zealand. This is a recent phenomenon. In many parts of
the country, increases in demand for housing are now outstripping
supply.
That imbalance is vividly illustrated in Auckland. In the five years
to 2006, the supply of housing stock has failed to keep up with
population growth. Again to put that into context, over the 15 years
to 2006 the housing stock grew at a faster rate than population. So
the supply problem is a recent one.
. . . . .
Central and local government should always be aware of environmental
and community concerns regarding new housing developments. But if we
are serious about dealing with the housing affordability crisis, if we
are serious about protecting the Kiwi Dream of home ownership, then we
need to get a better balance between those concerns and their eventual
impact on home affordability. To not do so is to ignore a fundamental long-term driver of the housing affordability crisis.
…
National’s infrastructure plan will go hand in hand with our efforts
to confront the housing affordability crisis. We will free up more
land to build on while ensuring new developments are served by the infrastructure they need.
Conclusion
Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We
are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The
crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to
get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It threatens
a fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and, ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal
with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis. Not
just with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to an
issue that has long-term implications for New Zealand’s economy and society.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our
commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to buy
their own home.
It’s a worthy goal and one I hope you will support us in achieving. Thank-you.
and again here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455931
But I want to assure our young people that they needn't despair. A
National Government will actively preserve and promote the
home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. We are a party
founded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver on
that principle.
. . . . .
. . . National has a concrete plan for making housing more
affordable. It has four parts to it:
Ensuring people are in a better financial position to afford a house.
Freeing up the supply of land.
Dealing with the compliance issues that drive up building costs, and
Allowing state house tenants to buy the houses they live in.
I want to talk about these points in a little more detail.
No 1. We will make sure people can better afford to purchase and pay
their mortgage on a home. We will lower personal income taxes, which
will ease the burden of mortgage repayments, and will also help people
who are saving for a house deposit.
We will also keep interest rates down by growing the productivity of
the New Zealand economy. That will make a huge difference to people's
ability to service a mortgage.
No 2. We will take the legislative actions required to ensure there is
an increased supply of suitable land available to build houses on. Difficulties with the Resource Management Act, and disagreements
between various arms of local government, too often slow the release
of land. This drives up its price and the cost of its development.
Any changes we make to streamline and speed up the process of zoning
or land release will require developers to build on that land within a reasonable timeframe. This will prevent the land-banking that is
currently choking off the supply of land.
No 3. A high legislative priority for National will be amending the
Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality
through greater commercial accountability.""
____________
So it was a crisis then, but that was before they were elected. Now
its worse - so what happened to the recognition of a crisis, and the
promised actions? Why have National failed?
Well here's one view, from a long time National supporter:
The Governments handling of housíng crisis lurches from chaotic to
shambolic https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-governments-handling-housing-crisis-lurches-chaotic-shambolic
Read and weep for lost oportunities, broken promises and incompetence
On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:57 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>slowed down under the current mob.
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 13:11:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an >> >> expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director >> >> and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and >> >> she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of
requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were >> >> built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014
respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building >> >> consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate >> >> far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are >> >> below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on
people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these >> >> good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise >> >> private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a >> >> crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them >> >> out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least it
shit.
Actually it started earlier than the Labour-led governments, but it is
also true that there was still a problem in 2008 when a National-led
government was elected.
See John Key on the subject here:
http://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/53038
Home ownership
We also want to ensure that every young New Zealander who works hard
and is disciplined about saving can expect to own their own home and
thereby have a real stake in the economic future of this country.
Today, I want to talk in some depth about the declining rates of home
ownership in New Zealand.
. . . . . .
It wasn’t so long ago, in the 1990s, in fact, that New Zealand had a
high level of home ownership compared to other countries. Not so
anymore. We now have what has been described as the second worst
housing affordability problem in the world.
Make no mistake; this problem has got worse in recent years. Home
ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just
62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding
five years had been stable at 67.4%.
If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying
facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40 dropped
significantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people – the people we
most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain – are really
struggling to get onto the property ladder.
This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends,
the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to
plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest factors
influencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the
difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home.
This problem won’t be solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And it
won’t be curbed with one or two government-sponsored building
developments.
Instead, we need government leadership that is prepared to focus on
the fundamental issues driving the crisis.
. . . . .
The second and most important reason for the home affordability crisis
is one of supply. It explains why houses have become so unaffordable
for so many people. Quite simply, not enough new houses are being
built in New Zealand. This is a recent phenomenon. In many parts of
the country, increases in demand for housing are now outstripping
supply.
That imbalance is vividly illustrated in Auckland. In the five years
to 2006, the supply of housing stock has failed to keep up with
population growth. Again to put that into context, over the 15 years
to 2006 the housing stock grew at a faster rate than population. So
the supply problem is a recent one.
. . . . .
Central and local government should always be aware of environmental
and community concerns regarding new housing developments. But if we
are serious about dealing with the housing affordability crisis, if we
are serious about protecting the Kiwi Dream of home ownership, then we
need to get a better balance between those concerns and their eventual
impact on home affordability. To not do so is to ignore a fundamental
long-term driver of the housing affordability crisis.
…
National’s infrastructure plan will go hand in hand with our efforts
to confront the housing affordability crisis. We will free up more
land to build on while ensuring new developments are served by the
infrastructure they need.
Conclusion
Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We
are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The
crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to
get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It threatens
a fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and,
ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal
with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis. Not
just with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to an
issue that has long-term implications for New Zealand’s economy and
society.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our
commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to buy
their own home.
It’s a worthy goal and one I hope you will support us in achieving.
Thank-you.
and again here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455931
But I want to assure our young people that they needn't despair. A
National Government will actively preserve and promote the
home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. We are a party
founded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver on
that principle.
. . . . .
. . . National has a concrete plan for making housing more
affordable. It has four parts to it:
Ensuring people are in a better financial position to afford a house.
Freeing up the supply of land.
Dealing with the compliance issues that drive up building costs, and
Allowing state house tenants to buy the houses they live in.
I want to talk about these points in a little more detail.
No 1. We will make sure people can better afford to purchase and pay
their mortgage on a home. We will lower personal income taxes, which
will ease the burden of mortgage repayments, and will also help people
who are saving for a house deposit.
We will also keep interest rates down by growing the productivity of
the New Zealand economy. That will make a huge difference to people's
ability to service a mortgage.
No 2. We will take the legislative actions required to ensure there is
an increased supply of suitable land available to build houses on.
Difficulties with the Resource Management Act, and disagreements
between various arms of local government, too often slow the release
of land. This drives up its price and the cost of its development.
Any changes we make to streamline and speed up the process of zoning
or land release will require developers to build on that land within a
reasonable timeframe. This will prevent the land-banking that is
currently choking off the supply of land.
No 3. A high legislative priority for National will be amending the
Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality
through greater commercial accountability.""
____________
So it was a crisis then, but that was before they were elected. Now
its worse - so what happened to the recognition of a crisis, and the
promised actions? Why have National failed?
Well here's one view, from a long time National supporter:
The Governments handling of housíng crisis lurches from chaotic to
shambolic
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-governments-handling-housing-crisis-lurches-chaotic-shambolic
Read and weep for lost oportunities, broken promises and incompetence
John Armstrong is not a "long time National supporter", you lying little
So you disagree with my opinion
- but perhaps you are the lying little
shit. Leaving aside where Armstrong has given his support in the past,
do you disagree with anything he says?
And here is another article for you -it covers a little more than just
the housing crisis NAtional forgot about: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-05-2017/what-does-the-law-say-about-alfred-ngaros-dumbass-threats/#.WRi9a58ZK20.facebook
Given the speeches at the National Party’s Auckland regional
conference, New Zealand’s housing situation/challenge/imbroglio/anything-but-a-crisis appears to be the
number one problem on the Government’s radar this election year.
That’s probably not so surprising. Stories about people living in cars
not just in Auckland but in our provinces, too, do not reflect the New Zealand we fondly like to imagine we inhabit. And then there’s the
rage of the renters-for-life who find the promise of clambering up the property ladder no longer applies to them.
With nine years in power behind them, these housing matters really are National’s problem (no matter how much Nick Smith might try to spin
the line that “it was worse under Labour”). With the benefit of hindsight, they allowed the issue to fester until it burst out over
the media in ways they can no longer control. In part, that’s because housing probably is something that National is ideologically and tempermentally unsuited to dealing with. After all, the market knows
best how to deal with issues of supply and demand; while individuals
make their own life choices that then are reflected in their material circumstances. Right?
Not that National has been totally laissez faire on the issue; indeed,
every second week seems to bring a new announcement of action.
However, housing issues are like a fully laden supertanker; once they
get moving, it takes a lot of time to alter course. While the captain
may assure you he’s turning just as fast as he can, if you’re bobbing about in his path you aren’t going to be overly happy with the state
of affairs.
