Hi Bernard, thanks for the quote ;). I agree with Philip above, using the RMA to deliver inclusionary housing is really pushing the boat out. The NPS-UD strongly supports retaining competitive markets and increasing supply, so the chances of succeeding in this plan change are probably low. Putting that problem aside for a minute, don’…
Hi Bernard, thanks for the quote ;). I agree with Philip above, using the RMA to deliver inclusionary housing is really pushing the boat out. The NPS-UD strongly supports retaining competitive markets and increasing supply, so the chances of succeeding in this plan change are probably low. Putting that problem aside for a minute, don’t we need to think about what drives unaffordable housing in Queenstown? Is it the developers who are taking the risks required to increase supply or is it the number of homes sitting empty or the number of homes being used for residential visitor accommodation (via Air BnB and the like) or is it the wages that aren’t keeping up with the cost of housing in Queenstown? I’d put my money on the last three. So if we want to raise revenue for the housing Trust (which is what IZ is all about) why not tax the problems rather than supply (which is part of the solution). In Queenstown, if you tax supply you’re just making the problem worse because the developers can and will pass on the costs in this market. But if we could tax empty homes and homes that are used as hotels and low wage businesses, we’d be raising revenue while also disincentivising the causes of unaffordable housing.
Hi Bernard, thanks for the quote ;). I agree with Philip above, using the RMA to deliver inclusionary housing is really pushing the boat out. The NPS-UD strongly supports retaining competitive markets and increasing supply, so the chances of succeeding in this plan change are probably low. Putting that problem aside for a minute, don’t we need to think about what drives unaffordable housing in Queenstown? Is it the developers who are taking the risks required to increase supply or is it the number of homes sitting empty or the number of homes being used for residential visitor accommodation (via Air BnB and the like) or is it the wages that aren’t keeping up with the cost of housing in Queenstown? I’d put my money on the last three. So if we want to raise revenue for the housing Trust (which is what IZ is all about) why not tax the problems rather than supply (which is part of the solution). In Queenstown, if you tax supply you’re just making the problem worse because the developers can and will pass on the costs in this market. But if we could tax empty homes and homes that are used as hotels and low wage businesses, we’d be raising revenue while also disincentivising the causes of unaffordable housing.