KiwiBuild - Labour's latest spectacularly stupid idea.

[muppet]

Has Labour forgotten about the Christchurch rebuild?

Word is that the rebuild could take up to 10 - 15 years to come to fruition.

[DazRaz]

After 2 years, I have the emergency repairs done (which I organised myself) and EQC have drilled the land to find out how deep foundations need to go. Optimistic that repair work may start between 2-3 years from now. My lounge is not sitting on the foundations and the house shakes when buses go past. Wishing I had been red zoned so I could have moved on. 10 years+ is just stupid.

The worst thing is the bank doesn't want to lend me more money to buy IPs because of my severely damaged PPOR.

Expanding foam is wonderful stuff...

Wouldn'd be a nice thought that a new government scheme could slow the rebuild down more.

[essence]

You're all a bit naive.

Don't forget the a big proportion of Labour's voters are beneficiaries in some form. Therefore they get "free" $'s from the Government (ie tax payers $'s).

I know one person voted for Labour (about three elections ago) because "Labour promised me another $20/week in my benefit". Honestly, I couldn't reply (which those PT-ers who know me, will attest is an aberrsation!!).

I was absolutely and utterly so gob-smacked that someone would be so stupid to think there isn't a consequence to that "free" money.

That is the level of intelligence of the Labour voters. They're always wanting to be at the teat of the Labour Government getting money for nothing. They don't care that Labour will be borrowing off-shore money at cheap rates to subsidise their life-style.

They probably don't even/won't even want to know.

Yes, I know I'm generalising about Labour voters. Get over it.

[drelly]

So.
Living in these homes....



is unrealistic ??
Do these people drive regularly to the CDB outside of the rush hour, and if so for what purpose.

This is not the unrealistic list of high expectations you quoted drelly.
It's day to day life.
Do you think these people have no significant education or personal financial risk by owning these properties?
Or do you consider them to be...
....as you posted in another thread

So, where North of Albany do you suggest people buy for 300k, Whangarei perhaps?

You can't win a debate by quoting out of context or putting words in my mouth.

[speights boy]

What are the hours of the morning and evening rush hour from Wairau Rd to CBD and vv.

Ok then.
That question above, and also how long does it take to commute from Albany to CBD in rushhour?
(Bus & car)

Just asking, as you appeared to be suggesting that because it takes 15 mins to drive outside of rushhour, that Albany wasn't a realistic option for new first home buyers.

[drelly]

That question above, and also how long does it take to commute from Albany to CBD in rushhour? Just asking, as you appeared to be suggesting that because it takes 15 mins to drive outside of rush hour, that Albany wasn't a realistic option for new first home buyers.

It's about 30+ minutes in rush hour I think. Yes, 15 minutes drive to a country's biggest city is an expensive luxury in most other developed countries.

[speights boy]

So
Is all the North Shore out for you?
IE. If Albany is an expensive luxury does that rule everything out in that direction.

If so, then where would be acceptable out West and to the South?
What are the non rush hour drive times?

I don't know, but I genuinely cannot understand why a non rush hour drive to CBD is such a factor.
What is the attraction that makes it an expensive luxury?

[drelly]

So
Is all the North Shore out for you?
IE. If Albany is an expensive luxury does that rule everything out in that direction.

If so, then where would be acceptable out West and to the South?
What are the non rush hour drive times?

I don't know, but I genuinely cannot understand why a non rush hour drive to CBD is such a factor.
What is the attraction that makes it an expensive luxury?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? This isn't a decision I've made, it's just the way it is. As cities get bigger and more important, it becomes more and more expensive to live close to them. It's nothing to do with what I find acceptable. It's like I said... we take a lot for granted here. In the UK, I knew people who would commute from Yorkshire to London every work day... a 2 hour train ride. It was about 45 minutes commute for me on a train to my work. To drive it in rush hour would have been double that.

[speights boy]

My point?

There are all these calls (on here); free up land, cut the red tape time and costs, build flexible developments etc.
All good stuff.

However, when a suggestion is made (me & Albany) you come straight back with NO....too close to CBD...expectations too high.

So, in practical terms for AUCKLAND....no where else.

Where do we start looking to build all these new accommodations we need.
WHERE?

[drelly]

However, when a suggestion is made (me & Albany) you come straight back with NO....too close to CBD...expectations too high.

I'm not saying it's too close. What an individual thinks doesn't matter. If a particular suburb is unaffordable for a first home buyer, then the market has decided that it's too close/posh/whatever. Complaining about it, won't change it. There's a heap of land available further out of Auckland. You might have to drive twice as long to get to work but it is affordable IF it's made available for development.

[speights boy]

Yes there is land.
The Albany example was TODAY.
This "spectacularly stupid idea" is at least 3 years away.

So, back to topic.

If you want housing to be more affordable, make land more accessible, reduce council costs and stop adding in more and more regulation!

What is being done to make this happen?
Do you believe the Govt should be targeting (positive term) 1st home buyers in a similar way that this Labour proposal does?

[drelly]

What is being done to make this happen?
Do you believe the Govt should be targeting (positive term) 1st home buyers in a similar way that this Labour proposal does?

No I don't. The Govt shouldn't fiddle with markets or hinder them from operating with excessive regulation or unnecessary costs. Take a relevant example... There was a development here in Whangarei that was meant to be a flash new gated sub division. The story goes that the developer was forced to include lower cost housing (think it's called pepper potting) for low income people, so the whole development went belly up because the people it was intended for didn't want to buy expensive houses next to cheap ones populated by beneficiaries with smelly children and ravenous stray dogs playing on car bodies parked on the front lawn (exaggerating of course!).

We don't really need low income housing, what we need is more affordable housing (which means more profitable developments) in general so that the lower end properties become available for first home buyers.

[speights boy]

So the announcement last week that the Govt is setting (reinstating) quotas for low income families at Hobsonville is the wrong idea?

[Glizzle]

Yes, dosnt help the real issue which is young middle class over spending on housing and taking money out of spending on retail, company building, city donations, which is going to help spin the wheel and create jobs, more state housing is just that more state housing.

[speights boy]

It's like I said... we take a lot for granted here.

Yes, the topic of another thread.
The rest of the world, overpopulated, polluted, corrupt, harsh weather ...or whatever....sees us and realises just how comparatively cheap it is to buy great property here.
That effect flows downstream.
Plus there are no restrictions or impediments to purchase, means young NZ families are rapidly losing the ability to compete.