So it’s quite understandable why National is both annoyed that it
isn’t getting the respect and credit it thinks it deserves on the
housing front and anxious that the perception it isn’t doing enough
may cost it come September. ". . . . .
:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 14:19:22 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:slowed down under the current mob.
On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:57 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 13:11:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an >> >> >> expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director >> >> >> and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed >> >> >> based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and >> >> >> she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of
requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were >> >> >> built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014
respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of >> >> >> houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building >> >> >> consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential >> >> >> numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate >> >> >> far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland, >> >> >> she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the >> >> >> year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are >> >> >> below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy >> >> >> notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on
people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these >> >> >> good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise >> >> >> private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a >> >> >> crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from >> >> >> the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them >> >> >> out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least it
How does that differ from our statement that he isn't? Its just yourSo you disagree with my opinion
Actually it started earlier than the Labour-led governments, but it is
also true that there was still a problem in 2008 when a National-led
government was elected.
See John Key on the subject here:
http://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/53038
Home ownership
We also want to ensure that every young New Zealander who works hard
and is disciplined about saving can expect to own their own home and
thereby have a real stake in the economic future of this country.
Today, I want to talk in some depth about the declining rates of home
ownership in New Zealand.
. . . . . .
It wasnt so long ago, in the 1990s, in fact, that New Zealand had a
high level of home ownership compared to other countries. Not so
anymore. We now have what has been described as the second worst
housing affordability problem in the world.
Make no mistake; this problem has got worse in recent years. Home
ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just
62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding
five years had been stable at 67.4%.
If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying
facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40 dropped
significantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people the people we
most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain are really
struggling to get onto the property ladder.
This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends,
the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to
plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest factors
influencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the
difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home.
This problem wont be solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And it
wont be curbed with one or two government-sponsored building
developments.
Instead, we need government leadership that is prepared to focus on
the fundamental issues driving the crisis.
. . . . .
The second and most important reason for the home affordability crisis
is one of supply. It explains why houses have become so unaffordable
for so many people. Quite simply, not enough new houses are being
built in New Zealand. This is a recent phenomenon. In many parts of
the country, increases in demand for housing are now outstripping
supply.
That imbalance is vividly illustrated in Auckland. In the five years
to 2006, the supply of housing stock has failed to keep up with
population growth. Again to put that into context, over the 15 years
to 2006 the housing stock grew at a faster rate than population. So
the supply problem is a recent one.
. . . . .
Central and local government should always be aware of environmental
and community concerns regarding new housing developments. But if we
are serious about dealing with the housing affordability crisis, if we
are serious about protecting the Kiwi Dream of home ownership, then we
need to get a better balance between those concerns and their eventual
impact on home affordability. To not do so is to ignore a fundamental
long-term driver of the housing affordability crisis.
Nationals infrastructure plan will go hand in hand with our efforts
to confront the housing affordability crisis. We will free up more
land to build on while ensuring new developments are served by the
infrastructure they need.
Conclusion
Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We
are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The
crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to
get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It threatens
a fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and,
ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal
with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis. Not
just with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to an
issue that has long-term implications for New Zealands economy and
society.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our
commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to buy
their own home.
Its a worthy goal and one I hope you will support us in achieving.
Thank-you.
and again here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455931
But I want to assure our young people that they needn't despair. A
National Government will actively preserve and promote the
home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. We are a party
founded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver on
that principle.
. . . . .
. . . National has a concrete plan for making housing more
affordable. It has four parts to it:
Ensuring people are in a better financial position to afford a house.
Freeing up the supply of land.
Dealing with the compliance issues that drive up building costs, and
Allowing state house tenants to buy the houses they live in.
I want to talk about these points in a little more detail.
No 1. We will make sure people can better afford to purchase and pay
their mortgage on a home. We will lower personal income taxes, which
will ease the burden of mortgage repayments, and will also help people
who are saving for a house deposit.
We will also keep interest rates down by growing the productivity of
the New Zealand economy. That will make a huge difference to people's
ability to service a mortgage.
No 2. We will take the legislative actions required to ensure there is
an increased supply of suitable land available to build houses on.
Difficulties with the Resource Management Act, and disagreements
between various arms of local government, too often slow the release
of land. This drives up its price and the cost of its development.
Any changes we make to streamline and speed up the process of zoning
or land release will require developers to build on that land within a
reasonable timeframe. This will prevent the land-banking that is
currently choking off the supply of land.
No 3. A high legislative priority for National will be amending the
Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality
through greater commercial accountability.""
____________
So it was a crisis then, but that was before they were elected. Now
its worse - so what happened to the recognition of a crisis, and the
promised actions? Why have National failed?
Well here's one view, from a long time National supporter:
The Governments handling of housng crisis lurches from chaotic to
shambolic
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-governments-handling-housing-crisis-lurches-chaotic-shambolic
Read and weep for lost oportunities, broken promises and incompetence
John Armstrong is not a "long time National supporter", you lying little shit.
you stated it as fact, not opinion.
You hadn't said so, and still haven't. Perhaps you are just unable to articulate where you think he may be wrong - or you are embarrassed to- but perhaps you are the lying little
shit. Leaving aside where Armstrong has given his support in the past,
do you disagree with anything he says?
Of course I disagree with some things he says. What a stupid question.
And here is another article for you -it covers a little more than just
the housing crisis National forgot about:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-05-2017/what-does-the-law-say-about-alfred-ngaros-dumbass-threats/#.WRi9a58ZK20.facebook
"were ever to actually do what he threatened".
Given the speeches at the National Partys Auckland regional
conference, New Zealands housing
situation/challenge/imbroglio/anything-but-a-crisis appears to be the
number one problem on the Governments radar this election year.
Thats probably not so surprising. Stories about people living in cars
not just in Auckland but in our provinces, too, do not reflect the New
Zealand we fondly like to imagine we inhabit. And then theres the
rage of the renters-for-life who find the promise of clambering up the
property ladder no longer applies to them.
With nine years in power behind them, these housing matters really are
Nationals problem (no matter how much Nick Smith might try to spin
the line that it was worse under Labour). With the benefit of
hindsight, they allowed the issue to fester until it burst out over
the media in ways they can no longer control. In part, thats because
housing probably is something that National is ideologically and
tempermentally unsuited to dealing with. After all, the market knows
best how to deal with issues of supply and demand; while individuals
make their own life choices that then are reflected in their material
circumstances. Right?
Not that National has been totally laissez faire on the issue; indeed,
every second week seems to bring a new announcement of action.
However, housing issues are like a fully laden supertanker; once they
get moving, it takes a lot of time to alter course. While the captain
may assure you hes turning just as fast as he can, if youre bobbing
about in his path you arent going to be overly happy with the state
of affairs.
So its quite understandable why National is both annoyed that it
isnt getting the respect and credit it thinks it deserves on the
housing front and anxious that the perception it isnt doing enough
may cost it come September. ". . . . .
:
With Labour unable to avoid a polling percentage that starts with a "2" that seems unlikely.
On Wed, 17 May 2017 19:37:39 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>an
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 14:19:22 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:57 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 13:11:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely >> >> >> half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years,
directorexpert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust
andand former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said >> >> >> the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed >> >> >> based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council
wereshe said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of >> >> >> requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses
buildingbuilt and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014
respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of >> >> >> houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's
rateconsents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential >> >> >> numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses >> >> >> now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016, >> >> >> only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more >> >> >> than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building
arefar greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter >> >> >> century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland, >> >> >> she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the >> >> >> year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the >> >> >> year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built
thesebelow consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!) >> >> >> 2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge >> >> >> the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy >> >> >> notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on >> >> >> people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be >> >> >> owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep
"incentivisegood tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to
aprivate landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone
themcrisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from >> >> >> the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot
it slowed down under the current mob.out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least
shit.John Armstrong is not a "long time National supporter", you lying little
Actually it started earlier than the Labour-led governments, but it is >> >> also true that there was still a problem in 2008 when a National-led
government was elected.
See John Key on the subject here:
http://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/53038
Home ownership
We also want to ensure that every young New Zealander who works hard
and is disciplined about saving can expect to own their own home and
thereby have a real stake in the economic future of this country.
Today, I want to talk in some depth about the declining rates of home >> >> ownership in New Zealand.
. . . . . .
It wasn’t so long ago, in the 1990s, in fact, that New Zealand had a >> >> high level of home ownership compared to other countries. Not so
anymore. We now have what has been described as the second worst
housing affordability problem in the world.
Make no mistake; this problem has got worse in recent years. Home
ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just
62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding
five years had been stable at 67.4%.
If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying
facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40 dropped >> >> significantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people – the people we
most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain – are really >> >> struggling to get onto the property ladder.
This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends,
the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to
plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest factors >> >> influencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the
difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home.
This problem won’t be solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And it >> >> won’t be curbed with one or two government-sponsored building
developments.
Instead, we need government leadership that is prepared to focus on
the fundamental issues driving the crisis.
