However, there are also signs that his deregulation will do little for housing affordability yet produce inferior housing and create all sorts of negative impacts on the urban environment. Instead of deregulating for “moral” reasons of combating housing affordability, it looks like Bishop and his government are simply implementing the demands of the powerful property development industry, especially those that have donated generously to the parties now in power
What an intro to an opinion piece.
All speculation and BS.
Guess who is going to benefit from houses being built..? people who build houses. Really?
Knock me over with a feather.
I know so many moral reason builders! Not.
What powerful statements ‘there are signs that ‘ and ‘ all sorts of negative impacts’.. are
Thanks Bryce, it's good to see some thoughtful analysis. For all the focus on housing, isn't the greater concern the extent to which our executive and, now media, can be influenced by the moneyed classes? This is now a repeating pattern. Do we want that group to be the only source of policy advice? It's quite scary.
What other tool is there to get ahead of the supply and demand curve?
Lots of other things have been tried to bring the price of land and housing down and all have failed miserably. Councils are somewhat responsible for the situation we find ourselves in with unaffordable housing yet the lefties like to blame landlords instead.
The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result....yet when someone comes up with a different idea that has potential, some sections of the community are up in arms (some of the commentors in this article sat back and watched Len blow all the money in AKL and were like a marketing arm for him). Lets look at it in 5 years and see if its had any effect. Personally, as councils have failed in their core task to provide infrastructure to allow the housing to be built, I think its a 50/50 call.
The last government did that and competed with first home buyers, driving up the price of housing and making it even harder to get on the property ladder. So would you call that a success?
The government doesn't have the funds to be able to acquire land and build tens of thousands of houses. It would be ideal if they could and perhaps assist people into their first home as happened 60 - 70 years ago where they offered fixed interest rate loans to people who wanted to purchase those homes. But where does all that money come from? The interest bill the country has now far exceeds what anyone should be comfortable with and continuing to borrow at the levels required for the government to build tens of thousands of houses is a recipe for Zimbabwe economics.
This government is a sovereign currency issuer so money for building heaps of houses is not an issue. What is an issue is getting enough builders and materials. Further, a massive state build of houses would provide the good quality rentals and first homes without this competing with first home buyers you claim (that could only happen if the government was buying houses rather than building them). Agree that we should also resurrect something like State Advances and a family benefit system with capitalisation.
The money doesn't magically appear......printing money you don't have is a dangerous game. Eventually you have to pay the piper......well tax payers have to. So yes, it is an issue. We are paying the price now with high inflation and a stagnant economy for the last governments print money you don't have policies.
I certainly will do that. My father grew up in a state house and his parents lived in one all their lives. They were given the opportunity to buy it but never took up the offer.
I do not have the answer, and neither it would appear, do any of the commentators I have studied so far. If we do not wish the shambolic status quo to prevail, the experts among us MUST arrive at a common solution.
The commentators opposing the Bishop reforms are already smugly well-housed, and feel that because they themselves wouldn't want or need to live in a 'shoebox' apartment, no-one else should have the choice to do so.
Also, commentators believe that developers are really cunning people buying off politicians, who are at the same time going to be dumb enough to over-build in a location because they won't notice the other developers' building, and will build a lot of apartments that people don't want to buy.
Sadly, some commentators are so outraged at the prospect of for-profit developers, that they would lock in place the current planning and land restrictions that makes housing so expensive.
Excellent piece, Bryce. Thanks for writing it.
However, there are also signs that his deregulation will do little for housing affordability yet produce inferior housing and create all sorts of negative impacts on the urban environment. Instead of deregulating for “moral” reasons of combating housing affordability, it looks like Bishop and his government are simply implementing the demands of the powerful property development industry, especially those that have donated generously to the parties now in power
What an intro to an opinion piece.
All speculation and BS.
Guess who is going to benefit from houses being built..? people who build houses. Really?
Knock me over with a feather.
I know so many moral reason builders! Not.
What powerful statements ‘there are signs that ‘ and ‘ all sorts of negative impacts’.. are
Thanks Bryce, it's good to see some thoughtful analysis. For all the focus on housing, isn't the greater concern the extent to which our executive and, now media, can be influenced by the moneyed classes? This is now a repeating pattern. Do we want that group to be the only source of policy advice? It's quite scary.
What other tool is there to get ahead of the supply and demand curve?
Lots of other things have been tried to bring the price of land and housing down and all have failed miserably. Councils are somewhat responsible for the situation we find ourselves in with unaffordable housing yet the lefties like to blame landlords instead.
The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result....yet when someone comes up with a different idea that has potential, some sections of the community are up in arms (some of the commentors in this article sat back and watched Len blow all the money in AKL and were like a marketing arm for him). Lets look at it in 5 years and see if its had any effect. Personally, as councils have failed in their core task to provide infrastructure to allow the housing to be built, I think its a 50/50 call.
Getting ahead of the supply and demand curve = the state building lots of houses - the opposite of what Bishop is doing.
The incentive for developers is to manage/ration supply to ensure high rates of return.
The last government did that and competed with first home buyers, driving up the price of housing and making it even harder to get on the property ladder. So would you call that a success?
The government doesn't have the funds to be able to acquire land and build tens of thousands of houses. It would be ideal if they could and perhaps assist people into their first home as happened 60 - 70 years ago where they offered fixed interest rate loans to people who wanted to purchase those homes. But where does all that money come from? The interest bill the country has now far exceeds what anyone should be comfortable with and continuing to borrow at the levels required for the government to build tens of thousands of houses is a recipe for Zimbabwe economics.
This government is a sovereign currency issuer so money for building heaps of houses is not an issue. What is an issue is getting enough builders and materials. Further, a massive state build of houses would provide the good quality rentals and first homes without this competing with first home buyers you claim (that could only happen if the government was buying houses rather than building them). Agree that we should also resurrect something like State Advances and a family benefit system with capitalisation.
The money doesn't magically appear......printing money you don't have is a dangerous game. Eventually you have to pay the piper......well tax payers have to. So yes, it is an issue. We are paying the price now with high inflation and a stagnant economy for the last governments print money you don't have policies.
Ah well, we will just have to disagree (you might want to read about how the first Labour government paid for state houses though).
Hi Andrew
I certainly will do that. My father grew up in a state house and his parents lived in one all their lives. They were given the opportunity to buy it but never took up the offer.
I do not have the answer, and neither it would appear, do any of the commentators I have studied so far. If we do not wish the shambolic status quo to prevail, the experts among us MUST arrive at a common solution.
Hasn't Paula Bennet done well...
Mark Mitchells boot camps will be spoiled for choice in 20 years
Hideous
The commentators opposing the Bishop reforms are already smugly well-housed, and feel that because they themselves wouldn't want or need to live in a 'shoebox' apartment, no-one else should have the choice to do so.
Also, commentators believe that developers are really cunning people buying off politicians, who are at the same time going to be dumb enough to over-build in a location because they won't notice the other developers' building, and will build a lot of apartments that people don't want to buy.
Sadly, some commentators are so outraged at the prospect of for-profit developers, that they would lock in place the current planning and land restrictions that makes housing so expensive.