ACT wants to enable homeowners to block densification unless 70% vote for it; Seymour sees many secretly voting to densify to get higher land values; eyes 50% of building materials GST for councils
I can appreciate many on here will naturally not like what David says (it will go against your political beliefs). IMHO as someone who builds 300+ affordable and social houses a year, he is correct that planning and zoning is not the biggest issue (there really is no shortage of land), he is also correct that leaving all the building to KO is limiting (KO are the equivalent of a dictator that is run by a committee) - having 100's of competent social housing providers and private individuals, will far out-build KO, and KO and the Govt are stopping this. I am not sure if people are aware, but only KO can build Govt funded houses in the Alk region, no other social housing provider can get funding from Govt - which is truly limiting.
I can understand what you are saying Paul and but personally I think Government should be concentrating on infrastructure, like, first and foremost, very fast trains which would help the whole country, instead of building houses in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch which depend on roads and more cars. That doesn’t help the climate, housing affordability or even New Zealand itself. New Zealanders could live the lifestyle they wanted instead of being stuck in big cities
Pretty sure David is saying private developers with private capital should do this work. He did not suggest that private developers would have access to government funding to do the work which you seem to be suggesting.
Nope - I am suggesting social housing providers (who used to get capital grants under the previous govt). This current Govt is very anti social housing providers, eps building or leasing in Alk and won't allow them too.
OMG... Where to begin? The manufactured myth that there is a 200 year trend of people fleeing city centres to live in green and verdant lands? That any insurer would accept a one off payment when a house is built, to cover any issues over the lifetime of the house? Which was built without any building consent or external oversight of the construction, or adherence to any standard, using untested 'innovative' materials? The Master Builders (RMBA)guarantee works because the construction is consented, the builder is of sufficient competence to be a member of the RMBA, and the RMBA will be around to address any future issues - unlike the cowboy builder who has ridden off into the sunset. Of course there will be insurers who will do this with premiums at close to 100% of the build cost. Even if it is much less than that, it would still be much more than the cost of a building consent... Which will be built into the cost of the house, passed on to the owner, increasing the cost of construction, making houses even more unaffordable. Bernard could you get an actuary or an insurer on the show to discuss?
As usual, DS will not answer questions, just move the conversation around to ACT’s policy statements. An example was when BH asked him where the ‘unruly’ tenants will go when his policy is to remove them. No answer. Unsurprisingly nobody has satisfactorily answered this one. Regarding building quality affordable houses, nobody will actually say what that means! For example, here in Dunedin we have a number of sites built within the last year that are tightly packed, two bedroom, 2 bathrooms, one long single kitchen/diner/ sitting room, 1 car space - cost $660.000 aimed at the investor for rentals. Is this ‘affordable’ for a young family to buy rather than an investor? A rough mortgage estimate is a monthly cost of $4000 with a deposit of $66.000. Is this affordable? My old calculations when I started my family (50 years ago) was my mortgage was never more than 40% of my net earning. So using that, todays couple would have to earn $10.000 a month NET of tax etc. is this affordable for the average young family??
Yes, David Seymour side-stepped the issue of "where will they go?". Almost. What he did say, and Bernard stated he didn't hear (there were annoying background noises) was that people waiting on a list should not wait longer if present tenants were proving to be a nuisance in a community. I take that to mean, and I agree, that getting a subsidised home is both a right and a responsibility. Everything is. A right to a warm dry house if times are tough, but also the responsibility to be a good neighbour. Not rocket science. If tenants go out of their way to be obnoxious, because they can, then this is an unfair situation to those in the street, or living very close who should be able to live, free from antisocial noise, threats, menacing dogs, invasion of privacy and all the things that people deserve just as much as a warm dry home. It is not the state's duty to subsidise housing for people who abuse the right. Their children, maybe, but what are they learning from laws that allow the state's blessing of the behaviour of their parents? Call me a wowser if you like. Visit my street and you will change your mind.
I agree. We have a number of state houses in the area and the turnover of families is huge. However, it is obvious that if people are too unruly they will end up in the worst available housing. I just wish politicians would say so and offer some responsible policies instead of ducking out.
Madness. Council indeed can be obstructive & slow, however is it not the job of local government to ensure local homes (house, apartments) are liveable for owners & renters. A city relies on workers to service, spend & participate. Where would the wealthy be without services. Home be it large small even a room is a necessity.
Sorry Rae, it is up to councils to check local housing because who else is there? We have some deplorable rentals in Dunedin and there is no one else but the DCC to inspect them. Or are you hinting that we need another agency to control local housing quality and availability? Just asking!