. . . . .
The second and most important reason for the home affordability crisis >> >> is one of supply. It explains why houses have become so unaffordable >> >> for so many people. Quite simply, not enough new houses are being
built in New Zealand. This is a recent phenomenon. In many parts of
the country, increases in demand for housing are now outstripping
supply.
That imbalance is vividly illustrated in Auckland. In the five years >> >> to 2006, the supply of housing stock has failed to keep up with
population growth. Again to put that into context, over the 15 years >> >> to 2006 the housing stock grew at a faster rate than population. So >> >> the supply problem is a recent one.
. . . . .
Central and local government should always be aware of environmental
and community concerns regarding new housing developments. But if we
are serious about dealing with the housing affordability crisis, if we >> >> are serious about protecting the Kiwi Dream of home ownership, then we >> >> need to get a better balance between those concerns and their eventual >> >> impact on home affordability. To not do so is to ignore a fundamental >> >> long-term driver of the housing affordability crisis.
…
National’s infrastructure plan will go hand in hand with our efforts >> >> to confront the housing affordability crisis. We will free up more
land to build on while ensuring new developments are served by the
infrastructure they need.
Conclusion
Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We
are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The
crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to
get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It threatens >> >> a fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and,
ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal
with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis. Not >> >> just with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to an >> >> issue that has long-term implications for New Zealand’s economy and >> >> society.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our
commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to buy >> >> their own home.
It’s a worthy goal and one I hope you will support us in achieving. >> >> Thank-you.
and again here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455931 >> >>
But I want to assure our young people that they needn't despair. A
National Government will actively preserve and promote the
home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. We are a party >> >> founded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver on >> >> that principle.
. . . . .
. . . National has a concrete plan for making housing more
affordable. It has four parts to it:
Ensuring people are in a better financial position to afford a house. >> >>
Freeing up the supply of land.
Dealing with the compliance issues that drive up building costs, and
Allowing state house tenants to buy the houses they live in.
I want to talk about these points in a little more detail.
No 1. We will make sure people can better afford to purchase and pay
their mortgage on a home. We will lower personal income taxes, which
will ease the burden of mortgage repayments, and will also help people >> >> who are saving for a house deposit.
We will also keep interest rates down by growing the productivity of
the New Zealand economy. That will make a huge difference to people's >> >> ability to service a mortgage.
No 2. We will take the legislative actions required to ensure there is >> >> an increased supply of suitable land available to build houses on.
Difficulties with the Resource Management Act, and disagreements
between various arms of local government, too often slow the release
of land. This drives up its price and the cost of its development.
Any changes we make to streamline and speed up the process of zoning
or land release will require developers to build on that land within a >> >> reasonable timeframe. This will prevent the land-banking that is
currently choking off the supply of land.
No 3. A high legislative priority for National will be amending the
Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality
through greater commercial accountability.""
____________
So it was a crisis then, but that was before they were elected. Now
its worse - so what happened to the recognition of a crisis, and the
promised actions? Why have National failed?
Well here's one view, from a long time National supporter:
The Governments handling of housíng crisis lurches from chaotic to
shambolic
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-governments-handling-housing-crisis-lurches-chaotic-shambolic
Read and weep for lost oportunities, broken promises and incompetence >> >
So you disagree with my opinion
you stated it as fact, not opinion.How does that differ from our statement that he isn't? Its just your
opinion. In reality Armstrong is about as much a supporter of National
as Audrey Young - on a scale of 0 to 10, around 8 or 9. Even Audrey
Young raises issues about Nationals failures from time to time - first because not to do so when the problems are very evident would just
illustrate too much bias to be acceptable "journalism". Both are
fairly canny political observers despite their bias; in this case
Armstrong is carefully not raising the ideological flaws that led
National to make such a mess of the housing issue - such as the
blinkered approach to the place of the Housing Corporation and a false
faith in the power of the private sector to solve all problems. He
knows however that National are still not real about their solutions -
as usual it is too little too late, but he clearly thinks that with a
little help they can still realise how wrong they have been and
salvage something.
- but perhaps you are the lying little
shit. Leaving aside where Armstrong has given his support in the past,
do you disagree with anything he says?
Of course I disagree with some things he says. What a stupid question.You hadn't said so, and still haven't.
Perhaps you are just unable to
articulate where you think he may be wrong - or you are embarrassed to
admit that he is right.
And here is another article for you -it covers a little more than just
the housing crisis National forgot about:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-05-2017/what-does-the-law-say-about-alfred-ngaros-dumbass-threats/#.WRi9a58ZK20.facebook
"were ever to actually do what he threatened".
His threats were stated as a clear intent from a Cabinet Minister - do
you think he should have just been ignored?
He was queried on what he
said and repeated the threats - do you really think he didn't mean
them at the time?
Do you think it acceptable that a Cabinet Minister
should threaten people that have different political views from his
own?
He is of course not the only National MP to make similar
statements . . . should we ignore them all?
seems unlikely.Given the speeches at the National Party’s Auckland regional
conference, New Zealand’s housing
situation/challenge/imbroglio/anything-but-a-crisis appears to be the
number one problem on the Government’s radar this election year.
That’s probably not so surprising. Stories about people living in cars >> not just in Auckland but in our provinces, too, do not reflect the New
Zealand we fondly like to imagine we inhabit. And then there’s the
rage of the renters-for-life who find the promise of clambering up the
property ladder no longer applies to them.
With nine years in power behind them, these housing matters really are
National’s problem (no matter how much Nick Smith might try to spin
the line that “it was worse under Labour”). With the benefit of
hindsight, they allowed the issue to fester until it burst out over
the media in ways they can no longer control. In part, that’s because
housing probably is something that National is ideologically and
tempermentally unsuited to dealing with. After all, the market knows
best how to deal with issues of supply and demand; while individuals
make their own life choices that then are reflected in their material
circumstances. Right?
Not that National has been totally laissez faire on the issue; indeed,
every second week seems to bring a new announcement of action.
However, housing issues are like a fully laden supertanker; once they
get moving, it takes a lot of time to alter course. While the captain
may assure you he’s turning just as fast as he can, if you’re bobbing >> about in his path you aren’t going to be overly happy with the state
of affairs.
So it’s quite understandable why National is both annoyed that it
isn’t getting the respect and credit it thinks it deserves on the
housing front and anxious that the perception it isn’t doing enough
may cost it come September. ". . . . .
:
With Labour unable to avoid a polling percentage that starts with a "2" that
Not according to Armstrong - especially if they continue to botch
things like this . . .
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 16:54:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:a
On Wed, 17 May 2017 19:37:39 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 14:19:22 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:57 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 13:11:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely >> >> >> >> half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said >> >> >> >> the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of >> >> >> >> requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were
built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014 >> >> >> >> respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building
consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses >> >> >> >> now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016, >> >> >> >> only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045. >> >> >> >>
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more >> >> >> >> than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter >> >> >> >> century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the >> >> >> >> year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!) >> >> >> >> 2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge >> >> >> >> the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about >> >> >> >> security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on >> >> >> >> people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be >> >> >> >> owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise
private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone
it slowed down under the current mob.crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them
out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ >> >> >> >
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least
shit.John Armstrong is not a "long time National supporter", you lying little
Actually it started earlier than the Labour-led governments, but it is >> >> >> also true that there was still a problem in 2008 when a National-led >> >> >> government was elected.
See John Key on the subject here:
http://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/53038
Home ownership
We also want to ensure that every young New Zealander who works hard >> >> >> and is disciplined about saving can expect to own their own home and >> >> >> thereby have a real stake in the economic future of this country.
Today, I want to talk in some depth about the declining rates of home >> >> >> ownership in New Zealand.
. . . . . .
It wasnt so long ago, in the 1990s, in fact, that New Zealand had a >> >> >> high level of home ownership compared to other countries. Not so
anymore. We now have what has been described as the second worst
housing affordability problem in the world.
Make no mistake; this problem has got worse in recent years. Home
ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just
62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding
five years had been stable at 67.4%.
If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying
facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40 dropped >> >> >> significantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people the people we
most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain are really >> >> >> struggling to get onto the property ladder.
This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends, >> >> >> the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to
plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest factors >> >> >> influencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the
difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home.
This problem wont be solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And it
wont be curbed with one or two government-sponsored building
developments.
Instead, we need government leadership that is prepared to focus on
the fundamental issues driving the crisis.
. . . . .
The second and most important reason for the home affordability crisis >> >> >> is one of supply. It explains why houses have become so unaffordable >> >> >> for so many people. Quite simply, not enough new houses are being
built in New Zealand. This is a recent phenomenon. In many parts of >> >> >> the country, increases in demand for housing are now outstripping
supply.
That imbalance is vividly illustrated in Auckland. In the five years >> >> >> to 2006, the supply of housing stock has failed to keep up with
population growth. Again to put that into context, over the 15 years >> >> >> to 2006 the housing stock grew at a faster rate than population. So >> >> >> the supply problem is a recent one.
