Chris Bishop is cutting state house building and unleashing a slumlords’ charter, but instead of fighting against this, the left has entered an unholy alliance with property developers
The Left has recognized the very deep distress and severe poverty caused by the very high cost of housing and renting, and is grateful someone else is doing something about it. Labour should be abashed at its failure to do the Bishop reforms when they had the chance - in fact Bishop says he is doing what Twyford started.
Frankly, the smug and well-housed architects and planners can scream all they like 'but it's not Vienna' while young New Zealanders look forward to affordable rents and buying their own homes.
It's not really surprising Chris. The Left, generally speaking, love public transport, people living in high densities near PT routes, with no room for a car, many regard as some sort of ideal.
Two of the excellent initiatives that will help lower prices and improve availability are freeing up land for residential development and allowing secondary dwellings.
As an example, under the later proposal, we could put up a nice two bedroom cottage (60m2) on our land for a very modest cost. Our recently divorced daughter simply can't afford to rent or buy a home for her and her little girl otherwise; I think it's a great idea.
In our area (not served by municipal sewers) the minimum section size is 3000m2, they can easily take a small secondary dwelling or "granny flat" with no loss of amenity value for others. I'm sure this will be popular and really help many people.
It is already common for 'granny flats' to be provided for in district plans. Is your district plan one of the exceptions in zones with a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq m?
I don't know about other areas but we are in a "rural living zone", no secondary dwellings are allowed under the district plan - a "dwelling" being defined as having it's own kitchen etc. Sleepouts are allowed however.
You are correct though Andrew, apparently, and according to MBIE "Most district plans currently allow granny flats and other structures under 60 square metres in residential and rural zones without needing resource consent, if it meets certain permitted activity standards". Regardless, whether it's just freeing up or straight out allowing minor dwellings I think it's a great idea.
Thank you again for rattling the cages. As a life long renter ( private sector) still working at 70 but wondering what renting on Super alone will be like ( !) what strikes me is once again there is no discussion on what a ‘grand plan’ re housing could look like. If every time the Tories get in they do their best to smash the public housing sector perhaps a ‘grand coalition’ approach is the best available alternative? That means the greed heads from the left and right get unearnt dosh but in return social and public and alternative and sustainable housing gets some entrenched security? You’ve described the mess Chris but what is realistically possible? I think the obsession with ownership is already a hiding to nothing for anyone not on “the housing ladder”. I’m interested in high mana tenancies e.g Vienna or mixed tenancies ie, ownership, social housing tenants private and co housing, rent to buy et al.
It is possible to create a completely different market for housing. It has been achieved by He Korowai Trust in Kaitaia founded by the late great Riki Houton. The second example is the Queenstown Housing Trust. In neither of these Trusts when a whanau wishes to leave their home is bought back by the Trust at an agreed rate. When families join the community, they sign into these conditions.
The key issue is to take land out of the mix. Nobody can ever own the land at He Korowai. It remains in the ownership of the trust. Which organizations own heaps of land in NZ? Central and Local government, churches and Iwi. If there was a will the He Korowai model could be used to create a new housing model. It's been done and, with the right structures, could be duplicated if there was the right will. It would also stabilize communities.
Then there is the Green Party policy on housing and sustainable communities which promotes a very different model to that from Mr Bishop and his expert housing advisory group of economists.
Thanks, Chris, for the enlightening arguments. As a pre-Boomer (yes, I'm that old) I feel hugely privileged to have a comfortable, spacious house with a lawn and trees! I'm all for other NZers joining me in such a privilege. One proviso - when building "out", high quality agricultural land should be avoided. Build on the hills and enjoy the view.
Hmm. I feel myself being drawn to your liberal socialism. Keep up the good work.
The Left has recognized the very deep distress and severe poverty caused by the very high cost of housing and renting, and is grateful someone else is doing something about it. Labour should be abashed at its failure to do the Bishop reforms when they had the chance - in fact Bishop says he is doing what Twyford started.
