Councils Holding the Country to Ransom

[Davo36]

This all boils down to whether you think we can continue with a private housing market

What private housing market? We don't have one.

What we have is a highly regulated, constrained, expensive 'market'.

Councils just need to get out of the way, open up the land and let private developers do it. Problem solved.

After all councils don't provide food, clothing, shoes etc. for people do they? Even poor people? The reason they don't is that they don't need to - because the private sector does - and they are able to do it because they aren't hampered by regulation and costs every step of the way.

We don't say to a raincoat manufacturer: You can only make 400 raincoats this year, and supply them to people in this area, and this area only. We will let you bring in x hundred kilos of materials, no more.

We also don't say we will look at your design for a raincoat and approve/disapprove it (after you've submitted your design and paid the appropriate fees). So then you may be able to produce 1 raincoat. Then we will look at the design for the next raincoat...

But we do this with houses and wonder why they cost a fortune to build.

[Shalodge]

Social housing providers can receive IRRS (Income related rend subsidies) . This is not the same as the accommodation supplement which can be paid regardless of who the housing provider is.
Basically a SHP charges market rent and the MSD determines what the tenant can afford and pays the difference.

We used to charge 80% market rate o the basis that we didn't need to make a profit out of the oldies. Then we found that some were renting out their house for market rates and settling into our pensioner flats! Councils are really unable to assess need as we cant do means testing on tenants. This is where IRRS and MSD comes in.

[Shalodge]

Councils just need to get out of the way, open up the land and let private developers do it. Problem solved.

Very common argument but it doesn't work . There is no 'spare' land just sitting idle. All the easy stuff has already been built on and the stuff that is left is hard to develop and that means expensive.
Sure we can go greenfield and sprawl the hell out the place. The 'affordable' house way out of town is not so affordable when the cost of extending services is taken into account, especially when extra capacity has to be added all the way back to the pumps/ponds. That is before we talk about the 2 hour commute!

Intensification is the obvious answer to the above but its not popular.

So this discussion has come full circle?

[Davo36]

Very common argument but it doesn't work . There is no 'spare' land just sitting idle. All the easy stuff has already been built on and the stuff that is left is hard to develop and that means expensive.
Sure we can go greenfield and sprawl the hell out the place. The 'affordable' house way out of town is not so affordable when the cost of extending services is taken into account, especially when extra capacity has to be added all the way back to the pumps/ponds. That is before we talk about the 2 hour commute!

Intensification is the obvious answer to the above but its not popular.

So this discussion has come full circle?

Yeah we'll have to agree to disagree.

Expanding services outwards is waaaaaay cheaper than building upwards - AND you still have to expand the services - the sewer pipes aren't big enough any more (and they have to be replaced under all the existing buildings and roads...), same with telecoms, power etc. Stormwater may even need upgrading if more permeable land area is covered.

I agree re the commute.

And I agree urban sprawl is horrible. BUT we have 2 options: a) Reduce the number of people coming into Auckland or b) Let them come in and either constrain land and have prices go up OR allow land to be opened up and developed and have cheaper prices.

And the argument that all the good land has been taken? What? Not up this way mate.

[Shalodge]

Not taken Davo.. Just unavailable for development for various reasons.

I see the Mayoral report on AK Housing is out..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11874620

Well I don't know how much that cost but they could have just read this forum and cut and pasted most of it.. The three key areas:

The report makes recommendations in three key areas:
• developing at scale which includes building through the economic downturns
• unlocking the availability of land with appropriate zoning and infrastructure
• enabling efficiency and innovation in consenting and risk management

Point 1 .. That requires Govt intervention meaning distorting the market through incentives (subsidies).

Point 2. What Davo has been saying mostly and I have cautioned re cost of infrastructure .. Who pays?

Point 3 .. Yep .. What Davo said .. but that is all down to the RMA not Councils.. So the Govt should amend the RMA? Well that hasn't worked so well so far!

[Perry]

We used to charge 80% market rate on the basis that we didn't need to make a profit out of the oldies.

Were that social housing model still functioning, just imagine the implications of Darth Morgueman's deemed rate of return tax on the homes of the elderly. The Opportunist Party sees things quite differently.

[artemis]

Social housing providers can receive IRRS (Income related rend subsidies) . This is not the same as the accommodation supplement which can be paid regardless of who the housing provider is.
Basically a SHP charges market rent and the MSD determines what the tenant can afford and pays the difference.

We used to charge 80% market rate o the basis that we didn't need to make a profit out of the oldies. Then we found that some were renting out their house for market rates and settling into our pensioner flats! Councils are really unable to assess need as we cant do means testing on tenants. This is where IRRS and MSD comes in.