. . . . .
Central and local government should always be aware of environmental >> >> >> and community concerns regarding new housing developments. But if we >> >> >> are serious about dealing with the housing affordability crisis, if we >> >> >> are serious about protecting the Kiwi Dream of home ownership, then we >> >> >> need to get a better balance between those concerns and their eventual >> >> >> impact on home affordability. To not do so is to ignore a fundamental >> >> >> long-term driver of the housing affordability crisis.
Nationals infrastructure plan will go hand in hand with our efforts >> >> >> to confront the housing affordability crisis. We will free up more
land to build on while ensuring new developments are served by the
infrastructure they need.
Conclusion
Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We >> >> >> are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The
crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to >> >> >> get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It threatens >> >> >> a fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and, >> >> >> ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal
with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis. Not >> >> >> just with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to an >> >> >> issue that has long-term implications for New Zealands economy and
society.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our
commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to buy >> >> >> their own home.
Its a worthy goal and one I hope you will support us in achieving.
Thank-you.
and again here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455931 >> >> >>
But I want to assure our young people that they needn't despair. A
National Government will actively preserve and promote the
home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. We are a party >> >> >> founded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver on >> >> >> that principle.
. . . . .
. . . National has a concrete plan for making housing more
affordable. It has four parts to it:
Ensuring people are in a better financial position to afford a house. >> >> >>
Freeing up the supply of land.
Dealing with the compliance issues that drive up building costs, and >> >> >>
Allowing state house tenants to buy the houses they live in.
I want to talk about these points in a little more detail.
No 1. We will make sure people can better afford to purchase and pay >> >> >> their mortgage on a home. We will lower personal income taxes, which >> >> >> will ease the burden of mortgage repayments, and will also help people >> >> >> who are saving for a house deposit.
We will also keep interest rates down by growing the productivity of >> >> >> the New Zealand economy. That will make a huge difference to people's >> >> >> ability to service a mortgage.
No 2. We will take the legislative actions required to ensure there is >> >> >> an increased supply of suitable land available to build houses on.
Difficulties with the Resource Management Act, and disagreements
between various arms of local government, too often slow the release >> >> >> of land. This drives up its price and the cost of its development.
Any changes we make to streamline and speed up the process of zoning >> >> >> or land release will require developers to build on that land within a >> >> >> reasonable timeframe. This will prevent the land-banking that is
currently choking off the supply of land.
No 3. A high legislative priority for National will be amending the
Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality
through greater commercial accountability.""
____________
So it was a crisis then, but that was before they were elected. Now
its worse - so what happened to the recognition of a crisis, and the >> >> >> promised actions? Why have National failed?
Well here's one view, from a long time National supporter:
The Governments handling of housng crisis lurches from chaotic to
shambolic
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-governments-handling-housing-crisis-lurches-chaotic-shambolic
Read and weep for lost oportunities, broken promises and incompetence >> >> >
You hadn't said you disagree, and you still have not given anyHow does that differ from our statement that he isn't? Its just yourSo you disagree with my opinion
you stated it as fact, not opinion.
opinion. In reality Armstrong is about as much a supporter of National
as Audrey Young - on a scale of 0 to 10, around 8 or 9. Even Audrey
Young raises issues about Nationals failures from time to time - first
because not to do so when the problems are very evident would just
illustrate too much bias to be acceptable "journalism". Both are
fairly canny political observers despite their bias; in this case
Armstrong is carefully not raising the ideological flaws that led
National to make such a mess of the housing issue - such as the
blinkered approach to the place of the Housing Corporation and a false
faith in the power of the private sector to solve all problems. He
knows however that National are still not real about their solutions -
as usual it is too little too late, but he clearly thinks that with a
little help they can still realise how wrong they have been and
salvage something.
You hadn't said so, and still haven't.
- but perhaps you are the lying little
shit. Leaving aside where Armstrong has given his support in the past,
do you disagree with anything he says?
Of course I disagree with some things he says. What a stupid question.
I just did, you illiterate moron. What the fuck do you think "Of course I disagree with some things he says" means?
Perhaps you are just unable to
articulate where you think he may be wrong - or you are embarrassed to
admit that he is right.
You didn't ask what I disagree with, just if I disagree. You are simply incoherent.
you) would see it as obvious bluster.
And here is another article for you -it covers a little more than just
the housing crisis National forgot about:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-05-2017/what-does-the-law-say-about-alfred-ngaros-dumbass-threats/#.WRi9a58ZK20.facebook
"were ever to actually do what he threatened".
His threats were stated as a clear intent from a Cabinet Minister - do
Only a moron would take them seriously. Anyone with at least half a brain (not
Talk about incorerent!you think he should have just been ignored?
Duh!
And there you go again . . . unable to give a coherent answer . . .He was queried on what he
said and repeated the threats - do you really think he didn't mean
them at the time?
Duh!
Yes we get the picture - you are in full evade modeDo you think it acceptable that a Cabinet Minister
should threaten people that have different political views from his
own?
Duh!
Oh dear - have you lost the ability to search? Try John Key for aHe is of course not the only National MP to make similar
statements . . . should we ignore them all?
Who else made similar statements? When and what please.
Given the speeches at the National Partys Auckland regional
conference, New Zealands housing
situation/challenge/imbroglio/anything-but-a-crisis appears to be the
number one problem on the Governments radar this election year.
Thats probably not so surprising. Stories about people living in cars
not just in Auckland but in our provinces, too, do not reflect the New
Zealand we fondly like to imagine we inhabit. And then theres the
rage of the renters-for-life who find the promise of clambering up the
property ladder no longer applies to them.
With nine years in power behind them, these housing matters really are
Nationals problem (no matter how much Nick Smith might try to spin
the line that it was worse under Labour). With the benefit of
hindsight, they allowed the issue to fester until it burst out over
the media in ways they can no longer control. In part, thats because
housing probably is something that National is ideologically and
tempermentally unsuited to dealing with. After all, the market knows
best how to deal with issues of supply and demand; while individuals
make their own life choices that then are reflected in their material
circumstances. Right?
Not that National has been totally laissez faire on the issue; indeed,
every second week seems to bring a new announcement of action.
However, housing issues are like a fully laden supertanker; once they
get moving, it takes a lot of time to alter course. While the captain
may assure you hes turning just as fast as he can, if youre bobbing
about in his path you arent going to be overly happy with the state
of affairs.
So its quite understandable why National is both annoyed that it
isnt getting the respect and credit it thinks it deserves on the
housing front and anxious that the perception it isnt doing enough
may cost it come September. ". . . . .
:
With Labour unable to avoid a polling percentage that starts with a "2" that seems unlikely.
Not according to Armstrong - especially if they continue to botch
things like this . . .
But you said he's a Nat supporter. Make up your tiny, diseased little mind!
On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:24:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com><johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 16:54:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 19:37:39 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 14:19:22 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:57 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 13:11:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
barelywrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year,
years, anhalf the number needed and only slightly up on the last two
directorexpert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust
saidand former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager,
completedthe situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences
council andbased on code compliance certificates issued solely by the
ofshe said she discovered building numbers were falling far short
wererequirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented. >> >> >> >> Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses
ofbuilt and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014 >> >> >> >> respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up
buildinghouses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are >> >> >> >> barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's
residentialconsents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact
housesnumbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland
2016,now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in
moreonly 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that >> >> >> >> Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045. >> >> >> >>
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's
ratethan a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building
quarterfar greater than what we've actually managed over the past
Auckland,century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in
theshe said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in
theyear to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in
areyear to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built
houses!)below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting >> >> >> >> families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state
challenge2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to
lazythe media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old,
onnotion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about >> >> >> >> security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis
bepeople being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not
theseowning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep
"incentivisegood tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to
alone aprivate landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let
fromcrisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out
themthe election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot
least it slowed down under the current mob.out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ >> >> >> >
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At
is
Actually it started earlier than the Labour-led governments, but it
homealso true that there was still a problem in 2008 when a National-led >> >> >> government was elected.
See John Key on the subject here:
http://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/53038
Home ownership
We also want to ensure that every young New Zealander who works hard >> >> >> and is disciplined about saving can expect to own their own home and >> >> >> thereby have a real stake in the economic future of this country. >> >> >>
Today, I want to talk in some depth about the declining rates of
aownership in New Zealand.
. . . . . .
It wasn’t so long ago, in the 1990s, in fact, that New Zealand had
droppedhigh level of home ownership compared to other countries. Not so >> >> >> anymore. We now have what has been described as the second worst
housing affordability problem in the world.
Make no mistake; this problem has got worse in recent years. Home >> >> >> ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just
62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding >> >> >> five years had been stable at 67.4%.
If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying
facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40
reallysignificantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people – the people we >> >> >> most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain – are
factorsstruggling to get onto the property ladder.
