Residents groups in Auckland & Wellington cock-a-hoop over National's MDRS backflip, calling on councils to stop plan rewrites & demanding Labour drop it altogether; Groups also against greenfields
Yes do they want to be like Dubai where all the service workers come from poor countries and live in warehouse spaces with curtains between their beds, their passports held by their employer and their visas cancelled if they complain.
I've seen them too, Sarah, years ago when we were bumped off our flight there. Workers in searing heat being driven to work, standing in open trucks. I could only imagine what their living conditions were. Thanks for posting the Lincoln Tan article about the Nepali scam Bernard. It is ghastly, the extent of greed, deceit and man's inhumanity to man.
Is the 1st time i heard you swearing in over 3 years (?) of listening to your podcasts. Good'n'you! This is obiouslly more than a job for you, as you feel pasionatelly about the subject and fellow humans. I respect that.
Ditto, Francisco. You took the words out if my mouth. And the words out of your mouth, Bernard, were totally appropriate in the circumstances. Thank you!
I came to the comments to backup this sentiment. Please keep doing what you do but I do see you have become less dispassionate over the last year plus and clearly it is getting to you. I hope this community gives you a little ray of hope :)
I don’t swear a heck of a lot, but it is absolutely crazy. We produce enough food fir millions, we have loads of space, we are good at renewable energy & we can’t give our most vulnerable a place to live that’s half way decent. It’s completely f.cked!
Bernard after 20 years can you try sneaking around the back of the enemy and shoot them from there? Just a thought. Metaphorically speaking of course. What would that mean actually doing i wonder. will be something. Like - forget the polys maybe?
No apologies needed, you’ve been covering this for a long time and we are thankful that you do. I’ve been listening for just over a year and I’ve learned so much about New Zealand and housing.
I particularly liked the long pause for beforehand, felt like when the principle stands up and tells everyone how thoroughly ashamed we should be (and, to be honest, we should be).Something worth swearing over, no apologies needed!
Hey Bernard, just who and where are the residential customers paying 19 cents/kWh for electricity in this country? They're not in the majority and I want to know how to join the club. In the meantime, I'm just glad that my retailer bumped up the feed-in tariff to 12 cents...that will be nice come November when we're exporting again.
It's more like 12-15c/kWh, as they're only talking about the energy with the 3.5c/kWh (whereas total bill includes payment for transmission and lines companies etc). The point still stands though.
That's a wholesale cost of energy. No one cares about that. They see the figure on the power bill from their retailer, which necessarily includes lines charges and GST. For most of us in the real world, that is at least 30 cents/kWh (my current daytime tariff is 29.3 cents and that does not count lines at $1.03 per day).
All this just makes Rio Tinto's arm-twisting that much more galling for the average residential customer.
Rio Tinto also pays transmission etc above and beyond their 3.5c/kWh for the energy. All of which doesn't change the fact RT pay far below the rest of the market and should be paying a lot more, but it's not apples for apples to compare the 30c v 3.5c.
My politics are centre right, but I’m well and truly off the national train. Luxon has no vision, no appreciation of the problem space, and he is tacking in whatever direction leads to an election win, with no regard for the future.
Luxon has stoked a generational battle, so I hope his supporters keep this moment in mind when the median voter is dismantling superannuation in the not too distant future.
It’s infuriating that both National and Act have both abandoned libertarian economics in favour of good old fashioned conservatism in the housing realm.
“Character” is such a frustratingly narrow view. As if the kind of buildings that characterised a particular time of a young country’s existence should persist forever. Character for who? Who gets to enjoy this “character”? Is the protection from change some kind of public service?
The costs of preserving this nebulous “character” do not fall on them, it is others who pay.
It wouldn’t surprise me if these same character advocates declare motorways part of Auckland’s “character” that must never change.
The funny part is that many of these old inner-city suburbs were once sold by early 20th century developers on their convenient proximity to the old (but then new) tram network. Their origins disprove their own arguments against densification.