One thing that sticks in my mind on reading ACT's policy on Housing, is the lack of recognition of the rights of renters. Just because renters may not stay long - despite most wanting to be more permanent - does not negate their right to object if a housing development may negatively affect their situation. Under "A better Framework for neighbourhood negotiation", section 1. says: "Multilateral pathway: development is allowed if 70% of the TITLES along a street/block approve the change in zoning rules." I take this to mean that only people holding titles can vote to prevent development. This will end up in most development taking place in streets where the people living in the houses are predominantly renters. The title holders will exempt themselves (unless, as Seymour also says) they see their properties increasing in price and that factor wins out. So: over-crowding and lack of green space in predominantly renting neighbourhoods, and larger sections in the remaining already leafy ones. Treating renters with the same rights/responsibilities as owners will remedy this. Look for parties that do that, and vote for them.
What really really concerns me - proposing selling off Kainga ora “assets”- our first investment in social housing a generation. - while Luxon’s confident he can sell 740 mill in 2nd hand residential assets. Large buildings with multiple tenants NO! can we just care for our vulnerable instead of flogging their home off to ( foreign) investors
In the 60’s & 70’s with massive housing construction the state was all over it. People capitalised their family benefit for a deposit & the state offered 3% mortgage when rates were 20%. The private sector still built the buildings just as today - KO doesn’t own any construction companies.
It’s state ownership that Seymour has a problem with & one thing is clear - the private sector investors are in the profit making business so anything that enables downward pressure on rents is not in their interest.
In Germany, there’s a Gewerbesteuer https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/gewerbesteuer that’s levied on local businesses and stays within local government, paying for inrastructure and local projects. Our village (population 3500) on the outskirts of a major city has a v. clued (part time) mayor who is constantly developing a light industry zone to attract (mostly) Hidden Champion SMEs. Wouldn’t say that we have gold-plated taps in the town hall, but we’re comfortably well off...
An insurance scheme would be good - but along side council inspections for consent & during construction. It won’t remove red tape - it adds a layer & cost.
The reason it would be good is right now developers shut down & Re trade in multiple names. There were very few builders to sue for leaky homes - only councils & designers - who were only paid for min docs & quick consent process. The philosophy then was builders build ( & have the skill ) so paperwork was where & what - not the how. Hence failure with new materials / silicon as waterproofing. Cheapest fastest build.
The insurance on every building was shut down by big housing companies like Fletcher building - they didn’t want extra cost & felt they could self insure. Council & designers wanted it for owners & to protect us from fly by nighters. We are rarely employed to inspect during construction.
Master build guarantee protects the client if builder folds during the build - to finish . It’s really a liability limiter insurance for the builder. MBG is 1yr insurance versus 10yrs liability under building act .
Agree, MBG is very limited cover from what I understand. AFAIK it doesn't have an insurance backing.
Worth noting also that proper Insurance-backed warranties are very difficult to sustain as a viable financial business model, for perhaps obvious reasons - the quality of mass builds are often simply very poor and a massive liability to an insurer.
I worked as an in-house Architect for a large UK housing association / CHP some 20 years ago. We used Zurich to provide an insurance-backed warranty, which came with all sort of clear requirements for achieving quality builds (generally aligned with Code, but often more detailed in their prescriptions).
Unfortunately, Zurich couldn't make this work. They exited the UK market some years ago.
@Bernard - worth asking the likes of David Seymour who they think would really step into the NZ market, if one of the world's largest insurers can't make it work in a larger market with substantially better Code.
While I don't agree with the policies, I did appreciate the civilised conversation between DS and Bernard. In contrast, I attended the Webinar of the EDS political Party Environmental policies on Wednesday evening. It turned out to be a belligerent ACT party shit show, as outlined in EDS's media release the next day. Make sure you have a stiff drink if you watch it. God help us.
It is time for more probing light on why Simon Court was frog marched out of Fiji, at the time I thought he was the victim of a client that was reluctant to pay their bills but I heard later was more to that. (At the time I was working for the same company and was working on 2 other projects for Fiji govt)
I can appreciate many on here will naturally not like what David says (it will go against your political beliefs). IMHO as someone who builds 300+ affordable and social houses a year, he is correct that planning and zoning is not the biggest issue (there really is no shortage of land), he is also correct that leaving all the building to KO is limiting (KO are the equivalent of a dictator that is run by a committee) - having 100's of competent social housing providers and private individuals, will far out-build KO, and KO and the Govt are stopping this. I am not sure if people are aware, but only KO can build Govt funded houses in the Alk region, no other social housing provider can get funding from Govt - which is truly limiting.