This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends, >> >> >> the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to >> >> >> plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest
itinfluencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the >> >> >> difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home.
This problem won’t be solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And
crisiswon’t be curbed with one or two government-sponsored building
developments.
Instead, we need government leadership that is prepared to focus on >> >> >> the fundamental issues driving the crisis.
. . . . .
The second and most important reason for the home affordability
unaffordableis one of supply. It explains why houses have become so
yearsfor so many people. Quite simply, not enough new houses are being >> >> >> built in New Zealand. This is a recent phenomenon. In many parts of >> >> >> the country, increases in demand for housing are now outstripping
supply.
That imbalance is vividly illustrated in Auckland. In the five
yearsto 2006, the supply of housing stock has failed to keep up with
population growth. Again to put that into context, over the 15
Soto 2006 the housing stock grew at a faster rate than population.
wethe supply problem is a recent one.
. . . . .
Central and local government should always be aware of environmental >> >> >> and community concerns regarding new housing developments. But if we >> >> >> are serious about dealing with the housing affordability crisis, if
weare serious about protecting the Kiwi Dream of home ownership, then
eventualneed to get a better balance between those concerns and their
fundamentalimpact on home affordability. To not do so is to ignore a
effortslong-term driver of the housing affordability crisis.
…
National’s infrastructure plan will go hand in hand with our
threatensto confront the housing affordability crisis. We will free up more >> >> >> land to build on while ensuring new developments are served by the >> >> >> infrastructure they need.
Conclusion
Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We >> >> >> are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The
crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to >> >> >> get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It
Nota fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and, >> >> >> ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal >> >> >> with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis.
anjust with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to
andissue that has long-term implications for New Zealand’s economy
buysociety.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our
commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to
achieving.their own home.
It’s a worthy goal and one I hope you will support us in
partyThank-you.
and again here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455931
But I want to assure our young people that they needn't despair. A >> >> >> National Government will actively preserve and promote the
home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. We are a
onfounded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver
house.that principle.
. . . . .
. . . National has a concrete plan for making housing more
affordable. It has four parts to it:
Ensuring people are in a better financial position to afford a
people
Freeing up the supply of land.
Dealing with the compliance issues that drive up building costs, and >> >> >>
Allowing state house tenants to buy the houses they live in.
I want to talk about these points in a little more detail.
No 1. We will make sure people can better afford to purchase and pay >> >> >> their mortgage on a home. We will lower personal income taxes, which >> >> >> will ease the burden of mortgage repayments, and will also help
people'swho are saving for a house deposit.
We will also keep interest rates down by growing the productivity of >> >> >> the New Zealand economy. That will make a huge difference to
isability to service a mortgage.
No 2. We will take the legislative actions required to ensure there
aan increased supply of suitable land available to build houses on. >> >> >> Difficulties with the Resource Management Act, and disagreements
between various arms of local government, too often slow the release >> >> >> of land. This drives up its price and the cost of its development. >> >> >>
Any changes we make to streamline and speed up the process of zoning >> >> >> or land release will require developers to build on that land within
incompetencereasonable timeframe. This will prevent the land-banking that is
currently choking off the supply of land.
No 3. A high legislative priority for National will be amending the >> >> >> Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality
through greater commercial accountability.""
____________
So it was a crisis then, but that was before they were elected. Now >> >> >> its worse - so what happened to the recognition of a crisis, and the >> >> >> promised actions? Why have National failed?
Well here's one view, from a long time National supporter:
The Governments handling of housíng crisis lurches from chaotic to >> >> >> shambolic
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-governments-handling-housing-crisis-lurches-chaotic-shambolic
Read and weep for lost oportunities, broken promises and
little shit.
John Armstrong is not a "long time National supporter", you lying
disagree with some things he says" means?How does that differ from our statement that he isn't? Its just yourSo you disagree with my opinion
you stated it as fact, not opinion.
opinion. In reality Armstrong is about as much a supporter of National
as Audrey Young - on a scale of 0 to 10, around 8 or 9. Even Audrey
Young raises issues about Nationals failures from time to time - first
because not to do so when the problems are very evident would just
illustrate too much bias to be acceptable "journalism". Both are
fairly canny political observers despite their bias; in this case
Armstrong is carefully not raising the ideological flaws that led
National to make such a mess of the housing issue - such as the
blinkered approach to the place of the Housing Corporation and a false
faith in the power of the private sector to solve all problems. He
knows however that National are still not real about their solutions -
as usual it is too little too late, but he clearly thinks that with a
little help they can still realise how wrong they have been and
salvage something.
You hadn't said so, and still haven't.
- but perhaps you are the lying little
shit. Leaving aside where Armstrong has given his support in the past, >> >> do you disagree with anything he says?
Of course I disagree with some things he says. What a stupid question.
I just did, you illiterate moron. What the fuck do you think "Of course I
You hadn't said you disagree, and you still have not given any
indication of any specific area which you do disagree. Are you trying
to be a prat or does it just come automatically?
incoherent.Perhaps you are just unable to
articulate where you think he may be wrong - or you are embarrassed to
admit that he is right.
You didn't ask what I disagree with, just if I disagree. You are simply
Clearly you are embarassed at not being able to identify anything.
Lets start with somethin easy - do you agree that National has refused
to acknowledge that the Auckland housing crisis is a crisis?
(not you) would see it as obvious bluster.
And here is another article for you -it covers a little more than just >> >> the housing crisis National forgot about:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-05-2017/what-does-the-law-say-about-alfred-ngaros-dumbass-threats/#.WRi9a58ZK20.facebook
"were ever to actually do what he threatened".
His threats were stated as a clear intent from a Cabinet Minister - do
Only a moron would take them seriously. Anyone with at least half a brain
Alfred Hgaro was speaking to the public - are you saying he thinks teh
public are morons?
You have heard what he said - does that make you a
moron, or were you that already?
you think he should have just been ignored?
Duh!Talk about incorerent!
He was queried on what he
said and repeated the threats - do you really think he didn't mean
them at the time?
Duh!And there you go again . . . unable to give a coherent answer . . .
Do you think it acceptable that a Cabinet Minister
should threaten people that have different political views from his
own?
Duh!Yes we get the picture - you are in full evade mode
carsHe is of course not the only National MP to make similar
statements . . . should we ignore them all?
Who else made similar statements? When and what please.Oh dear - have you lost the ability to search? Try John Key for a
start . . .
Given the speeches at the National Party’s Auckland regional
conference, New Zealand’s housing
situation/challenge/imbroglio/anything-but-a-crisis appears to be the >> >> number one problem on the Government’s radar this election year.
That’s probably not so surprising. Stories about people living in
bobbingnot just in Auckland but in our provinces, too, do not reflect the New >> >> Zealand we fondly like to imagine we inhabit. And then there’s the
rage of the renters-for-life who find the promise of clambering up the >> >> property ladder no longer applies to them.
With nine years in power behind them, these housing matters really are >> >> National’s problem (no matter how much Nick Smith might try to spin >> >> the line that “it was worse under Labour”). With the benefit of
hindsight, they allowed the issue to fester until it burst out over
the media in ways they can no longer control. In part, that’s because >> >> housing probably is something that National is ideologically and
tempermentally unsuited to dealing with. After all, the market knows
best how to deal with issues of supply and demand; while individuals
make their own life choices that then are reflected in their material >> >> circumstances. Right?
Not that National has been totally laissez faire on the issue; indeed, >> >> every second week seems to bring a new announcement of action.
However, housing issues are like a fully laden supertanker; once they >> >> get moving, it takes a lot of time to alter course. While the captain >> >> may assure you he’s turning just as fast as he can, if you’re
that seems unlikely.about in his path you aren’t going to be overly happy with the state >> >> of affairs.
So it’s quite understandable why National is both annoyed that it
isn’t getting the respect and credit it thinks it deserves on the
housing front and anxious that the perception it isn’t doing enough >> >> may cost it come September. ". . . . .
:
With Labour unable to avoid a polling percentage that starts with a "2"
Not according to Armstrong - especially if they continue to botch
things like this . . .
But you said he's a Nat supporter. Make up your tiny, diseased little mind!
A supporter can recognise reality - National do not have enough
support without Winston Peters,
and Armstrong clearly thinks National
have to do something quickly in relation to Auckland housing if they
are not to see support slide further before the election.
On Friday, 19 May 2017 16:19:45 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:were
On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:24:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 16:54:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 19:37:39 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 14:19:22 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:57 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 13:11:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of
requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented. >> >> >> >> >> Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses
thebuilt and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014
respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are >> >> >> >> >> barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building
consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that >> >> >> >> >> Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in
onyear to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting >> >> >> >> >> families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis
thempeople being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise
private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a
crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot
isout for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least it slowed down under the current mob.
Actually it started earlier than the Labour-led governments, but it
wealso true that there was still a problem in 2008 when a National-led
government was elected.