If councils charge actual market rates, then any AS means testing will be done by MSD who determine the amount of the AS. Why would councils not charge market rents, it is the point of the AS.

When the AS was brought in, it applied to all properties, including social housing (and owners/mortgagors, as it still does). That placed all tenants and owners on the same footing. If landlords, public or private, chose to offer subsidised rent then the AS would be adjusted accordingly.

The rationale at the time was that the 'problem' was not enough income rather than not enough houses.

When Labour reverted to IRRs there was suddenly a two tier system. And that is IMO the main reason there are so many on the social housing register. Applicants are making a sensible economic decision.

[sidinz]

Lots of what used to be Council pensioner flats have been taken over by HNZ. And in many cases, they are no longer housing just pensioners.

There are heaps of problems with intensification. Where it works are large cities that have been building up their underground mass transport for decades, if not centuries. As we haven't done this and can't do it anytime soon (don't have the money) what we are left with are roads. And our roads can't cope with intensification. I live not far from the Stonefields development, where they have steadily been building homes for the past several years. The traffic on local roads, designed to be residential and now significant through-routes, has gone from reasonable to 'can't get into or out of the driveway at rush hour.' Do we really want this repeated all over Auckland?

Then, as Davo says, there are the draws on services which weren't built for that capacity.

It's only a two-hour (or whatever) commute if you work in the centre/other side. Not everyone does and many people choose where to live based on proximity to work.

Then there's the info coming out about how unhealthy for our state of mind it is to live in intensified areas divorced from nature. Kids are less healthy because they've lost the backyard to play in.

Schools are overcrowded due to infill housing and intensification in their suburbs.

No, intensification is not the answer that many believe it to be.

[deepu]

I would like to hope intensification can be done well, but I can't really say. Generally the more perople the more issues. If you say that X% of any community are not good for that community or whatever. Then intensification done well could possibly reduce this X%. But if it's done wrong that X% could be higher. (Sorry hope this silly example explains my point)

Now take a look at point england, selling kids playing fields and public reserves for houses, and area is already intensifying, and that is just a brief of it. It is pure stupid government!! But hey that is just my reading of it.

[Perry]

Doh!

Somewhat off topic, but the customary lack of common sense seems in vogue, here:

Brady Whale was given a ticket as he was heading for the service station on Devon Rd when he and friends in other cars were pulled over by police and issued tickets for "using a motor vehicle under 3500kg in a prohibited area". The Council bylaw states that no vehicles under 3500kg - which is all light vehicles - can drive in certain areas between 7pm and 7am, unless you live or work there, or it is an emergency or trade vehicle on the job, or a council or security service vehicle on business.

In the New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) in a defended hearing, the charge was dismissed and the $750 fine was waived. Council customer and regulatory solutions manager Katrina Bruton said the bylaw - which applies to several streets around De Havilland Dr., Egmont Rd and Rifle Range Rd - was brought in to help industrial business owners who were being affected by boy racers. "The business owners were having difficulty accessing their properties at night due to the congregation of people and cars and they asked NPDC for help," she said.

But clarity is on the way, she said. "We're fixing this situation by having new signs made and they will be delivered in the next few weeks."

Aimed at boy racers but happy to take fine revenue off others! Commons sense will not prevail, no. New signs will solve the problem, stupid.

[flyernzl]

I wonder if Local Coucils can legally bar licenced drivers in registered and WoF'd vehicles from driving down public roads that are not temporarily closed for a specific event?

Arnt such taxpayer/ratepayer funded roads open to all without restriction?

[Shalodge]

Councils tread the fine line with regard to bylaws. Flyernz is right .. you cant use a bylaw to override legislation including the bill of rights. You also cant use bylaws for anything other than reasons as set out in LGA. There is no doubt in my mind that the restrictive road bylaws are not legal and someone said, "Who cares if it isn't legal .. who's going to challenge us?"

[Davo36]

Councils tread the fine line with regard to bylaws. Flyernz is right .. you cant use a bylaw to override legislation including the bill of rights. You also cant use bylaws for anything other than reasons as set out in LGA. There is no doubt in my mind that the restrictive road bylaws are not legal and someone said, "Who cares if it isn't legal .. who's going to challenge us?"

Haha, sounds like a council alright!

[Wayne]

Haha, sounds like a council alright!

Trying to help and they get it in the neck - councils will not win, ever!

[Perry]

Councils tread the fine line with regard to bylaws. Flyernz is right .. you cant use a bylaw to override legislation including the bill of rights. You also cant use bylaws for anything other than reasons as set out in LGA. There is no doubt in my mind that the restrictive road bylaws are not legal and someone said, "Who cares if it isn't legal .. who's going to challenge us?"

Interesting. And, given that the item said the Council was just going to put up bigger Notices, it seems the Council is going to call the Court's bluff.