What I can't understand is the fear of having lively, dense, delightful neighbourhoods where people gather to eat, drink, cycle, walk and have fun and don't have to get in a car to do so. Surely these NIMBYs have travelled overseas and seen apartment living in Vienna, Amsterdam and Venice?. Can they not can see the vibrant places and the community that denser housing brings. Think of Bodrum and Instanbul? Yes, the design needs to be good but we can do that. We so need llivable cities with amenities within walking distance. Apartments above shops and cafes. We don't need huge lawns and gated communities where nobody knows their neighbour. And above all the most basic of all human rights... a warm, dry house for everyone. Without that, there is little hope!
Amen, why would you advocate for not being able to access a single amenity without getting in your car just so you don't have to live within view of townhouse.
Yes the design needs to be good. But (a) there are plenty of examples of bad design to fuel fears, and (b) there is little by way of meaningful design guidelines to correct that and re-assure people. The government has released an urban design guide for medium density but it is (a) merely voluntary, and (b) very generally worded -- an urban design national policy statement or similar is needed to actually change matters.
Yes, it would be good to have a policy on this to have opening windows, light & access to green spaces mandatory plus places for rubbish recycling, footpaths & livable streets. Just thinking of my son’s former flat on Dixon street where it ws impossible to open a window & the bathroom was horrible-it was an office conversion & apparently that’s legal!
More often than not those calling for density done well are just dressing up bog standard aesthetic preferences or meaningless assertions about "amenity" and calling for pointless restrictions like front and side setbacks. The phrase density done well is all over the submissions of groups that are ultimately campaigning against increases in housing supply.
Yes agree. I don’t think that Andrew actually subscribes to that type of obstruction, in fact his comments are correct IMHO; but at this point I’m so jaded by disingenuous NIMBYs that will corral whatever feasible arguments they can to obstruct change. Unfortunately some genuine concerns, and the people who hold them, get dragged along for the ride.
In Toronto (where I lived until recently) it was the same bullshit, was it design? Or parking? Or environmental? Lack of transit? Schools too full? Shading? Wind effects... there is an inexhaustible list of potentially valid concerns, but those concerns get weaponized by a group of selfish imbeciles, scared to give an inch for fear that one day they’ll need to drive past someone else’s ‘not ideal’ home.
It is absurd. Imagine if we needed a hospital, but we decided not to build it because it wasn’t perfect for people living nearby... oh wait, that’s not a hypothetical, didn’t we actually fucking do that?
There will be a number of recent ( three decades ) greenfield developments on hillsides which may become significantly more expensive to insure over time.
"I think the housing situation is so bad over New Zealand that ALL Businesses asking for overseas worker visas should first ensure or provide accommodation that is up to rental standard at a rate that is no more than 40% of the income of the worker.
Then firstly offer that same job & accommodation to New Zealand residents for via all NZ job sites for three weeks to see if the business cannot find a suitable local worker."
"Thirty per cent is the golden number when it comes to rent affordability. The 30% rule specifies that no more than 30% of your gross income (income before tax, KiwiSaver, student loan deductions, etc.) should go towards rent. And, overall, it remains good advice."
Currently a lot of renters are paying 55%+ of their gross income on Rent.
I wish there was someway to successfully communicate the abject hopeless the future holds for the young. Our children are going to live in a world bereft of the opportunities we have been given and have an unimaginable number joys unavailable to them that we take for granted. When do we stop pretending this isn't the only outcome.
In the least confrontational way possible: vague statements like this serve no purpose other than ignore the objective state state of the world. If you can point me to why it will get better I am willing to listen, but just saying some magical cycle of fate will save us is only marginalizing rapidly deteriorating conditions we are creating.
I assume Rio Tinto are getting a premium for low carbon aluminum they are exporting from Tiwai and/or are avoiding paying carbon taxes where their other smelters are. How about adding a green fee onto the low carbon power they are getting below wholesale?
Don’t you think it is better talking to the NIMBYs instead of ridiculing them. We New Zealanders do care about people and as an 83 year old I can say most of us despair for the young. But whether MDRs are the answer, well I don’t think they are. New Zealand is more than Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. Neo liberalism has meant Government has not built the infrastructure that has been needed since probably the 1980s. It can’t be done all in 5 minutes but it has to be done. And in my view the creation of MDRs will create ghettos of the future. Yes new warm homes must be built throughout the country and a fast train service will enable that to be done more effectively and maintain the New Zealand lifestyle than the MDRs. I have no desire to see New Zealand emulate the European lifestyle. It is lovely to visit Europe but when I get home I thank god I live here.