See John Key on the subject here:
http://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/53038
Home ownership
We also want to ensure that every young New Zealander who works hard
and is disciplined about saving can expect to own their own home and
thereby have a real stake in the economic future of this country. >> >> >> >>
Today, I want to talk in some depth about the declining rates of home
ownership in New Zealand.
. . . . . .
It wasnt so long ago, in the 1990s, in fact, that New Zealand had a
high level of home ownership compared to other countries. Not so >> >> >> >> anymore. We now have what has been described as the second worst >> >> >> >> housing affordability problem in the world.
Make no mistake; this problem has got worse in recent years. Home >> >> >> >> ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just >> >> >> >> 62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding >> >> >> >> five years had been stable at 67.4%.
If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying >> >> >> >> facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40 dropped
significantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people the people we >> >> >> >> most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain are really
struggling to get onto the property ladder.
This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends,
the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to >> >> >> >> plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest factors
influencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the >> >> >> >> difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home.
This problem wont be solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And it >> >> >> >> wont be curbed with one or two government-sponsored building
developments.
Instead, we need government leadership that is prepared to focus on >> >> >> >> the fundamental issues driving the crisis.
. . . . .
The second and most important reason for the home affordability crisis
is one of supply. It explains why houses have become so unaffordable
for so many people. Quite simply, not enough new houses are being >> >> >> >> built in New Zealand. This is a recent phenomenon. In many parts of
the country, increases in demand for housing are now outstripping >> >> >> >> supply.
That imbalance is vividly illustrated in Auckland. In the five years
to 2006, the supply of housing stock has failed to keep up with
population growth. Again to put that into context, over the 15 years
to 2006 the housing stock grew at a faster rate than population. So
the supply problem is a recent one.
. . . . .
Central and local government should always be aware of environmental
and community concerns regarding new housing developments. But if we
are serious about dealing with the housing affordability crisis, if
weare serious about protecting the Kiwi Dream of home ownership, then
anneed to get a better balance between those concerns and their eventual
impact on home affordability. To not do so is to ignore a fundamental
long-term driver of the housing affordability crisis.
Nationals infrastructure plan will go hand in hand with our efforts
to confront the housing affordability crisis. We will free up more >> >> >> >> land to build on while ensuring new developments are served by the >> >> >> >> infrastructure they need.
Conclusion
Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We
are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The
crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to
get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It threatens
a fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and,
ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal >> >> >> >> with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis. Not
just with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to
onissue that has long-term implications for New Zealands economy and >> >> >> >> society.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our >> >> >> >> commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to buy
their own home.
Its a worthy goal and one I hope you will support us in achieving. >> >> >> >> Thank-you.
and again here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455931
But I want to assure our young people that they needn't despair. A >> >> >> >> National Government will actively preserve and promote the
home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. We are a party
founded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver
isthat principle.
. . . . .
. . . National has a concrete plan for making housing more
affordable. It has four parts to it:
Ensuring people are in a better financial position to afford a house.
Freeing up the supply of land.
Dealing with the compliance issues that drive up building costs, and
Allowing state house tenants to buy the houses they live in.
I want to talk about these points in a little more detail.
No 1. We will make sure people can better afford to purchase and pay
their mortgage on a home. We will lower personal income taxes, which
will ease the burden of mortgage repayments, and will also help people
who are saving for a house deposit.
We will also keep interest rates down by growing the productivity of
the New Zealand economy. That will make a huge difference to people's
ability to service a mortgage.
No 2. We will take the legislative actions required to ensure there
You hadn't said you disagree, and you still have not given anyHow does that differ from our statement that he isn't? Its just yourSo you disagree with my opinionan increased supply of suitable land available to build houses on. >> >> >> >> Difficulties with the Resource Management Act, and disagreements
between various arms of local government, too often slow the release
of land. This drives up its price and the cost of its development. >> >> >> >>
Any changes we make to streamline and speed up the process of zoning
or land release will require developers to build on that land within a
reasonable timeframe. This will prevent the land-banking that is
currently choking off the supply of land.
No 3. A high legislative priority for National will be amending the >> >> >> >> Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality
through greater commercial accountability.""
____________
So it was a crisis then, but that was before they were elected. Now >> >> >> >> its worse - so what happened to the recognition of a crisis, and the
promised actions? Why have National failed?
Well here's one view, from a long time National supporter:
The Governments handling of housng crisis lurches from chaotic to >> >> >> >> shambolic
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-governments-handling-housing-crisis-lurches-chaotic-shambolic
Read and weep for lost oportunities, broken promises and incompetence
John Armstrong is not a "long time National supporter", you lying little shit.
you stated it as fact, not opinion.
opinion. In reality Armstrong is about as much a supporter of National
as Audrey Young - on a scale of 0 to 10, around 8 or 9. Even Audrey
Young raises issues about Nationals failures from time to time - first
because not to do so when the problems are very evident would just
illustrate too much bias to be acceptable "journalism". Both are
fairly canny political observers despite their bias; in this case
Armstrong is carefully not raising the ideological flaws that led
National to make such a mess of the housing issue - such as the
blinkered approach to the place of the Housing Corporation and a false
faith in the power of the private sector to solve all problems. He
knows however that National are still not real about their solutions -
as usual it is too little too late, but he clearly thinks that with a
little help they can still realise how wrong they have been and
salvage something.
- but perhaps you are the lying little
shit. Leaving aside where Armstrong has given his support in the past, >> >> >> do you disagree with anything he says?
Of course I disagree with some things he says. What a stupid question. >> >> You hadn't said so, and still haven't.
I just did, you illiterate moron. What the fuck do you think "Of course I disagree with some things he says" means?
As I said, you irridemably sub-normal moron, which part of "Of course I disagree" can't you understand? It's clearly quoted above. Why you you keep braying "you hadn't said you disagree"?
Arguing with you is like arguing with a hippo.
indication of any specific area which you do disagree. Are you trying
to be a prat or does it just come automatically?
You actually think I can be fucked going back and compiling a list to satisfy your pointless question? Go fuck yourself.
Perhaps you are just unable to
articulate where you think he may be wrong - or you are embarrassed to
admit that he is right.
You didn't ask what I disagree with, just if I disagree. You are simply incoherent.
Clearly you are embarassed at not being able to identify anything.
Don;t be stupid and don't put words in my mouth you dishonest little shit.
Lets start with somethin easy - do you agree that National has refused
to acknowledge that the Auckland housing crisis is a crisis?
No idea. Why don't you go look it up yourself?
Alfred Hgaro was speaking to the public - are you saying he thinks teh
And here is another article for you -it covers a little more than just >> >> >> the housing crisis National forgot about:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-05-2017/what-does-the-law-say-about-alfred-ngaros-dumbass-threats/#.WRi9a58ZK20.facebook
"were ever to actually do what he threatened".
His threats were stated as a clear intent from a Cabinet Minister - do
Only a moron would take them seriously. Anyone with at least half a brain (not you) would see it as obvious bluster.
public are morons?
Some are, such as you.
You have heard what he said - does that make you a
moron, or were you that already?
No and you're not keeping up.
Talk about incorerent!
you think he should have just been ignored?
Duh!
"incorerent"? LOL.
You can't even tell when you are being mocked? Not part of your programming, Dickbot?
And there you go again . . . unable to give a coherent answer . . .
He was queried on what he
said and repeated the threats - do you really think he didn't mean
them at the time?
Duh!
Oh dear. "Duh"! is what you say to indicate "Obviously" to someone who is very, very stupid, i.e. yoou.
Yes we get the picture - you are in full evade modeDo you think it acceptable that a Cabinet Minister
should threaten people that have different political views from his
own?
Duh!
I see you were in this mode when they were handing out brain cells.
Oh dear - have you lost the ability to search? Try John Key for a
He is of course not the only National MP to make similar
statements . . . should we ignore them all?
Who else made similar statements? When and what please.
start . . .
A supporter can recognise reality - National do not have enough
Given the speeches at the National Partys Auckland regional
conference, New Zealands housing
situation/challenge/imbroglio/anything-but-a-crisis appears to be the >> >> >> number one problem on the Governments radar this election year.
Thats probably not so surprising. Stories about people living in cars >> >> >> not just in Auckland but in our provinces, too, do not reflect the New >> >> >> Zealand we fondly like to imagine we inhabit. And then theres the
rage of the renters-for-life who find the promise of clambering up the >> >> >> property ladder no longer applies to them.
With nine years in power behind them, these housing matters really are >> >> >> Nationals problem (no matter how much Nick Smith might try to spin
the line that it was worse under Labour). With the benefit of
hindsight, they allowed the issue to fester until it burst out over
the media in ways they can no longer control. In part, thats because >> >> >> housing probably is something that National is ideologically and
tempermentally unsuited to dealing with. After all, the market knows >> >> >> best how to deal with issues of supply and demand; while individuals >> >> >> make their own life choices that then are reflected in their material >> >> >> circumstances. Right?
Not that National has been totally laissez faire on the issue; indeed, >> >> >> every second week seems to bring a new announcement of action.