Frankly, the smug and well-housed architects and planners can scream all they like 'but it's not Vienna' while young New Zealanders look forward to affordable rents and buying their own homes.
It's not really surprising Chris. The Left, generally speaking, love public transport, people living in high densities near PT routes, with no room for a car, many regard as some sort of ideal.
Two of the excellent initiatives that will help lower prices and improve availability are freeing up land for residential development and allowing secondary dwellings.
As an example, under the later proposal, we could put up a nice two bedroom cottage (60m2) on our land for a very modest cost. Our recently divorced daughter simply can't afford to rent or buy a home for her and her little girl otherwise; I think it's a great idea.
In our area (not served by municipal sewers) the minimum section size is 3000m2, they can easily take a small secondary dwelling or "granny flat" with no loss of amenity value for others. I'm sure this will be popular and really help many people.
It is already common for 'granny flats' to be provided for in district plans. Is your district plan one of the exceptions in zones with a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq m?
I don't know about other areas but we are in a "rural living zone", no secondary dwellings are allowed under the district plan - a "dwelling" being defined as having it's own kitchen etc. Sleepouts are allowed however.
You are correct though Andrew, apparently, and according to MBIE "Most district plans currently allow granny flats and other structures under 60 square metres in residential and rural zones without needing resource consent, if it meets certain permitted activity standards". Regardless, whether it's just freeing up or straight out allowing minor dwellings I think it's a great idea.
Here is a link to the discussion document: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/28513-making-it-easier-to-build-granny-flats-discussion-document
Thank you again for rattling the cages. As a life long renter ( private sector) still working at 70 but wondering what renting on Super alone will be like ( !) what strikes me is once again there is no discussion on what a ‘grand plan’ re housing could look like. If every time the Tories get in they do their best to smash the public housing sector perhaps a ‘grand coalition’ approach is the best available alternative? That means the greed heads from the left and right get unearnt dosh but in return social and public and alternative and sustainable housing gets some entrenched security? You’ve described the mess Chris but what is realistically possible? I think the obsession with ownership is already a hiding to nothing for anyone not on “the housing ladder”. I’m interested in high mana tenancies e.g Vienna or mixed tenancies ie, ownership, social housing tenants private and co housing, rent to buy et al.
It is possible to create a completely different market for housing. It has been achieved by He Korowai Trust in Kaitaia founded by the late great Riki Houton. The second example is the Queenstown Housing Trust. In neither of these Trusts when a whanau wishes to leave their home is bought back by the Trust at an agreed rate. When families join the community, they sign into these conditions.
The key issue is to take land out of the mix. Nobody can ever own the land at He Korowai. It remains in the ownership of the trust. Which organizations own heaps of land in NZ? Central and Local government, churches and Iwi. If there was a will the He Korowai model could be used to create a new housing model. It's been done and, with the right structures, could be duplicated if there was the right will. It would also stabilize communities.
Then there is the Green Party policy on housing and sustainable communities which promotes a very different model to that from Mr Bishop and his expert housing advisory group of economists.
Let me guess - it involves a very high degree of government decision-making and lots of subsidies?
You could always read it and decide.
Tell me I'm wrong about it.
Sorry but as a Gen Xer there's only one "Our House" song for me - Madness' "Our House (boom) in the middle of our street".
But “I’ll light the fire”
Thanks - went online for a listen but still prefer the Madness Our House. CSNY did a great version of Joni Mitchell's Woodstock though.
Thanks, Chris, for the enlightening arguments. As a pre-Boomer (yes, I'm that old) I feel hugely privileged to have a comfortable, spacious house with a lawn and trees! I'm all for other NZers joining me in such a privilege. One proviso - when building "out", high quality agricultural land should be avoided. Build on the hills and enjoy the view.
Hmm. I feel myself being drawn to your liberal socialism. Keep up the good work.