The MDRS is only one way of getting there. Not supporting it doesn't make you a NIMBY in my opinion.
If you want plenty of new warm homes, train services, new infrastructure, AND you'd be happy for it to be near you, then it sounds like you're a YIMBY.
Patricia, you might be the exception. NIMBYs have shown us they don't despair for the young.
The MDRS wasn't even given the time to see its effect. It is about having choice and right now there is no choice but a 4 bedroom house out in suburbia, where your windows are 50cm from the fence and you are stuck in endless traffic (why anyone thinks this is the Kiwi dream is beyond me).
Patricia, thanks for this. I get Bernard's point and his anger. But densification certainly can't be done in 5 minutes and it definitely should be done in a visionary way. Far from political expediency. I get a bit rattled when I feel as if I am being lumped into the NIMBY naughty corner just because I am 70. My story is not that. Every Kiwi has a story and most of us want the best for the most, and we despair when we see the results of neglect and poverty. That is not NZ, just as imposing European cities wholesale onto our cities is not the New Zealand way. Take the best of those developments and carefully insert them into a uniquely New Zealand plan for housing everyone in a fair manner. Dumping the responsibility on to the vagaries of profit-driven private sector is lazy government. There are plenty of good brains out there who could be consulted. But this incredibly important responsibility must be taken away from politically driven leaders who are here today, gone tomorrow. Please promote the Green Ministry of Works Bernard, and try not to make the nation feel divided any more than it is already.
The fact is we either allow people to build or we don't. No amount of funding for another bureaucracy will do anything if the land isn't zoned to enable growth and relying on the government alone to build housing is a non-serious proposal that ignores the costs we're facing as a result of our current housing policies. If you're against the MDRS then you need to be *for* an equally ambitious widescale upzoning or you're aligning yourselves with the NIMBYs that will condemn our grand children to grow up elsewhere.
No amount of rhetoric will plug the gaping hole in a housing policy that doesn't provide freedom to build.
Hi RJ. I notice that the sort of absolutist language you use is becoming more common on all "sides" of all debates and ut is clearly fueled by social media usage. You can be against the townhouses without aligning with relatively small group of nimbys that are fighting it. Many would argue that until we see some sort of reform to the tax system which prevents us from building the necessary infrastructure, more houses is unlikely to have the impact some here are suggesting it would. The older commenter here sound quite critical of this neoliberal approach. We should be careful not to be sucked into culture war red herring traps set by a media to scared to tackle the real issues/power structures. Xx
You either provide the freedom to build, and address the housing crisis and myriad issues that stem from it or you don't. There is no answer to the housing crisis that includes arbitrary restrictions on housing based on aesthetic preferences.
To suggest that is to claim that the cost of seeing an ugly dense residential building (in the case of those that claim we need "density done well" or compulsory design guides) or enabling a house to be built which isnt some suburban fantasy quarter acre dream house (in the case of those opposing the MDRS) outweighs the benefits of enabling broad based intensification to house for the 10s of thousands that are currently underhoused in New Zealand.
If you are against the town houses and not promoting something that is even more enabling, you are a NIMBY and you are advocating for less housing than the status quo and condemning us to a slower fight against the housing crisis. That's a fact. There's no element of culture war in that.
Bernard is NOT making people feel more divided. People like me who do not own property feel incredibly MARGINALIZED by the status quo. People’s lives are even put in danger by it. Please don’t criticize Bernard for refusing to ignore this fact.
I think you may have missed my point JAL. My kids and all their generation are also in your position and I cannot do anything about it but make sure they inherit their share of the family home. Yes, lack of hope can be dangerous. I have lost a daughter to suicide. My husband has family trusts and our finances are separate as we married late. I find political parties that insist on the status quo in order to keep wealth in a certain section of society, abhorrent, just as Bernard does. I support Bernard because he is doing good work. What he is also doing though, and I have a little dig at him from time to time in good humour - is erring on the side of labelling people into silos. So when I say I am 70, that makes me a boomer, which is a label imposed on people who have done well, at the expense of other sections of society, and live in leafy suburbs. I haven't been one of them, due to various states like single parenthood, in the days when a woman bringing up a family alone was a bit of a target and no-one would lend on a mortgage until I got some private money at 19%. I worked shifts for years, but never really got ahead like many of my boomer age-mates. There are others like me out there. Adversity strengthens one. I am now at the age where I can give back, so my pension is spent on several charities and my grand children's orthodontist bills!