However, housing issues are like a fully laden supertanker; once they >> >> >> get moving, it takes a lot of time to alter course. While the captain >> >> >> may assure you hes turning just as fast as he can, if youre bobbing >> >> >> about in his path you arent going to be overly happy with the state >> >> >> of affairs.
So its quite understandable why National is both annoyed that it
isnt getting the respect and credit it thinks it deserves on the
housing front and anxious that the perception it isnt doing enough
may cost it come September. ". . . . .
:
With Labour unable to avoid a polling percentage that starts with a "2" that seems unlikely.
Not according to Armstrong - especially if they continue to botch
things like this . . .
But you said he's a Nat supporter. Make up your tiny, diseased little mind! >>
support without Winston Peters,
We'll see. You've said that the last two elections and been flat wrong. But even so, Winston won't govern with the Greens so Labour/Green is fucked either way.
and Armstrong clearly thinks National
have to do something quickly in relation to Auckland housing if they
are not to see support slide further before the election.
We'll see. You've said that the last two elections and been flat wrong. Buteven so, Winston won't govern with the Greens so Labour/Green is fucked either way.
On 5/20/2017 12:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
We'll see. You've said that the last two elections and been flat wrong. But even so, Winston won't govern with the Greens so Labour/Green is fucked either way.
Hey John.
Not fair playing with the less gifted.
They should be patted on the head, told 'Sit, good good boy' and
otherwise left to their demented waffle and meanderings through
adventuring into the uncommon world of common sense..
Auckland council, not the government, can solve the main problems withhousing.
Doesn't fit your narrative though.
On 5/21/2017 1:46 PM, JohnO wrote:Yeah Right! As if Auckland was the only area that has housing
Auckland council, not the government, can solve the main problems with housing.
Doesn't fit anyones narrative; just an attempt to avoid addressing the
Doesn't fit your narrative though.
I'm waiting for the wallies to recognise that the Auckland council is
old lieborites and therefor useless
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Fri, 19 May 2017 17:59:54 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>a
wrote:
On Friday, 19 May 2017 16:19:45 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:24:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 16:54:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 19:37:39 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 14:19:22 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:38:57 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 13:11:44 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 08:38:02 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely >>>>>>>>>>> half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said >>>>>>>>>>> the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of >>>>>>>>>>> requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented. >>>>>>>>>>> Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were
built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014 >>>>>>>>>>> respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are >>>>>>>>>>> barely completing half the number we need," she complained. >>>>>>>>>>>
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building
consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses >>>>>>>>>>> now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016, >>>>>>>>>>> only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that >>>>>>>>>>> Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045. >>>>>>>>>>>
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more >>>>>>>>>>> than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter >>>>>>>>>>> century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the >>>>>>>>>>> year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting >>>>>>>>>>> families up in motels (don;t mention the sell-off of state houses!) >>>>>>>>>>> 2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them >>>>>>>>>>> 3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge >>>>>>>>>>> the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care." >>>>>>>>>>>
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about >>>>>>>>>>> security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on >>>>>>>>>>> people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be >>>>>>>>>>> owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?" >>>>>>>>>>>
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise
private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone
Dickbot?You hadn't said you disagree, and you still have not given anyHow does that differ from our statement that he isn't? Its just your >>>>> opinion. In reality Armstrong is about as much a supporter of National >>>>> as Audrey Young - on a scale of 0 to 10, around 8 or 9. Even AudreySo you disagree with my opinionJohn Armstrong is not a "long time National supporter", you lying little shit.crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them
out for a party that will build houses!
Labour failure:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nz.general/DN91fNeeZaQ/Ot3KTEwmAQAJ >>>>>>>>>>
The whole housing affordability problem started with Labour. At least it slowed down under the current mob.
Actually it started earlier than the Labour-led governments, but it is
also true that there was still a problem in 2008 when a National-led >>>>>>>>> government was elected.
See John Key on the subject here:
http://www.nzpif.org.nz/news/view/53038
Home ownership
We also want to ensure that every young New Zealander who works hard >>>>>>>>> and is disciplined about saving can expect to own their own home and >>>>>>>>> thereby have a real stake in the economic future of this country. >>>>>>>>>
Today, I want to talk in some depth about the declining rates of home >>>>>>>>> ownership in New Zealand.
. . . . . .
It wasnt so long ago, in the 1990s, in fact, that New Zealand had a >>>>>>>>> high level of home ownership compared to other countries. Not so >>>>>>>>> anymore. We now have what has been described as the second worst >>>>>>>>> housing affordability problem in the world.
Make no mistake; this problem has got worse in recent years. Home >>>>>>>>> ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just >>>>>>>>> 62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding >>>>>>>>> five years had been stable at 67.4%.
If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying >>>>>>>>> facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40 dropped
significantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people the people we >>>>>>>>> most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain are really >>>>>>>>> struggling to get onto the property ladder.
This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends, >>>>>>>>> the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to >>>>>>>>> plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest factors
influencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the >>>>>>>>> difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home. >>>>>>>>>
This problem wont be solved by knee-jerk, quick-fix plans. And it >>>>>>>>> wont be curbed with one or two government-sponsored building >>>>>>>>> developments.
Instead, we need government leadership that is prepared to focus on >>>>>>>>> the fundamental issues driving the crisis.
. . . . .
The second and most important reason for the home affordability crisis
is one of supply. It explains why houses have become so unaffordable >>>>>>>>> for so many people. Quite simply, not enough new houses are being >>>>>>>>> built in New Zealand. This is a recent phenomenon. In many parts of >>>>>>>>> the country, increases in demand for housing are now outstripping >>>>>>>>> supply.
That imbalance is vividly illustrated in Auckland. In the five years >>>>>>>>> to 2006, the supply of housing stock has failed to keep up with >>>>>>>>> population growth. Again to put that into context, over the 15 years
to 2006 the housing stock grew at a faster rate than population. So >>>>>>>>> the supply problem is a recent one.
. . . . .
Central and local government should always be aware of environmental >>>>>>>>> and community concerns regarding new housing developments. But if we >>>>>>>>> are serious about dealing with the housing affordability crisis, if we
are serious about protecting the Kiwi Dream of home ownership, then we
need to get a better balance between those concerns and their eventual
impact on home affordability. To not do so is to ignore a fundamental >>>>>>>>> long-term driver of the housing affordability crisis.
Nationals infrastructure plan will go hand in hand with our efforts >>>>>>>>> to confront the housing affordability crisis. We will free up more >>>>>>>>> land to build on while ensuring new developments are served by the >>>>>>>>> infrastructure they need.
Conclusion
Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We >>>>>>>>> are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The >>>>>>>>> crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to >>>>>>>>> get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It threatens >>>>>>>>> a fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and, >>>>>>>>> ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal >>>>>>>>> with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis. Not
just with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to an
issue that has long-term implications for New Zealands economy and >>>>>>>>> society.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our >>>>>>>>> commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to buy >>>>>>>>> their own home.
Its a worthy goal and one I hope you will support us in achieving. >>>>>>>>> Thank-you.
and again here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455931
But I want to assure our young people that they needn't despair. A >>>>>>>>> National Government will actively preserve and promote the
home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. We are a party >>>>>>>>> founded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver on
that principle.
. . . . .
. . . National has a concrete plan for making housing more
affordable. It has four parts to it:
Ensuring people are in a better financial position to afford a house. >>>>>>>>>
Freeing up the supply of land.
Dealing with the compliance issues that drive up building costs, and >>>>>>>>>
Allowing state house tenants to buy the houses they live in. >>>>>>>>>
I want to talk about these points in a little more detail.
No 1. We will make sure people can better afford to purchase and pay >>>>>>>>> their mortgage on a home. We will lower personal income taxes, which >>>>>>>>> will ease the burden of mortgage repayments, and will also help people
who are saving for a house deposit.
We will also keep interest rates down by growing the productivity of >>>>>>>>> the New Zealand economy. That will make a huge difference to people's >>>>>>>>> ability to service a mortgage.
No 2. We will take the legislative actions required to ensure there is
an increased supply of suitable land available to build houses on. >>>>>>>>> Difficulties with the Resource Management Act, and disagreements >>>>>>>>> between various arms of local government, too often slow the release >>>>>>>>> of land. This drives up its price and the cost of its development. >>>>>>>>>
Any changes we make to streamline and speed up the process of zoning >>>>>>>>> or land release will require developers to build on that land within a
reasonable timeframe. This will prevent the land-banking that is >>>>>>>>> currently choking off the supply of land.
No 3. A high legislative priority for National will be amending the >>>>>>>>> Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality >>>>>>>>> through greater commercial accountability.""
____________
So it was a crisis then, but that was before they were elected. Now >>>>>>>>> its worse - so what happened to the recognition of a crisis, and the >>>>>>>>> promised actions? Why have National failed?
