Queenstown's pioneering use of inclusionary zoning shows one way forward to capture unearned gains on residential-zoned land to fund affordable home building; Fletcher drops Gib rebates
Bizzare to think Queenstown could be a trail blazer in this area considering how there seems to be no where but up for house prices there.
Latest poll results are shocking for Labour. The Opposition, as useless and uninspiring (my opinion) as they are - simply don't need to do anything. Labour finds a way to shoot themselves on the foot.
I hope at the Labour retreat at the start of next year they realise they need to make some serious changes next year, they will give immediate attention, positive, impacts to the people of New Zealand.
Can't wait to see National's polices as well, particurly on a Three Waters alternative.
My thoughts exactly. QT the poster child for affordable, irony much?
In general, CGT is the way to go. a 5% tax on a big development is just a rounding error, for the land owner and for the developer. I guess we've just given up. At least QLCHT is getting some crumbs from the cake.
Sadly I'm now considering abandoning my life-long support of progressive policies & the common good, by voting Right for the first time in my life in 2023.
We felt forced to buy our first family home in 2021/22 after two consecutive rental houses were reoccupied by their landlords. Now it seems a National/Act government (as odious as many MPs /policies are) might be the best option for protecting against significant risks to our financial security through house price falls/taxes/rates/etc.
I don't blame the Labour government so much as the RBNZ's foolishness with LVR removals and over-cooking other stimulatory measures during Covid.
I usually vote centre-right so this isn't really in my best interest; but it's worth remembering that historically Labour are pretty good at increasing house prices too. I wouldn't worry about left or right changing the fundamentals of the housing market 🤷♂️
Yes I do. As a renter, I've always voted for the party which best represented evidence-based policy supporting the long-term benefit of the country (e.g. UK Liberal Democrats).
As a recent home owner (in current conditions) it feels like I've lost that luxury, and I'm forced to vote along purely selfish lines for the first time in my life, or risk financial ruin.
I’m not sure it’s true that it was the first time we had mixed housing. The building boom and first state houses funded by direct loans and state advances rather than private banks, clipping the ticket for profiteering purposes by becoming the middle men for nothing, were well designed and had both a private housing and state housing mix around public services, roads, parks schools. Rather than leaving it to individual councils alone which have just funded palaces for themselves, tourist attractions for business and sport and golf facilities for largely just a few rich men rather than stick to their knitting like infrastructure for everyone. The Government could just do same again and direct fund each citizen into a home as a human right and by state advances loans probably by Kiwibank rather than NZPost as they’ve gutted that. Another service they need to strengthen given the threats posed by other forms of communications and being a service needed worldwide. I’m disturbed their are suggestions of selling Kiwibank, handing over ACC our savings and pool to pay for illness,injury or death but currently not spent appropriately or as originally intended. Banksters are gagging to fleece these “investments” due to underspend over many years so now holds vast wealth unspent as it should have been. Same with Super. The vultures are circling to pick our joint collective wealth off and insert themselves which the NZ public can’t afford to allow to happen. We have already contributed and continue to do they need to start working for us not hoarding or misspending and misusing our collective resources and use their strong balance sheets to do so and not tort individuals then fail in their role of service to citizens...those who pay in various and numerous ways with no other choice or able to expect best practice (in anything).Enough is enough.
Open the immigration flood gates, tarmac over parks and golf clubs, chop down green belts and replace with blocks of flats, torch any house/building that hints of pakeha/colonialism and replace with a tower block of flats, get rid of all ways to drive out of the city and replace with scooter superhighways.......book a one way ticket to Australia and leave the Honorable B. Hickey to his domain.
> Using the RMA to deliver inclusionary zoning, which is basically a tax, is really quite perverse, and it's actually probably stretching the scope of the RMA
Fair point, although the LGA doesn't give councils that many options.
Do you happen to know whether councils have the opportunity to set rates using whatever method they'd like? Rather than use the RMA could the councils just add another rate for some properties they've determined have received a certain level of unearned gains.
Thanks Philip. Good question. There’s no real problem with that sort of variable rates idea from a legal or financial point of view. It’s all political. For example, they can all levy value capture rates on value uplift when they change zoning. None of them do. Why? Because they would defeat the New Zealand way.
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.
Inclusionary zoning for affordable homes was in place last century for State Advance homes. Peppered in all areas of Auckland. Not a difficult concept to house all our families. With our low population figures in NZ why is housing for all such a mess.
Amazing work Bernard - communicating good stuff +++. Some holiday!
I'm so angry about this house stuff, about the whole FIRE economy. And helpless.
When I started out in a career in 1967, I did a good job, was keen and imagined I was some use to my little world. I so wish that any progress in what I could afford had come from that. Instead, our salaries were almost as piddling when I retired years later and the only way to make money was get a house. It is such a downer - rewards dumb.
Excellent, thanks Bernard. Our local group has already highlighted Queenstown inclusionary zoning to Tasman District Council and plan to do so again as part of our 2023 submission on new housing developments. What happens in Queenstown matters a lot to us at the other end of the island. Keep us posted when housing decisions are made, thank you.
Bizzare to think Queenstown could be a trail blazer in this area considering how there seems to be no where but up for house prices there.
Latest poll results are shocking for Labour. The Opposition, as useless and uninspiring (my opinion) as they are - simply don't need to do anything. Labour finds a way to shoot themselves on the foot.