I agree with your point about labeling people into silos. It’s not about age and it’s not about race, even though it appears these are two significant factors dividing Kiwis to either side of our Great Housing Divide. Old and young, winners and losers of the status quo, we all need to demand our political leaders prioritize everyone being able to live in a home of some sort over protecting our Great Housing Divide, which is now a wall so high that we cannot even hear people from the other side, let alone see each other. Sometimes it takes words like “Boomer” and “f*ck” to get people’s attention.
I have lived in central London, in downtown The Hague & I can tell you it wasn’t in a ghetto. Our facades were 200 years old but our apartments/houses were warm, light & had large windows & it was wonderful. We have many regulations in this country as to building although we probably need better ones. Our older apartments & older houses such as those in Aro valley are cold, damp
& quite unpleasant for our uni students who are paying through the nose for them. We need a housing revolution. And we all need to be on board. And we need more rules for landlords so they can’t rip off our kids! I am not ridiculing anyone- I just want them to be part of the solution!
Yes, I agree. But New Zealand is not Europe. And what exists elsewhere cannot be transported to New Zealand And I want the same as you do. But New Zealand has had a neoliberal governments since the 1980s and the housing system we have now is a result of that. How it can be rectified will take years and we will have to have governments that want to do that. In my view neither Labour nor National, despite us having an MMP system, have the will to do it. I would like a Government of all parties with no party having control. I intend to vote for Raj Manji in Ilam and the Greens for my party vote. I can only live in hope.
We can take the best of design & make it work here. We have to. We need a transformational govt to do so & that’s why we need the Greens to have as many MPs as possible, and a way to tax those who have the most in our country. We thought Labour would be transformational with its majority but it wasn’t. We have hyper aging communities & we need to house our young & give them hope. I believe that we can take the best of the world & recreate it here. Food resilient communities with co housing & more govt housing.
Yes Bernard! It's Bright and Sunny here in Brisbane, with a heavy heart I made the move here in March a couple of months ago. When I heard Luxons backflip with a twist I was sad but not surprised. I'm happy to be a paid subscriber and support your Mahi! I'll vote in the upcoming election, it seems the best things I can do.
Same here, moved last yr, but to somewhere else. Mostly due to the cost of living. I like to dream one day we can move back and hand over to our kids a more live-able NZ
Absolutely agree and well summarised Bernard! Unfortunately the 'Nimbys' are the voters so they'll support the party that supports them! Not that there's much difference between the parties....a tragedy for NZ! So the question for all political parties is....'what are your intentions for population growth, short term, long-term, and how are you going to manage it for the benefit of all in NZ'
My neighbours, uphill from me, object to me building a new higher house in a character area because, amongst other things, it will ruin their view. So, to maintain their view they are 'stealing' my airspace?
OK, if I was seriously impacting their sunlight there would be an argument for stopping me build what I planned.
But if they want my airspace just for their view then surely I should be compensated by them - maybe an annual airspace lease charge.
This is a class war whatever you call it.
Yes do they want to be like Dubai where all the service workers come from poor countries and live in warehouse spaces with curtains between their beds, their passports held by their employer and their visas cancelled if they complain.
I've seen them too, Sarah, years ago when we were bumped off our flight there. Workers in searing heat being driven to work, standing in open trucks. I could only imagine what their living conditions were. Thanks for posting the Lincoln Tan article about the Nepali scam Bernard. It is ghastly, the extent of greed, deceit and man's inhumanity to man.
Is the 1st time i heard you swearing in over 3 years (?) of listening to your podcasts. Good'n'you! This is obiouslly more than a job for you, as you feel pasionatelly about the subject and fellow humans. I respect that.
Ditto, Francisco. You took the words out if my mouth. And the words out of your mouth, Bernard, were totally appropriate in the circumstances. Thank you!
Thankyou. It will be very rare.
