Auckland 30 Year Plan - 400,000 new homes

[cube]

News from http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/auck...-plans-4807548

Auckland councillors have today signed off on the super city's plan for the next 30 years.

"We will build 17,000 houses a year and we will need the talent there," Auckland Mayor Len Brown told ONE News.

And there should be people lining up to fill those houses. Auckland's population is expected to hit 2.5 million by 2041 and more than 400,000 homes will need to be built in the next 30 years.

Today the council approved a plan which will allow for 160,000 of those homes to be built outside the current metropolitan urban limit. But it was a contentious vote with some councillors only wanting 30% or 120,000 outside that boundary, saying Auckland needs to become a compact city.

[Davo36]

The arrogance of them.

They are essentially saying this:

"We will plan what will happen in the next 30 years because we know everything. If what you want to do fits in with this plan, fine, if not you will need to apply to us (and pay us lots of money) to be able to do it."

So imagine back in 1982 being able to see what Auckland looks like today. Heaps more people of every ethnicity, different roads around the place, cellphone towers everywhere and so on.

The fact is these turkeys can't foresee what is going to happen in the future any better than anyone else. And they have no right to prescribe to the rest of us what we can and can't do on our land.

[TheLiberalLeft]

But at the same time, Davo, there'd be people lining up to abuse them if they admitted that and didn't at least attempt to formulate a long-term plan or set of goals.

[TheLiberalLeft]

What annoyed me was the comment by Brown about the costs involved. I only overheard from a distance, but it was something along the lines of "we need to work in a public/private mix and get developers on board".

Don't make me laugh. Council costs have helped kill off developers for the last 3-4 years, if not longer.

[Davo36]

But at the same time, Davo, there'd be people lining up to abuse them if they admitted that and didn't at least attempt to formulate a long-term plan or set of goals.

Well this is the first time they've put a 30 year plan in place isn't it? And no one was criticizing them for not doing it prior to now were they?

They haven't done it before because they didn't need to. And they don't need to now.

They did do 10 year plans, and this started with the wonderful (ahem) piece of legislation called the Local Government Act 2002. Prior to that there were no long term plans at all as far as I know. There were town plans/rules and then district plans/rules. And these were reviewed from time to time - as needed.

The whole idea of trying to state what will happen in the future and where is just another form of forecasting - which is basically impossible IMHO.

I guess many organisations and companies forecast. So that they can head in the right direction (hopefully). But 30 years into the future? I doubt it. And of course they can easily just change or rip up their plans if they turn out to be wrong, or new opportunities come along etc.

But, with the council plans, other people are required to follow them. They affect everyone trying to do business in the area the plan is for. And I don't reckon they can or will be changed quickly or easily when they are shown to be wrong or newer better ideas come up.

On the ground this will just mean resource consent for everything and many applications either aborted or turned down. It forces business, innovation, entrepreneurship, jobs and everything creative to fit into this straightjacket dreamed up by a bunch of cardigan wearing planners.

My question is this: When did we cede powers to these people and how can we take it back?

[Davo36]

What annoyed me was the comment by Brown about the costs involved. I only overheard from a distance, but it was something along the lines of "we need to work in a public/private mix and get developers on board".

Don't make me laugh, you twat. Council costs have helped kill off developers for the last 3-4 years, if not longer.

Good comment again TLL. The various councils have indeed spent the last 10 years putting off developers. But to some degree this was part of the piece of legislation I mentioned above, the Local Government Act 2002. Brought in by Labour.

As well as forcing councils to do lots of planning, this act is what allows councils to charge development contributions. Up until then, infrastructure was funded out of rates. But developers were seen as greedy types getting rich off the backs of the poor everyday citizens (Labour was so good at this whole line of reasoning weren't they? i.e. the rich are stealing your money, vote for us and we'll take it off them!) so it was decided that developers should pay for all sorts of upgrades to infrastructure, and put in all the infrastructure for their developments as well, something they always did.

So it became open slather. Want to do a subdivision? Sure, but you have to upgrade the motorway on-ramp nearby at your cost, shouldn't be more than $5 million... and so on.

And so now we have a housing shortage and a lot of unemployed young men (normally employed by the construction sector). Fantastic.

And then of course the last step is for the councils and the government to start saying "Oh geez, we need to build.... why aren't those developers building?"

[cube]

The argument would be that the 1.399 million that don't use the newly upgraded off-ramp shouldn't have to pay for it - the cost will be loaded on to the sub-division's houses making it a case of user-pays.

Of course, this ignores the supposed wider benefit of the new sub-division; more workers, more ratepayers, more economic activity, which will last long after the off-ramp had been paid off.

The question for Mr Brown seems to be, then, how are developers going to make an honest buck if they are loaded with costs and (most likely) forced to provide 15% 'affordable' housing for large developments (which, I think, is what is required for the redevelopment of Whenuapai).

[JABlog]

Does anyone know how does the Council (Papkura) calculate consent value of a new house. It is significantly lower that actual built cost.

Around $1100 per sq.m If that was the case then try building it !

[Meehole]

Where will the money come from to build them? Will wages and salaries increase enough to keep up with the costs of some trades?
Currently here in ChCh a builder can charge himself out at $55 hour while a plasterer doing skim coating on repairs is getting $30m2. Used to be $6 -$7 m2 not that long ago in Auckland.

[eri]

some relevance here

on mayors who spend dear

a big part of a mayor’s job is to bully central government into paying for things that voters want.
....................
promising new trains and reduced delays on the London Underground, new jobs, new homes, money for small businesses

True, he boasts about cutting wasteful spending and freezing his share of London council taxes, but then assures voters that billions saved at City Hall have been freed for spending on other services.

to secure “a better deal for London from No 10
Just 7% of the mayor’s revenues come from direct taxation, with transport fares supplying a further chunk.

Central government provides most funds.

“All City Hall does is spend money it didn’t raise,” sighs a source. “London’s been turned into a teenager asking parents for money.”

The capital is crammed with the ambitious, the restless and those dissatisfied with the circumstances of their birth. Its mayor should be a spokesman, heard around Britain, for economic growth and openness to the world.

This will not happen until City Hall raises much more of its own money, perhaps via business taxes or VAT, forcing mayors to make tough trade-offs.

http://www.economist.com/node/21551476

[NIK]

lol and the world used to make fun of the communist 5year plans

[eri]

there does seem to be a yearning

from lefties everywhere

for some kind of

socialist planned economy

with wage, price and rent controls

which seems surprising with the complete and utter failure of such schemes to date

north korea being the last of them still running

and so the most completely screwed up and inhumane nation at present

but in a few more years when the "occupy" youngsters grow up

no doubt some young fool with more self-belief than smarts will try to organise their disparate wants into pol pot's

return to year zero

The idea behind Year Zero is that all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and a new revolutionary culture must replace it, starting from scratch. All history of a nation or people before Year Zero is deemed largely irrelevant, as it will (as an ideal) be purged and replaced from the ground up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(political_notion)

[eri]

i guess we'll be seeing more of these in the future

funnily enough

$350,000 for 2bd+c surrounded by offices and busy roads on the city fringe

doesn't seem very livable to me

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-466546932.htm

but if that's all young couples can afford....