I can understand what you are saying Paul and but personally I think Government should be concentrating on infrastructure, like, first and foremost, very fast trains which would help the whole country, instead of building houses in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch which depend on roads and more cars. That doesn’t help the climate, housing affordability or even New Zealand itself. New Zealanders could live the lifestyle they wanted instead of being stuck in big cities
He has some nice insights on transport trends...but his right wing libertarian the market solves all problems stance is deeply flawed. It not only goes against my political belief but it goes against logic...and statistics. He in reality says nothing about spending and taxing polices (or any polices). But he says "The government has no place in building homes".. is the same old, same old neoliberal dogma that we have heard for 40 years and has given us one of the highest homelessness rates in the OECD. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/335556/nz-tops-list-of-developed-countries-with-most-homeless#:~:text=Yale%20University%20has%20released%20a,or%20shelter%20considered%20sub%2Dstandard.
Pretty sure David is saying private developers with private capital should do this work. He did not suggest that private developers would have access to government funding to do the work which you seem to be suggesting.
Nope - I am suggesting social housing providers (who used to get capital grants under the previous govt). This current Govt is very anti social housing providers, eps building or leasing in Alk and won't allow them too.
OMG... Where to begin? The manufactured myth that there is a 200 year trend of people fleeing city centres to live in green and verdant lands? That any insurer would accept a one off payment when a house is built, to cover any issues over the lifetime of the house? Which was built without any building consent or external oversight of the construction, or adherence to any standard, using untested 'innovative' materials? The Master Builders (RMBA)guarantee works because the construction is consented, the builder is of sufficient competence to be a member of the RMBA, and the RMBA will be around to address any future issues - unlike the cowboy builder who has ridden off into the sunset. Of course there will be insurers who will do this with premiums at close to 100% of the build cost. Even if it is much less than that, it would still be much more than the cost of a building consent... Which will be built into the cost of the house, passed on to the owner, increasing the cost of construction, making houses even more unaffordable. Bernard could you get an actuary or an insurer on the show to discuss?
"using untested 'innovative' materials" - like the untreated timber that caused the leaky homes saga?
Yes it would be a 5 year path to disaster in the building industry.
As usual, DS will not answer questions, just move the conversation around to ACT’s policy statements. An example was when BH asked him where the ‘unruly’ tenants will go when his policy is to remove them. No answer. Unsurprisingly nobody has satisfactorily answered this one. Regarding building quality affordable houses, nobody will actually say what that means! For example, here in Dunedin we have a number of sites built within the last year that are tightly packed, two bedroom, 2 bathrooms, one long single kitchen/diner/ sitting room, 1 car space - cost $660.000 aimed at the investor for rentals. Is this ‘affordable’ for a young family to buy rather than an investor? A rough mortgage estimate is a monthly cost of $4000 with a deposit of $66.000. Is this affordable? My old calculations when I started my family (50 years ago) was my mortgage was never more than 40% of my net earning. So using that, todays couple would have to earn $10.000 a month NET of tax etc. is this affordable for the average young family??
Yes, David Seymour side-stepped the issue of "where will they go?". Almost. What he did say, and Bernard stated he didn't hear (there were annoying background noises) was that people waiting on a list should not wait longer if present tenants were proving to be a nuisance in a community. I take that to mean, and I agree, that getting a subsidised home is both a right and a responsibility. Everything is. A right to a warm dry house if times are tough, but also the responsibility to be a good neighbour. Not rocket science. If tenants go out of their way to be obnoxious, because they can, then this is an unfair situation to those in the street, or living very close who should be able to live, free from antisocial noise, threats, menacing dogs, invasion of privacy and all the things that people deserve just as much as a warm dry home. It is not the state's duty to subsidise housing for people who abuse the right. Their children, maybe, but what are they learning from laws that allow the state's blessing of the behaviour of their parents? Call me a wowser if you like. Visit my street and you will change your mind.
I agree. We have a number of state houses in the area and the turnover of families is huge. However, it is obvious that if people are too unruly they will end up in the worst available housing. I just wish politicians would say so and offer some responsible policies instead of ducking out.
Madness. Council indeed can be obstructive & slow, however is it not the job of local government to ensure local homes (house, apartments) are liveable for owners & renters. A city relies on workers to service, spend & participate. Where would the wealthy be without services. Home be it large small even a room is a necessity.
Sorry Rae, it is up to councils to check local housing because who else is there? We have some deplorable rentals in Dunedin and there is no one else but the DCC to inspect them. Or are you hinting that we need another agency to control local housing quality and availability? Just asking!
Yes agree could be better & Auckland city did provide housing in 20th C & did monitor housing was liveable. It appears they no longer care.
The government has no place in building homes".. This is the same old neoliberal dogma that we have heard for 40 years. It has given us one of the highest homelessness rates in the OECD -in a large part due to National/Act policy. We topped the list on homlessness at the end of their last tenure. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/335556/nz-tops-list-of-developed-countries-with-most-homeless#:~:text=Yale%20University%20has%20released%20a,or%20shelter%20considered%20sub%2Dstandard.
David doesn't know the history of state housing does he. Absolutely the government has a fundamental place in building homes.