I came to the comments to backup this sentiment. Please keep doing what you do but I do see you have become less dispassionate over the last year plus and clearly it is getting to you. I hope this community gives you a little ray of hope :)
I don’t swear a heck of a lot, but it is absolutely crazy. We produce enough food fir millions, we have loads of space, we are good at renewable energy & we can’t give our most vulnerable a place to live that’s half way decent. It’s completely f.cked!
*for
Thankyou and sorry. Thought about editing out. But. Yeah. I’m frustrated…I’ve been covering this for 20 years and the same old stuff…
no apologies needed mate (i was a fisherman after all)... it is really frustrating and they are making a massive hole for our kids
Bernard after 20 years can you try sneaking around the back of the enemy and shoot them from there? Just a thought. Metaphorically speaking of course. What would that mean actually doing i wonder. will be something. Like - forget the polys maybe?
No apologies needed, you’ve been covering this for a long time and we are thankful that you do. I’ve been listening for just over a year and I’ve learned so much about New Zealand and housing.
I particularly liked the long pause for beforehand, felt like when the principle stands up and tells everyone how thoroughly ashamed we should be (and, to be honest, we should be).Something worth swearing over, no apologies needed!
Hey Bernard, just who and where are the residential customers paying 19 cents/kWh for electricity in this country? They're not in the majority and I want to know how to join the club. In the meantime, I'm just glad that my retailer bumped up the feed-in tariff to 12 cents...that will be nice come November when we're exporting again.
It's more like 12-15c/kWh, as they're only talking about the energy with the 3.5c/kWh (whereas total bill includes payment for transmission and lines companies etc). The point still stands though.
That's a wholesale cost of energy. No one cares about that. They see the figure on the power bill from their retailer, which necessarily includes lines charges and GST. For most of us in the real world, that is at least 30 cents/kWh (my current daytime tariff is 29.3 cents and that does not count lines at $1.03 per day).
All this just makes Rio Tinto's arm-twisting that much more galling for the average residential customer.
Rio Tinto also pays transmission etc above and beyond their 3.5c/kWh for the energy. All of which doesn't change the fact RT pay far below the rest of the market and should be paying a lot more, but it's not apples for apples to compare the 30c v 3.5c.
(In Auckland) Frank charge 60c/day plus 22c/unit. They pay 11c for home generated solar power.
Took the words out of my mouth, Phil. I just checked yesterdays charge (Meridian in Dunedin) and it came to 29.3 cents!
My politics are centre right, but I’m well and truly off the national train. Luxon has no vision, no appreciation of the problem space, and he is tacking in whatever direction leads to an election win, with no regard for the future.
Luxon has stoked a generational battle, so I hope his supporters keep this moment in mind when the median voter is dismantling superannuation in the not too distant future.
It’s infuriating that both National and Act have both abandoned libertarian economics in favour of good old fashioned conservatism in the housing realm.
Time to end boomer welfare.
Agree mostly, but I would say ‘selected’ boomer welfare.
“Character” is such a frustratingly narrow view. As if the kind of buildings that characterised a particular time of a young country’s existence should persist forever. Character for who? Who gets to enjoy this “character”? Is the protection from change some kind of public service?
The costs of preserving this nebulous “character” do not fall on them, it is others who pay.
It wouldn’t surprise me if these same character advocates declare motorways part of Auckland’s “character” that must never change.
The funny part is that many of these old inner-city suburbs were once sold by early 20th century developers on their convenient proximity to the old (but then new) tram network. Their origins disprove their own arguments against densification.
E.g.: this 1906 advertisement about how the electric tramway extension will add significant value to new for-sale lots in Karori. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19061117.2.63.4
What I can't understand is the fear of having lively, dense, delightful neighbourhoods where people gather to eat, drink, cycle, walk and have fun and don't have to get in a car to do so. Surely these NIMBYs have travelled overseas and seen apartment living in Vienna, Amsterdam and Venice?. Can they not can see the vibrant places and the community that denser housing brings. Think of Bodrum and Instanbul? Yes, the design needs to be good but we can do that. We so need llivable cities with amenities within walking distance. Apartments above shops and cafes. We don't need huge lawns and gated communities where nobody knows their neighbour. And above all the most basic of all human rights... a warm, dry house for everyone. Without that, there is little hope!
