National sabotages housing bipartisanship move by saying 112 minutes later it would repeal Three Waters and hand assets (and debt) back to councils, slashing borrowing capacity for infrastructure
Absolutely not responding to any of the substance, but man I dislike the concept of 'bipartisanship' (and same for 'the opposition'), it just seems contrary to the concept of MMP.
Hoo boy. We are very badly governed and debt is the crippler. There is no reason for funding to be tied to borrowing and debt. New Zealand has a Treasury. The treasure is the NZ$, which only exists because the government says it does by the power invested in it by the people of New Zealand. The NZ$ is produced by tapping a computer keyboard and making an entry into a database, mostly by the private banking debtmongers. But the government must stay away from the privates. There need not be any shortage of money to fund whatever is socially desirable. The money can and should be issued directly from the Treasury, bypassing all debt and borrowing considerations. Or if anyone insists on borrowing, then borrow only from our own RBNZ and therefore the debt is a wash. We need to realise that the government is the only entity capable of solving the housing crisis and that it is using debt as an excuse not to. Will we ever overcome this debt tyranny?
Hm. I dunno, I still see it as a pretty positive move. Obviously it doesn't solve the problem, but if a pipe is clogged at three points and you remove the clog at one of them it's still progress even if the water doesn't flow yet. Let's call it a win and keep the pressure up?
The Akl Unitary Plan didn't solve infra funding. It didn't fix the RMA. It didn't conjure up more construction workers. It didn't solve monopolistic building materials supply.
But it did upzone larger parts of Auckland. The result? House prices flatlined between 2016 and 2020 (See REINZ index). Even despite continued immigration-fueled population growth in that time.
Price increases during the pandemic were caused by monetary stimulus. Interest rates fell 30% (from 5% to 3% according to RBNZ), prices rose 32%. Go figure.
Upzoning does lead to an increase in supply. Your argument that because a few other barriers remain nothing will happen fails to account for the impact of the AUP.
It is a matter of where and when these new dwellings will appear. Walk down the street and look at each existing house and ask if these new rules could be used. An eighty year old weatherboard house on a quarter acre pavlova paradise section will be the prime target for redevelopment. But a twenty year old house that could only be replaced by two of the newbies? I doubt it.
I live in an inner city suburb in Christchurch that has seen some intensification from earthquake destroyed houses being replaced by two or three new townhouses. The street I live in is having it's sewerage pipes replaced because of earthquake damage. The old pipes were laid in the 1870s (yes, 18) and are being replaced with pipes the same size (well 12 inch becoming 30 cm). The densification over the past 150 years hasn't been enough to require larger pipes.
So in existing suburbs I see a gradual move to greater density with the occasional cumulative pressure on three waters and electrical reticulation for them to need upgrading.
Ironically it will be the new three waters bodies that will be lumbered with this cost, not the councils.
A final thought: - those fancy outer suburbs where there are covenants governing what you can and can't do. Will those covenants be dead in the water?
Apart from the nonsense of it all because we have a fiat currency and can issue our own money, isn’t this debt thing just a matter of accounting? I think a look at how it was done in the 1930s when there really were restrictions on debt, might solve the problem of the 1989 Public Finance Act. Just think of what was done in those days. Railways through out the Country, hydro works, housing, an Insurance company, a shipping line etc etc all done by the govt which built things by spending money which then became assets on that accounting ledger…….
By making these housing typologies along with the types enabled by NPS-UD permitted activities isn't it the case that these houses *will* be built and a future government will have their hand forced and have to fund the infrastructure?
1. California passed similar legislation last month, more wide ranging in that it applied to the entire state, every city, town county in all of California.
2. Dilution is the solution. From a few thousand available building sites each year heavily concentrated ion the fringe of Auckland requiring brand new infrastructure. This change would mean 400,000 plus development options, only a very few will actually happen in any year and they could happen anywhere in the city so the change will be very gradual and very spread out, hence diluted throughout the whole city. It is nothing like the horror stories some media are suggesting.
Hi Bernard I like your comment that ACT is in a mess. Seymour might find himself between a rock and a hard place by putting his electorate voters offside with the holding of hands between Labour and National as the Resource Management Act won’t apply to the bi partisan housing deal. I wonder if Seymour is visiting his electorate voters who have the kiwi quarter acre section to persuade them that it’s a great idea to let developers in to build a few town houses and to grant easements over their properties to allow for the necessary infrastructure. Yeah right.