I hope at the Labour retreat at the start of next year they realise they need to make some serious changes next year, they will give immediate attention, positive, impacts to the people of New Zealand.
Can't wait to see National's polices as well, particurly on a Three Waters alternative.
My thoughts exactly. QT the poster child for affordable, irony much?
In general, CGT is the way to go. a 5% tax on a big development is just a rounding error, for the land owner and for the developer. I guess we've just given up. At least QLCHT is getting some crumbs from the cake.
Thanks Rory. What changes could/should they make?
Go big, or go home. While keeping, as close as possible to the 30/30 rule (maybe time for a bit of rule breaking?) consider:
-first $500 tax free, and adjusted each year for inflation
-fund 50-100% of dentist costs
-extend funding for GP visits
-up 50% off public transport to 80%, and introduce permenantly
-extend fees free study to 2 years, or consider student loan forgiveness
-continue lifting benefits
-extend 20 hours free early childhood to a higher number of hours
Interesting model.
Sadly I'm now considering abandoning my life-long support of progressive policies & the common good, by voting Right for the first time in my life in 2023.
We felt forced to buy our first family home in 2021/22 after two consecutive rental houses were reoccupied by their landlords. Now it seems a National/Act government (as odious as many MPs /policies are) might be the best option for protecting against significant risks to our financial security through house price falls/taxes/rates/etc.
I don't blame the Labour government so much as the RBNZ's foolishness with LVR removals and over-cooking other stimulatory measures during Covid.
I usually vote centre-right so this isn't really in my best interest; but it's worth remembering that historically Labour are pretty good at increasing house prices too. I wouldn't worry about left or right changing the fundamentals of the housing market 🤷♂️
Fascinating change Gwani. Do you think your incentives/situation would be different if you had remained a renter?
Yes I do. As a renter, I've always voted for the party which best represented evidence-based policy supporting the long-term benefit of the country (e.g. UK Liberal Democrats).
As a recent home owner (in current conditions) it feels like I've lost that luxury, and I'm forced to vote along purely selfish lines for the first time in my life, or risk financial ruin.
I’m not sure it’s true that it was the first time we had mixed housing. The building boom and first state houses funded by direct loans and state advances rather than private banks, clipping the ticket for profiteering purposes by becoming the middle men for nothing, were well designed and had both a private housing and state housing mix around public services, roads, parks schools. Rather than leaving it to individual councils alone which have just funded palaces for themselves, tourist attractions for business and sport and golf facilities for largely just a few rich men rather than stick to their knitting like infrastructure for everyone. The Government could just do same again and direct fund each citizen into a home as a human right and by state advances loans probably by Kiwibank rather than NZPost as they’ve gutted that. Another service they need to strengthen given the threats posed by other forms of communications and being a service needed worldwide. I’m disturbed their are suggestions of selling Kiwibank, handing over ACC our savings and pool to pay for illness,injury or death but currently not spent appropriately or as originally intended. Banksters are gagging to fleece these “investments” due to underspend over many years so now holds vast wealth unspent as it should have been. Same with Super. The vultures are circling to pick our joint collective wealth off and insert themselves which the NZ public can’t afford to allow to happen. We have already contributed and continue to do they need to start working for us not hoarding or misspending and misusing our collective resources and use their strong balance sheets to do so and not tort individuals then fail in their role of service to citizens...those who pay in various and numerous ways with no other choice or able to expect best practice (in anything).Enough is enough.
Open the immigration flood gates, tarmac over parks and golf clubs, chop down green belts and replace with blocks of flats, torch any house/building that hints of pakeha/colonialism and replace with a tower block of flats, get rid of all ways to drive out of the city and replace with scooter superhighways.......book a one way ticket to Australia and leave the Honorable B. Hickey to his domain.
Somebody's not been paying attention at the back
Thanks ASJO. I’m in Australia at the moment on holiday. Happy to welcome anyone in.
> Using the RMA to deliver inclusionary zoning, which is basically a tax, is really quite perverse, and it's actually probably stretching the scope of the RMA
Fair point, although the LGA doesn't give councils that many options.
Do you happen to know whether councils have the opportunity to set rates using whatever method they'd like? Rather than use the RMA could the councils just add another rate for some properties they've determined have received a certain level of unearned gains.
Thanks Philip. Good question. There’s no real problem with that sort of variable rates idea from a legal or financial point of view. It’s all political. For example, they can all levy value capture rates on value uplift when they change zoning. None of them do. Why? Because they would defeat the New Zealand way.
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.
Inclusionary zoning for affordable homes was in place last century for State Advance homes. Peppered in all areas of Auckland. Not a difficult concept to house all our families. With our low population figures in NZ why is housing for all such a mess.
Amazing work Bernard - communicating good stuff +++. Some holiday!
I'm so angry about this house stuff, about the whole FIRE economy. And helpless.
When I started out in a career in 1967, I did a good job, was keen and imagined I was some use to my little world. I so wish that any progress in what I could afford had come from that. Instead, our salaries were almost as piddling when I retired years later and the only way to make money was get a house. It is such a downer - rewards dumb.
Excellent, thanks Bernard. Our local group has already highlighted Queenstown inclusionary zoning to Tasman District Council and plan to do so again as part of our 2023 submission on new housing developments. What happens in Queenstown matters a lot to us at the other end of the island. Keep us posted when housing decisions are made, thank you.