Amen, why would you advocate for not being able to access a single amenity without getting in your car just so you don't have to live within view of townhouse.
Yes the design needs to be good. But (a) there are plenty of examples of bad design to fuel fears, and (b) there is little by way of meaningful design guidelines to correct that and re-assure people. The government has released an urban design guide for medium density but it is (a) merely voluntary, and (b) very generally worded -- an urban design national policy statement or similar is needed to actually change matters.
Yes, it would be good to have a policy on this to have opening windows, light & access to green spaces mandatory plus places for rubbish recycling, footpaths & livable streets. Just thinking of my son’s former flat on Dixon street where it ws impossible to open a window & the bathroom was horrible-it was an office conversion & apparently that’s legal!
Ugly high density housing is preferable to the current expanses of ugly detached houses. Density done well is nothing but NIMBY obstructionism.
Since when is wanting/demanding/expecting a good quality environment for all regardless of housing typology NIMBY obstructionism?
More often than not those calling for density done well are just dressing up bog standard aesthetic preferences or meaningless assertions about "amenity" and calling for pointless restrictions like front and side setbacks. The phrase density done well is all over the submissions of groups that are ultimately campaigning against increases in housing supply.
Yes agree. I don’t think that Andrew actually subscribes to that type of obstruction, in fact his comments are correct IMHO; but at this point I’m so jaded by disingenuous NIMBYs that will corral whatever feasible arguments they can to obstruct change. Unfortunately some genuine concerns, and the people who hold them, get dragged along for the ride.
In Toronto (where I lived until recently) it was the same bullshit, was it design? Or parking? Or environmental? Lack of transit? Schools too full? Shading? Wind effects... there is an inexhaustible list of potentially valid concerns, but those concerns get weaponized by a group of selfish imbeciles, scared to give an inch for fear that one day they’ll need to drive past someone else’s ‘not ideal’ home.
It is absurd. Imagine if we needed a hospital, but we decided not to build it because it wasn’t perfect for people living nearby... oh wait, that’s not a hypothetical, didn’t we actually fucking do that?
The inevitable number crunching of the insurance actuaries starts taking effect.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/05/30/insurers-likely-to-hike-premiums-for-flood-slip-affected-areas/
There will be a number of recent ( three decades ) greenfield developments on hillsides which may become significantly more expensive to insure over time.
From 24 JAN 2023
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/tuesdays-pick-of-the-links-d22/comment/12155789
"I think the housing situation is so bad over New Zealand that ALL Businesses asking for overseas worker visas should first ensure or provide accommodation that is up to rental standard at a rate that is no more than 40% of the income of the worker.
https://www.canstar.co.nz/savings-accounts/how-much-of-my-income-should-go-towards-rent/
Then firstly offer that same job & accommodation to New Zealand residents for via all NZ job sites for three weeks to see if the business cannot find a suitable local worker."
before or after tax income?
https://www.canstar.co.nz/savings-accounts/how-much-of-my-income-should-go-towards-rent/
"Thirty per cent is the golden number when it comes to rent affordability. The 30% rule specifies that no more than 30% of your gross income (income before tax, KiwiSaver, student loan deductions, etc.) should go towards rent. And, overall, it remains good advice."
Currently a lot of renters are paying 55%+ of their gross income on Rent.
I asked this question because the 40% seemed high, especially if for net income.
thankyou for the link you have now provided
I wish there was someway to successfully communicate the abject hopeless the future holds for the young. Our children are going to live in a world bereft of the opportunities we have been given and have an unimaginable number joys unavailable to them that we take for granted. When do we stop pretending this isn't the only outcome.
When I get down in the dumps about the world I remember that history rolls in cycles. It can get better Jacob
In the least confrontational way possible: vague statements like this serve no purpose other than ignore the objective state state of the world. If you can point me to why it will get better I am willing to listen, but just saying some magical cycle of fate will save us is only marginalizing rapidly deteriorating conditions we are creating.
Bernard, can we please have Simon Wilson on the Hoon.
I assume Rio Tinto are getting a premium for low carbon aluminum they are exporting from Tiwai and/or are avoiding paying carbon taxes where their other smelters are. How about adding a green fee onto the low carbon power they are getting below wholesale?