Well here's one view, from a long time National supporter:
The Governments handling of housng crisis lurches from chaotic to >>>>>>>>> shambolic
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-governments-handling-housing-crisis-lurches-chaotic-shambolic
Read and weep for lost oportunities, broken promises and incompetence >>>>>>>>
you stated it as fact, not opinion.
Young raises issues about Nationals failures from time to time - first >>>>> because not to do so when the problems are very evident would just
illustrate too much bias to be acceptable "journalism". Both are
fairly canny political observers despite their bias; in this case
Armstrong is carefully not raising the ideological flaws that led
National to make such a mess of the housing issue - such as the
blinkered approach to the place of the Housing Corporation and a false >>>>> faith in the power of the private sector to solve all problems. He
knows however that National are still not real about their solutions - >>>>> as usual it is too little too late, but he clearly thinks that with a >>>>> little help they can still realise how wrong they have been and
salvage something.
- but perhaps you are the lying little
shit. Leaving aside where Armstrong has given his support in the past, >>>>>>> do you disagree with anything he says?
Of course I disagree with some things he says. What a stupid question. >>>>> You hadn't said so, and still haven't.
I just did, you illiterate moron. What the fuck do you think "Of course I disagree with some things he says" means?
As I said, you irridemably sub-normal moron, which part of "Of course I disagree" can't you understand? It's clearly quoted above. Why you you keep braying "you hadn't said you disagree"?
Arguing with you is like arguing with a hippo.
indication of any specific area which you do disagree. Are you trying
to be a prat or does it just come automatically?
You actually think I can be fucked going back and compiling a list to satisfy your pointless question? Go fuck yourself.
Perhaps you are just unable to
articulate where you think he may be wrong - or you are embarrassed to >>>>> admit that he is right.
You didn't ask what I disagree with, just if I disagree. You are simply incoherent.
Clearly you are embarassed at not being able to identify anything.
Don;t be stupid and don't put words in my mouth you dishonest little shit. >>
Lets start with somethin easy - do you agree that National has refused
to acknowledge that the Auckland housing crisis is a crisis?
No idea. Why don't you go look it up yourself?
Alfred Hgaro was speaking to the public - are you saying he thinks tehOnly a moron would take them seriously. Anyone with at least half a brain (not you) would see it as obvious bluster.
And here is another article for you -it covers a little more than just >>>>>>> the housing crisis National forgot about:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-05-2017/what-does-the-law-say-about-alfred-ngaros-dumbass-threats/#.WRi9a58ZK20.facebook
"were ever to actually do what he threatened".
His threats were stated as a clear intent from a Cabinet Minister - do >>>>
public are morons?
Some are, such as you.
You have heard what he said - does that make you a
moron, or were you that already?
No and you're not keeping up.
Talk about incorerent!
you think he should have just been ignored?
Duh!
"incorerent"? LOL.
You can't even tell when you are being mocked? Not part of your programming,
And there you go again . . . unable to give a coherent answer . . .
He was queried on what he
said and repeated the threats - do you really think he didn't mean
them at the time?
Duh!
Oh dear. "Duh"! is what you say to indicate "Obviously" to someone who is very, very stupid, i.e. yoou.
Yes we get the picture - you are in full evade modeDo you think it acceptable that a Cabinet Minister
should threaten people that have different political views from his
own?
Duh!
I see you were in this mode when they were handing out brain cells.
Oh dear - have you lost the ability to search? Try John Key for a
He is of course not the only National MP to make similar
statements . . . should we ignore them all?
Who else made similar statements? When and what please.
start . . .
Given the speeches at the National Partys Auckland regional
conference, New Zealands housing
situation/challenge/imbroglio/anything-but-a-crisis appears to be the >>>>>>> number one problem on the Governments radar this election year. >>>>>>>
Thats probably not so surprising. Stories about people living in cars >>>>>>> not just in Auckland but in our provinces, too, do not reflect the New >>>>>>> Zealand we fondly like to imagine we inhabit. And then theres the >>>>>>> rage of the renters-for-life who find the promise of clambering up the >>>>>>> property ladder no longer applies to them.
With nine years in power behind them, these housing matters really are >>>>>>> Nationals problem (no matter how much Nick Smith might try to spin >>>>>>> the line that it was worse under Labour). With the benefit of
hindsight, they allowed the issue to fester until it burst out over >>>>>>> the media in ways they can no longer control. In part, thats because >>>>>>> housing probably is something that National is ideologically and >>>>>>> tempermentally unsuited to dealing with. After all, the market knows >>>>>>> best how to deal with issues of supply and demand; while individuals >>>>>>> make their own life choices that then are reflected in their material >>>>>>> circumstances. Right?
Not that National has been totally laissez faire on the issue; indeed, >>>>>>> every second week seems to bring a new announcement of action.
However, housing issues are like a fully laden supertanker; once they >>>>>>> get moving, it takes a lot of time to alter course. While the captain >>>>>>> may assure you hes turning just as fast as he can, if youre bobbing >>>>>>> about in his path you arent going to be overly happy with the state >>>>>>> of affairs.
So its quite understandable why National is both annoyed that it >>>>>>> isnt getting the respect and credit it thinks it deserves on the >>>>>>> housing front and anxious that the perception it isnt doing enough >>>>>>> may cost it come September. ". . . . .
:
With Labour unable to avoid a polling percentage that starts with a "2" that seems unlikely.
Not according to Armstrong - especially if they continue to botch
things like this . . .
But you said he's a Nat supporter. Make up your tiny, diseased little mind!
A supporter can recognise reality - National do not have enough
support without Winston Peters,
We'll see. You've said that the last two elections and been flat wrong. But even so, Winston won't govern with the Greens so Labour/Green is fucked either way.
and Armstrong clearly thinks National
have to do something quickly in relation to Auckland housing if they
are not to see support slide further before the election.
Dream on, JohnO - but housing is one of National's failures whatever
happens in November.
On Sun, 21 May 2017 08:16:49 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:even so, Winston won't govern with the Greens so Labour/Green is fucked either way.
On 5/20/2017 12:59 PM, JohnO wrote:
We'll see. You've said that the last two elections and been flat wrong. But
Hey John.
Not fair playing with the less gifted.
They should be patted on the head, told 'Sit, good good boy' and
otherwise left to their demented waffle and meanderings through
adventuring into the uncommon world of common sense..
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away, george - just look at the problems National is having through ignoring the housing crisis:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11853702
"Only 7200 new residences were built in Auckland last year, barely
half the number needed and only slightly up on the last two years, an
expert says.
Leonie Freeman, a housing strategist, Goodman Property Trust director
and former Housing NZ Corporation development general manager, said
the situation is "quite drastic."
"Freeman requested Auckland Council data on new residences completed
based on code compliance certificates issued solely by the council and
she said she discovered building numbers were falling far short of requirements.
"The numbers being completed are far less than those consented.
Statistics from Auckland Council show that last year 7200 houses were
built and 6520 and 5550 were completed for year end 2015 and 2014 respectively," she said.
Yet Auckland needed about 14,000 new residences annually, made up of
houses, apartments, townhouses and terraced dwellings.
"Despite all the focus on housing in the last nine years, we are
barely completing half the number we need," she complained.
Freeman said all the public attention went to Statistics NZ's building consents while no one had thought to ascertain the exact residential
numbers completed in Auckland.
"No one has published that," she said.
"The key statistics are that we are short of 35,000 Auckland houses
now. The number of houses needed each year is 14,000. Yet in 2016,
only 7200 were completed," she said.
"Auckland Council's Unitary Plan published in 2015 assumes that
Auckland needs to build an additional 420,000 more homes by 2045.
"That equates to 14,000 each year for the 30-year period. It's more
than a little sobering to recognise that this requires a building rate
far greater than what we've actually managed over the past quarter
century," she said.
Treasury had estimated a shortfall of 35,000 houses now in Auckland,
she said.
Statistics NZ said 30,626 residential consents were granted in the
year to March, 2017. In Auckland, 10,199 consents were issued in the
year to March 2017, up on last year's 9566 consents.
Not all consents result in a new residence. Numbers finally built are
below consents issued.
__________________________
So what are the government doing?
from: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters
1. Spending $350 million on emegency housing - including putting
families up in motels (don't mention the sell-off of state houses!)
2. bitching about people who criticise - and threatening them
3. And the new great idea:
"An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge
the media and opponents. "We have got to squash that tired old, lazy
notion of the media and Labour Party that we don't care."
She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about
security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on
people being able to own their own homes.
Cooper said: "The reality is, there will be people who will not be
owning houses. How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these
good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?"
So the answer from the property owning National MPs is to "incentivise private landlords"!
and the article ends:
"There was no acceptance of housing as a policy weakness, let alone a
crisis. But a rather big raw nerve, all the same, 133 days out from
the election."
Market failure, accompanied by government failure - time to boot them
out for a party that will build houses!
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 128:20:49 |
| Calls: | 1,998 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,111 |
| Messages: | 943,046 |