Bill English Blatantly acts dumb in interview

[Kbkiwi]

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/numbers-in-labours-big-housing-plan-get-trashed-finance-minister

Bill English says Labours $2 Billion plan to build houses will only be able to build 4000 houses.

he says this with a straight face.

obviosuly he is neglecting to mention that labour would then sell those 4000 houses to first home buyers, recoup the $2 Billion, and then build another 4000 houses, then sell those, repeat etc.

i have never seen something so dumb come out of his mouth before.

[eri]

same when

little says

bill's plan to lend a billion to council's for infrastructure

isn't enough

[Thinkingbutnotdoing]

Without reading the article....if it was that cheap (i.e. cheap enough to interest first home owners/people with lower than median incomes) to build houses, then why is nobody doing it? They will still have to use builders to build them (who need to earn a living) and buy materials, and land....so where are the significant savings that the government can achieve over the private sector.

[Davo36]

Without reading the article....if it was that cheap (i.e. cheap enough to interest first home owners/people with lower than median incomes) to build houses, then why is nobody doing it? They will still have to use builders to build them (who need to earn a living) and buy materials, and land....so where are the significant savings that the government can achieve over the private sector.

Well this is the arrogance of the socialists right? They think they can do everything soooo much better than the 'incompetent' profiteering private sector.

And of course they can't. They do it twice as slow and for double the cost. Hopefully they'll never get a chance to undertake this program. Otherwise they'll be the most unaffordable affordable houses we've ever seen.

[Thinkingbutnotdoing]

Well this is the arrogance of the socialists right? They think they can do everything soooo much better than the 'incompetent' profiteering private sector.

And of course they can't. They do it twice as slow and for double the cost. Hopefully they'll never get a chance to undertake this program. Otherwise they'll be the most unaffordable affordable houses we've ever seen.

Hehe, thought i was missing something - thanks Davo36
I live in Christchurch, so i've seen how slowly houses can be built when government organisations are involved.... !

[Kbkiwi]

Without reading the article....if it was that cheap (i.e. cheap enough to interest first home owners/people with lower than median incomes) to build houses, then why is nobody doing it? They will still have to use builders to build them (who need to earn a living) and buy materials, and land....so where are the significant savings that the government can achieve over the private sector.

the difference: Labour wont be making a profit margin on the houses.

This is a huge difference. the developer margin is a large portion of the selling price. therefore a $700,000 house becomes a $500,000 house.

on top of that, labour said they will be doing bulk discount deals on materials etc.

[Kbkiwi]

Well this is the arrogance of the socialists right? They think they can do everything soooo much better than the 'incompetent' profiteering private sector.

And of course they can't. They do it twice as slow and for double the cost. Hopefully they'll never get a chance to undertake this program. Otherwise they'll be the most unaffordable affordable houses we've ever seen.

Really showing your ignorance there - with the government selling the houses at cost, they will be hundreds of thousands cheaper than what a private developer would charge.

[Thinkingbutnotdoing]

But will they be? Builders still want to get paid and materials still need to be bought. Presumably a builder when building a spec house pays himself and his staff and pays for materials, and then puts the house on the market - and gets what the market pays. So yes, if the market price is high then he gets a profit margin.

How would the government keep the prices down then? Sell at well below market price? Anyone in their right mind would have it back on the market the following day, take the profit and move south.

Also, the public sector is notoriously inefficient. (I have worked for them off and on over the years, until it drives me crazy and i can't anymore).

[eri]

builders + developers who are going bust

are not making $100,000 profits per unit sold

only the most efficient are doing that

gov. organisations are generally far, far from being as efficient as the best private companies

i don't see where a central gov. program can be massively better than private

but i can see how much worse than can be

the 1 advantage little claims to give his program is the right to force buy

which i think already exists, so he must mean writing another law to cut down legal challenges....you know long a new law takes?

how will they avoid the problems that befall public housing in the UK + oz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...United_Kingdom

1968 Manchester started the construction of the Hulme Crescents. Thirteen tower blocks connected by aerial walkways and the four long curving south facing blocks of flats and maisonettes connected by walkways and bridges. Five thousand homes were constructed in eight years. Three thousand of these were the deck access flats, almost immediately the constructional problems became apparent:they leaked, ducting failed and they were too expensive to heat. A child died falling from a deck and by 1975, and they were declared unsuitable for families with children, the elderly and the disabled. In 1975, 96.3% of the residents wanted to leave. 643 families petitioned to be rehoused. ^[39] They were demolished between 1991 and 1994

While some tower blocks have been demolished, many that occupy convenient city centre sites (such as The Sentinels in Birmingham, Trellick Tower and Great Arthur House on the Golden Lane Estate in London) remain extremely popular with residents and have even been subject to an element of gentrification, caused by the onward sale of leasespurchased by original tenants under the Right to buy scheme to more affluent purchasers.

an excellent movie, but gruelling to watch

red road

set in and about the red road flats in glasglow




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Road_(film)

how will gov. do better than this?

they'll make small low rise blocks (much more expensive)

and scatter them throughout the city (much more expensive)

[Davo36]

Really showing your ignorance there - with the government selling the houses at cost, they will be hundreds of thousands cheaper than what a private developer would charge.

OMFG. I'm the ignorant one?

therefore a $700,000 house becomes a $500,000 house.

In your dreams mate.

See any others agreeing with you here? Does that tell you anything? Anything at all?

[Bobsyouruncle]

Fortunately the looney Labour leftys won't be getting in any time soon so why debate fantasy?

[Nick G]

Where are these builders who are going to work at cost for the government?

By the time fletchers, carters and whoever take their "at cost" cut, subcontract and sub-sub contract... like with Christchurch, there won't be enough left to pay for quality building work. Refer: Christchurch post-quake quality issues.

The only way I can see this working is some USA-like prefab technology and scale being brought in, along with materials. Can you imagine Labour bypassing "working kiwis" to build their homes. Hah!

[Kbkiwi]

But will they be? Builders still want to get paid and materials still need to be bought. Presumably a builder when building a spec house pays himself and his staff and pays for materials, and then puts the house on the market - and gets what the market pays. So yes, if the market price is high then he gets a profit margin.

How would the government keep the prices down then? Sell at well below market price? Anyone in their right mind would have it back on the market the following day, take the profit and move south.

Also, the public sector is notoriously inefficient. (I have worked for them off and on over the years, until it drives me crazy and i can't anymore).

Go and read Labours policy - it's only open to first home buyers - and if they sell within 5 years all capital gain is forfeited to the government.

[Kbkiwi]

Where are these builders who are going to work at cost for the government?

By the time fletchers, carters and whoever take their "at cost" cut, subcontract and sub-sub contract... like with Christchurch, there won't be enough left to pay for quality building work. Refer: Christchurch post-quake quality issues.

The only way I can see this working is some USA-like prefab technology and scale being brought in, along with materials. Can you imagine Labour bypassing "working kiwis" to build their homes. Hah!

go and read the labour policy. Yes, They have said they will use factory made houses to help reduce costs.

[Thinkingbutnotdoing]

They've been working on bulk supply contracts in Christchurch haven't they? Fletchers etc? I was talking to an agent the other day who was saying that she had been doing lots of appraisals on new houses (e/quake rebuilds). Typical example: Rebuild cost excluding land $1.4m, appraised value for sale $950k....I have friends who's mid range 120m2 house cost close to $600k to build on a flat section, excluding land. Pre e/q had a RV of under $400k....probably worth $700k to sell now