Don’t you think it is better talking to the NIMBYs instead of ridiculing them. We New Zealanders do care about people and as an 83 year old I can say most of us despair for the young. But whether MDRs are the answer, well I don’t think they are. New Zealand is more than Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. Neo liberalism has meant Government has not built the infrastructure that has been needed since probably the 1980s. It can’t be done all in 5 minutes but it has to be done. And in my view the creation of MDRs will create ghettos of the future. Yes new warm homes must be built throughout the country and a fast train service will enable that to be done more effectively and maintain the New Zealand lifestyle than the MDRs. I have no desire to see New Zealand emulate the European lifestyle. It is lovely to visit Europe but when I get home I thank god I live here.
The MDRS is only one way of getting there. Not supporting it doesn't make you a NIMBY in my opinion.
If you want plenty of new warm homes, train services, new infrastructure, AND you'd be happy for it to be near you, then it sounds like you're a YIMBY.
Patricia, you might be the exception. NIMBYs have shown us they don't despair for the young.
The MDRS wasn't even given the time to see its effect. It is about having choice and right now there is no choice but a 4 bedroom house out in suburbia, where your windows are 50cm from the fence and you are stuck in endless traffic (why anyone thinks this is the Kiwi dream is beyond me).
Patricia, thanks for this. I get Bernard's point and his anger. But densification certainly can't be done in 5 minutes and it definitely should be done in a visionary way. Far from political expediency. I get a bit rattled when I feel as if I am being lumped into the NIMBY naughty corner just because I am 70. My story is not that. Every Kiwi has a story and most of us want the best for the most, and we despair when we see the results of neglect and poverty. That is not NZ, just as imposing European cities wholesale onto our cities is not the New Zealand way. Take the best of those developments and carefully insert them into a uniquely New Zealand plan for housing everyone in a fair manner. Dumping the responsibility on to the vagaries of profit-driven private sector is lazy government. There are plenty of good brains out there who could be consulted. But this incredibly important responsibility must be taken away from politically driven leaders who are here today, gone tomorrow. Please promote the Green Ministry of Works Bernard, and try not to make the nation feel divided any more than it is already.
The fact is we either allow people to build or we don't. No amount of funding for another bureaucracy will do anything if the land isn't zoned to enable growth and relying on the government alone to build housing is a non-serious proposal that ignores the costs we're facing as a result of our current housing policies. If you're against the MDRS then you need to be *for* an equally ambitious widescale upzoning or you're aligning yourselves with the NIMBYs that will condemn our grand children to grow up elsewhere.
No amount of rhetoric will plug the gaping hole in a housing policy that doesn't provide freedom to build.
Hi RJ. I notice that the sort of absolutist language you use is becoming more common on all "sides" of all debates and ut is clearly fueled by social media usage. You can be against the townhouses without aligning with relatively small group of nimbys that are fighting it. Many would argue that until we see some sort of reform to the tax system which prevents us from building the necessary infrastructure, more houses is unlikely to have the impact some here are suggesting it would. The older commenter here sound quite critical of this neoliberal approach. We should be careful not to be sucked into culture war red herring traps set by a media to scared to tackle the real issues/power structures. Xx
You either provide the freedom to build, and address the housing crisis and myriad issues that stem from it or you don't. There is no answer to the housing crisis that includes arbitrary restrictions on housing based on aesthetic preferences.
To suggest that is to claim that the cost of seeing an ugly dense residential building (in the case of those that claim we need "density done well" or compulsory design guides) or enabling a house to be built which isnt some suburban fantasy quarter acre dream house (in the case of those opposing the MDRS) outweighs the benefits of enabling broad based intensification to house for the 10s of thousands that are currently underhoused in New Zealand.
If you are against the town houses and not promoting something that is even more enabling, you are a NIMBY and you are advocating for less housing than the status quo and condemning us to a slower fight against the housing crisis. That's a fact. There's no element of culture war in that.
Bernard is NOT making people feel more divided. People like me who do not own property feel incredibly MARGINALIZED by the status quo. People’s lives are even put in danger by it. Please don’t criticize Bernard for refusing to ignore this fact.