Absolutely not responding to any of the substance, but man I dislike the concept of 'bipartisanship' (and same for 'the opposition'), it just seems contrary to the concept of MMP.
Hoo boy. We are very badly governed and debt is the crippler. There is no reason for funding to be tied to borrowing and debt. New Zealand has a Treasury. The treasure is the NZ$, which only exists because the government says it does by the power invested in it by the people of New Zealand. The NZ$ is produced by tapping a computer keyboard and making an entry into a database, mostly by the private banking debtmongers. But the government must stay away from the privates. There need not be any shortage of money to fund whatever is socially desirable. The money can and should be issued directly from the Treasury, bypassing all debt and borrowing considerations. Or if anyone insists on borrowing, then borrow only from our own RBNZ and therefore the debt is a wash. We need to realise that the government is the only entity capable of solving the housing crisis and that it is using debt as an excuse not to. Will we ever overcome this debt tyranny?
So does inflation.
Hm. I dunno, I still see it as a pretty positive move. Obviously it doesn't solve the problem, but if a pipe is clogged at three points and you remove the clog at one of them it's still progress even if the water doesn't flow yet. Let's call it a win and keep the pressure up?
Another quality podcast Bernard....
The Akl Unitary Plan didn't solve infra funding. It didn't fix the RMA. It didn't conjure up more construction workers. It didn't solve monopolistic building materials supply.
But it did upzone larger parts of Auckland. The result? House prices flatlined between 2016 and 2020 (See REINZ index). Even despite continued immigration-fueled population growth in that time.
Price increases during the pandemic were caused by monetary stimulus. Interest rates fell 30% (from 5% to 3% according to RBNZ), prices rose 32%. Go figure.
Upzoning does lead to an increase in supply. Your argument that because a few other barriers remain nothing will happen fails to account for the impact of the AUP.
It is a matter of where and when these new dwellings will appear. Walk down the street and look at each existing house and ask if these new rules could be used. An eighty year old weatherboard house on a quarter acre pavlova paradise section will be the prime target for redevelopment. But a twenty year old house that could only be replaced by two of the newbies? I doubt it.
I live in an inner city suburb in Christchurch that has seen some intensification from earthquake destroyed houses being replaced by two or three new townhouses. The street I live in is having it's sewerage pipes replaced because of earthquake damage. The old pipes were laid in the 1870s (yes, 18) and are being replaced with pipes the same size (well 12 inch becoming 30 cm). The densification over the past 150 years hasn't been enough to require larger pipes.
So in existing suburbs I see a gradual move to greater density with the occasional cumulative pressure on three waters and electrical reticulation for them to need upgrading.
Ironically it will be the new three waters bodies that will be lumbered with this cost, not the councils.
A final thought: - those fancy outer suburbs where there are covenants governing what you can and can't do. Will those covenants be dead in the water?
Apart from the nonsense of it all because we have a fiat currency and can issue our own money, isn’t this debt thing just a matter of accounting? I think a look at how it was done in the 1930s when there really were restrictions on debt, might solve the problem of the 1989 Public Finance Act. Just think of what was done in those days. Railways through out the Country, hydro works, housing, an Insurance company, a shipping line etc etc all done by the govt which built things by spending money which then became assets on that accounting ledger…….
By making these housing typologies along with the types enabled by NPS-UD permitted activities isn't it the case that these houses *will* be built and a future government will have their hand forced and have to fund the infrastructure?
1. California passed similar legislation last month, more wide ranging in that it applied to the entire state, every city, town county in all of California.
2. Dilution is the solution. From a few thousand available building sites each year heavily concentrated ion the fringe of Auckland requiring brand new infrastructure. This change would mean 400,000 plus development options, only a very few will actually happen in any year and they could happen anywhere in the city so the change will be very gradual and very spread out, hence diluted throughout the whole city. It is nothing like the horror stories some media are suggesting.
Gary
Hi Bernard I like your comment that ACT is in a mess. Seymour might find himself between a rock and a hard place by putting his electorate voters offside with the holding of hands between Labour and National as the Resource Management Act won’t apply to the bi partisan housing deal. I wonder if Seymour is visiting his electorate voters who have the kiwi quarter acre section to persuade them that it’s a great idea to let developers in to build a few town houses and to grant easements over their properties to allow for the necessary infrastructure. Yeah right.
Excellent podcast as usual 👏🏽