KiwiBuild - Labour's latest spectacularly stupid idea.

[drelly]

You have to read this...

Labour will tap the government's cheap borrowing costs to launch a ten-year programme to build 100,000 homes at less than NZ$300,000 each if it gets into power in 2014, leader David Shearer announced over the weekend.

Shearer said around two-thirds of the houses built over the first five years of the programme would likely be in Auckland.

Other developments would be built around New Zealand in places of high housing costs, such as Christchurch, Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty, Nelson, Wellington and Queenstown Lakes District.

read more: http://www.interest.co.nz/property/6...ivate-sector-c

[Maccachic]

Affordable housing in Queenstown is funny there is hardly any jobs to justify it and land values are very high.

[TheLiberalLeft]

Way to falsely engineer the "market"!

[TheLiberalLeft]

How do they stop a 1st timer renting them out? Saying they have to live there for a period of time - ok, does that mean an army of inspectors dropping by randomly to ensure owner is home? hahaahaha give me a ****ing break.

[Glizzle]

He does realize this isn't some 3rd world nation that needs a aid camp, ah wait........

[speights boy]

How do they stop a 1st timer renting them out?

You can't.
But if it is operated legally then there are two Govt agencies that would have knowledge.

[TheLiberalLeft]

So you'd fudge it by calling them "flatmates" and possibly making an appearance now & again.

[speights boy]

So, this very small possibility is your biggest criticism?
I have no doubt you are saving the big gun reasons for your next post.

BTW people that would try this are usually stupid enough to want to brag to their mates as to how smart they are.
That catches a fair number of them.

[drelly]

So, this very small possibility is your biggest criticism?

Ok... Let's say Labour build a lot of houses so that people can get into homes. What happens to the value of all the existing homes? It drops right? Way to piss off all your home-owning voters! These houses reduce demand in the short term but in time, demand will increase again. Do they build more? What happens to first home buyer 100,001? They can't get a house at cost, so they end up paying market rates again. Labour are economic morons and just trying to buy votes. If you want housing to be more affordable, make land more accessible, reduce council costs and stop adding in more and more regulation!

[speights boy]

Home-owning voters affected by this?
I just don't believe there would be that many in the first place, let alone who are concerned enough about how it may effect their 3 yearly CV.
My mates down at the RSA certainly couldn't care less.

Ahh the old "but it only helps 100,000 so let's not do it" argument.
Not a subscriber I'm afraid.

Agree with you re more land and less council needed.
If not the Govt, then just who is going to force these much needed changes?

[TheLiberalLeft]

But it's a lottery, which means that the MOST deserving people might not get a look in, when their not-really-as-deserving mates get a $100k tax-free capital gain (I don't see it reducing the price of the neighbouring properties - more of a market price applying to the new home once the mandatory ownership time frame expires).

What sort of western democratic society makes it mandatory to stay in a house?

[drelly]

Ahh the old "but it only helps 100,000 so let's not do it" argument. Not a subscriber I'm afraid.

That's not what I was saying. Take it a step further. If they buy a house at $300k, the market then goes back to normal and they suddenly have a huge chunk of Government gifted (read: taxpayer funded) equity that they didn't have to earn or pay for... do you think this will create lower prices or higher prices?
Look what happened in Australia when they gave them grants for first homes - all the prices went up by the same amount. This dumb-arse idea is much bigger than that.

[TheLiberalLeft]

You're right, drelly. You can't manipulate the demand side. They need to manage supply better.

[speights boy]

- more of a market price applying to the new home once the mandatory ownership time frame expires).

What sort of western democratic society makes it mandatory to stay in a house?

Mandatory ?
Not to participate, nor to retain ownership.

Rules, yes....as there should be.
Don't like 'em don't participate.
Sell within the timeframe....go ahead but pay the penalty.

[speights boy]

Look what happened in Australia when they gave them grants for first homes - all the prices went up by the same amount. This dumb-arse idea is much bigger than that.

Open market purchases.
These purchases are not.