I think you may have missed my point JAL. My kids and all their generation are also in your position and I cannot do anything about it but make sure they inherit their share of the family home. Yes, lack of hope can be dangerous. I have lost a daughter to suicide. My husband has family trusts and our finances are separate as we married late. I find political parties that insist on the status quo in order to keep wealth in a certain section of society, abhorrent, just as Bernard does. I support Bernard because he is doing good work. What he is also doing though, and I have a little dig at him from time to time in good humour - is erring on the side of labelling people into silos. So when I say I am 70, that makes me a boomer, which is a label imposed on people who have done well, at the expense of other sections of society, and live in leafy suburbs. I haven't been one of them, due to various states like single parenthood, in the days when a woman bringing up a family alone was a bit of a target and no-one would lend on a mortgage until I got some private money at 19%. I worked shifts for years, but never really got ahead like many of my boomer age-mates. There are others like me out there. Adversity strengthens one. I am now at the age where I can give back, so my pension is spent on several charities and my grand children's orthodontist bills!
I agree with your point about labeling people into silos. It’s not about age and it’s not about race, even though it appears these are two significant factors dividing Kiwis to either side of our Great Housing Divide. Old and young, winners and losers of the status quo, we all need to demand our political leaders prioritize everyone being able to live in a home of some sort over protecting our Great Housing Divide, which is now a wall so high that we cannot even hear people from the other side, let alone see each other. Sometimes it takes words like “Boomer” and “f*ck” to get people’s attention.
Right on.
I have lived in central London, in downtown The Hague & I can tell you it wasn’t in a ghetto. Our facades were 200 years old but our apartments/houses were warm, light & had large windows & it was wonderful. We have many regulations in this country as to building although we probably need better ones. Our older apartments & older houses such as those in Aro valley are cold, damp
& quite unpleasant for our uni students who are paying through the nose for them. We need a housing revolution. And we all need to be on board. And we need more rules for landlords so they can’t rip off our kids! I am not ridiculing anyone- I just want them to be part of the solution!
Yes, I agree. But New Zealand is not Europe. And what exists elsewhere cannot be transported to New Zealand And I want the same as you do. But New Zealand has had a neoliberal governments since the 1980s and the housing system we have now is a result of that. How it can be rectified will take years and we will have to have governments that want to do that. In my view neither Labour nor National, despite us having an MMP system, have the will to do it. I would like a Government of all parties with no party having control. I intend to vote for Raj Manji in Ilam and the Greens for my party vote. I can only live in hope.
We can take the best of design & make it work here. We have to. We need a transformational govt to do so & that’s why we need the Greens to have as many MPs as possible, and a way to tax those who have the most in our country. We thought Labour would be transformational with its majority but it wasn’t. We have hyper aging communities & we need to house our young & give them hope. I believe that we can take the best of the world & recreate it here. Food resilient communities with co housing & more govt housing.
Yes Bernard! It's Bright and Sunny here in Brisbane, with a heavy heart I made the move here in March a couple of months ago. When I heard Luxons backflip with a twist I was sad but not surprised. I'm happy to be a paid subscriber and support your Mahi! I'll vote in the upcoming election, it seems the best things I can do.
Same here, moved last yr, but to somewhere else. Mostly due to the cost of living. I like to dream one day we can move back and hand over to our kids a more live-able NZ
Yes, while I'm hopeful. I wouldn't keep reading the Kaka if I wasn't! You have to be practical otherwise you'd stay and be bitter about it all
Absolutely agree and well summarised Bernard! Unfortunately the 'Nimbys' are the voters so they'll support the party that supports them! Not that there's much difference between the parties....a tragedy for NZ! So the question for all political parties is....'what are your intentions for population growth, short term, long-term, and how are you going to manage it for the benefit of all in NZ'
Let's look at this from the other end.
My neighbours, uphill from me, object to me building a new higher house in a character area because, amongst other things, it will ruin their view. So, to maintain their view they are 'stealing' my airspace?
OK, if I was seriously impacting their sunlight there would be an argument for stopping me build what I planned.
But if they want my airspace just for their view then surely I should be compensated by them - maybe an annual airspace lease charge.
If that's the case your neighbours should buy your house. Otherwise they should buy a different house if they're unhappy with their own house.
Love that!!🤭