Councils Holding the Country to Ransom

[Perry]

Beware of predictions made while in Opposition.

Ten thousand affordable Kiwibuild houses a year, comes to mind.

[Davo36]

That's what I was wondering too.
I know a young couple with reasonable, but not flash, incomes who are about to buy a home in Chch - they seem to be able to 'afford' it.

Plenty more who can't.

And why should 2 incomes be needed nowadays?

[Davo36]

The Demographia commentary acknowledges that the New Zealand and Singaporean governments are the only two of those surveyed that are actively prioritising affordable housing, although Pavletich told Radio New Zealand the government's KiwiBuild target for affordable homes in Auckland at $650,000 was "an insult" to people's intelligence.

"Put simply, if this government fails to perform with housing issues in 2019, it will deservedly be thrown out at the next general election, late 2020," he said in his commentary for the report.

Act party leader David Seymour said in a statement that the Labour-led administration now "owned" what had previously been the National Party's housing affordability problem.

National's leader Simon Bridges told RNZ's 'Morning Report' programme that his party's reforms of the Resource Management Act had been too "timid" and that a National-led government would make sweeping changes to make planning law less time-consuming and costly.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12193719

Well at least they're fessing up now. They denied all of this for 9 years - vehemently. And they were told again and again by people trying to develop housing what the problems were.

Do I trust them to do anything about it next time? Nope. I don't think changing the RMA so that houses can be more easily built is a vote winner. I think there would be unnecessary panic about the environment being ruined etc.

And even if it was a vote winner, they'd put it in the too hard basket again. Easier to hand out money in some way again. You know, more free doctors visits, more Working for Families money etc. etc.

[Wayne]

Plenty more who can't.

And why should 2 incomes be needed nowadays?

Just 'cause
Because houses cost far too much, or we don't earn enough.
Seems houses cost too much because the materials are expensive and the land cost is just silly.
Not to mention council fees.

What can be done about it all?

[mrsaneperson]

Just 'cause
Because houses cost far too much, or we don't earn enough.
Seems houses cost too much because the materials are expensive and the land cost is just silly.
Not to mention council fees.

What can be done about it all?

Chuck Goff out as he's reneged on what he promised.
Hold the Councillors to accountability - fat chance with this present lot

[Perry]

Chuck Goff out as he's reneged on what he promised.
Hold the Councillors to accountability - fat chance with this present lot

The only thing you should be surprised at is that you seem surprised.
As Wayne has implicitly observed: lies, all lies and nothing but lies is par for the politicians' course.
Herr Goffler is no exception.

[Don't believe the Hype]

Plenty more who can't.

And why should 2 incomes be needed nowadays?

because it’s a competitive world with limited resources. When the world moved from single income families to double income families the ability to pay increased as did the willingness to pay.

those only willing to spend one income on things missed out.

[eri]

the first settlers to nz

built themselves raupo houses



as society gave them nothing

now too many expect MUCH more

while working FAR less

[artemis]

Plenty more who can't.

And why should 2 incomes be needed nowadays?

Double income, no kids, modest expectations and a timeframe of a few years can get most onto the property ladder even in Auckland. So, for example, save up for deposit on a studio apartment, pay it down as fast as possible, sell up and use the equity as deposit on something better. Rinse and repeat. People have been doing that for decades, though it used to be a little do up starter in a cheap suburb.

[Davo36]

Double income, no kids, modest expectations and a timeframe of a few years can get most onto the property ladder even in Auckland. So, for example, save up for deposit on a studio apartment, pay it down as fast as possible, sell up and use the equity as deposit on something better. Rinse and repeat. People have been doing that for decades, though it used to be a little do up starter in a cheap suburb.

Yeah I don't buy this whole "It's always been hard to buy a house" line.

Fact is, 30 years ago, houses were around 3 times ONE income.

So the dad could go out to work, at an average paid job and support his wife and kids at home.

This is not the case any more.

[Davo36]

the first settlers to nz

built themselves raupo houses



as society gave them nothing

now too many expect MUCH more

while working FAR less

I don't agree with this.

It's not like we can go into the bush and grab our own timber. Or move onto a large piece of land for almost nothing.

Yes their lives were poorer in many ways - they didn't have all the fancy consumer goods we have.

And there was no dole.

And they had to work hard physically.

But they didn't owe the banks 10 times 2 people's full time incomes.

They didn't spend half their lives sitting in traffic jams so they could get to work at some pointless, lowly paid job, simply in order to have a house.

Those raupo houses would have been basically debt free.

Try building your own house nowadays!

[Davo36]

because it’s a competitive world with limited resources. When the world moved from single income families to double income families the ability to pay increased as did the willingness to pay.

those only willing to spend one income on things missed out.

Yes, so as incomes went up, so did the ability to borrow and pay, so house prices went up.

So actually we went backwards.

It was kind of like we all got given $1 million dollars over night. And so then the price of houses (and other goods) went up by $1 million dollars over night. We are no better off. You know what I mean?

So now we have both in the couple out there slogging away. No one at home to look after the kids... gah.

[Don't believe the Hype]

Yes, so as incomes went up, so did the ability to borrow and pay, so house prices went up.

So actually we went backwards.

It was kind of like we all got given $1 million dollars over night. And so then the price of houses (and other goods) went up by $1 million dollars over night. We are no better off. You know what I mean?

So now we have both in the couple out there slogging away. No one at home to look after the kids... gah.

I do know what you mean.

In this competitive world today you need to do more to keep up. This is the same for most things... a generation ago too employers would employ based on experience and completion of high school, then more people started to become uni educated so the requirement to being considered in these companies became a uni degree...

[Perry]

A few Christchurch cheapies which won't make it to market.
..............

[sidinz]

A generation/30 years ago, was an out-of-the-box situation. It was a golden time for prosperity, brought on by the post-war conditions. Since the 80s, things have been regressing back to the 'norm.' The (unpalatable) fact is that great inequality IS the norm and has been throughout history. Apart from brief periods brought on by catastrophe, it's always been the case that home ownership was only for the 'haves.' (Not to say that's right or desirable, just that it is.)

Why do you think that the same thing is being repeated in the other countries that were involved in the Wars, and particularly those that benefited from reparations, either directly or indirectly?

NZ benefited from a protected trade environment with the UK and a lack of labour and import duties meant high local wages for unskilled jobs. And of course the money flowing in meant social programmes galore. But it's now far enough down the track that those times are well gone and not to be repeated. Yet societal memory is short and people forget that it wasn't like that before the Wars.

This article makes the wider point that only catastrophes bring about the narrowing of the inequality divide and that there is unlikely to be such in the future. The upshot is that a little tinkering will not bring about lasting change.