One thing that sticks in my mind on reading ACT's policy on Housing, is the lack of recognition of the rights of renters. Just because renters may not stay long - despite most wanting to be more permanent - does not negate their right to object if a housing development may negatively affect their situation. Under "A better Framework for neighbourhood negotiation", section 1. says: "Multilateral pathway: development is allowed if 70% of the TITLES along a street/block approve the change in zoning rules." I take this to mean that only people holding titles can vote to prevent development. This will end up in most development taking place in streets where the people living in the houses are predominantly renters. The title holders will exempt themselves (unless, as Seymour also says) they see their properties increasing in price and that factor wins out. So: over-crowding and lack of green space in predominantly renting neighbourhoods, and larger sections in the remaining already leafy ones. Treating renters with the same rights/responsibilities as owners will remedy this. Look for parties that do that, and vote for them.
What really really concerns me - proposing selling off Kainga ora “assets”- our first investment in social housing a generation. - while Luxon’s confident he can sell 740 mill in 2nd hand residential assets. Large buildings with multiple tenants NO! can we just care for our vulnerable instead of flogging their home off to ( foreign) investors
In the 60’s & 70’s with massive housing construction the state was all over it. People capitalised their family benefit for a deposit & the state offered 3% mortgage when rates were 20%. The private sector still built the buildings just as today - KO doesn’t own any construction companies.
It’s state ownership that Seymour has a problem with & one thing is clear - the private sector investors are in the profit making business so anything that enables downward pressure on rents is not in their interest.
In Germany, there’s a Gewerbesteuer https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/gewerbesteuer that’s levied on local businesses and stays within local government, paying for inrastructure and local projects. Our village (population 3500) on the outskirts of a major city has a v. clued (part time) mayor who is constantly developing a light industry zone to attract (mostly) Hidden Champion SMEs. Wouldn’t say that we have gold-plated taps in the town hall, but we’re comfortably well off...
I am tempted to enter politics. These guys will sell their grandmothers and there will be a reckoning.
An insurance scheme would be good - but along side council inspections for consent & during construction. It won’t remove red tape - it adds a layer & cost.
The reason it would be good is right now developers shut down & Re trade in multiple names. There were very few builders to sue for leaky homes - only councils & designers - who were only paid for min docs & quick consent process. The philosophy then was builders build ( & have the skill ) so paperwork was where & what - not the how. Hence failure with new materials / silicon as waterproofing. Cheapest fastest build.
The insurance on every building was shut down by big housing companies like Fletcher building - they didn’t want extra cost & felt they could self insure. Council & designers wanted it for owners & to protect us from fly by nighters. We are rarely employed to inspect during construction.
Master build guarantee protects the client if builder folds during the build - to finish . It’s really a liability limiter insurance for the builder. MBG is 1yr insurance versus 10yrs liability under building act .
Agree, MBG is very limited cover from what I understand. AFAIK it doesn't have an insurance backing.
Worth noting also that proper Insurance-backed warranties are very difficult to sustain as a viable financial business model, for perhaps obvious reasons - the quality of mass builds are often simply very poor and a massive liability to an insurer.
I worked as an in-house Architect for a large UK housing association / CHP some 20 years ago. We used Zurich to provide an insurance-backed warranty, which came with all sort of clear requirements for achieving quality builds (generally aligned with Code, but often more detailed in their prescriptions).
Unfortunately, Zurich couldn't make this work. They exited the UK market some years ago.
@Bernard - worth asking the likes of David Seymour who they think would really step into the NZ market, if one of the world's largest insurers can't make it work in a larger market with substantially better Code.
Meant to add this link: https://www.newbuildinspections.com/warranty-providers/zurich/
Let me stop you right there, Seymour.
New Zealanders don't want "abundant housing again" (and when did we have that)
New Zealanders want affordable housing.
https://vimeo.com/864262024
While I don't agree with the policies, I did appreciate the civilised conversation between DS and Bernard. In contrast, I attended the Webinar of the EDS political Party Environmental policies on Wednesday evening. It turned out to be a belligerent ACT party shit show, as outlined in EDS's media release the next day. Make sure you have a stiff drink if you watch it. God help us.
https://eds.org.nz/resources/documents/media-releases/2023/what-about-the-environment-pre-election-political-forum-webinar/
It is time for more probing light on why Simon Court was frog marched out of Fiji, at the time I thought he was the victim of a client that was reluctant to pay their bills but I heard later was more to that. (At the time I was working for the same company and was working on 2 other projects for Fiji govt)
Capital grants are government money for developers. So you mean yes.
Wow! That was revealing! Many thanks for asking Mr Seymour the hard questions. What extraordinary policy gaps!
I found this video extremely buggy in my Substack player. Anyone else have issues of it stopping all the time?