Is ACT's Seymour onto something with his housing policy?

[donna]

Every party needs a housing policy and I guess it's hard to come out saying something we've not already heard many times before. Words are cheap as the saying goes. We want action.

"Everyone agrees that our planning system is to blame. We simply don't allow enough building ? whether up or out ? to house our growing population. Governments of all stripes have failed to confront this challenge."

source

So why has Governments failed to get this right, and do everything they can to distract from the core cause? Labour have been the worst by far as we well know with Kiwbuild and their Landlord Bashing.

National give it good go with the RMA and Seymour says he'd just get rid of it and take politics out of infrastructure.

He said ACT would also take the politics out of infrastructure and get central and local government working together through 30-year infrastructure partnerships, devolving revenue and responsibility to regional governments and the private sector, while strengthening accountability and oversight from central government.

David go a step further take politics out of housing - then there will be real action like McDuck's suggestion here.

cheers,

Donna

[Perry]

Once Upon A Time

ACT or whoever - unless the development-suppressive and money-making powers are legislatively stripped from holding-the-country-to-ransom councils, when it comes to housing, ACT won't Seymour - it will see less.

Councils claim they are following the RMA;

Councils also assert the extortionate fees charged are revenue neutral.

The problem with the fees is they are largely non-competitive, and if it looks like there might be some profit, just add a staff member of two to take care of that. All jolly good empire-building. As Peter said, back here - it's all a charade.

Perhaps Mr Carroll's efforts should be directed towards Councils capping their rates, so that these frequent and substantial cost increases do not then need to be passed on to their tenants by cash-strapped landlords.

However, we need not worry about the outcome of the local authority elections. It actually makes no difference who you vote for because it makes no difference who gets in. The mayor leads the city the way the bowsprit leads the boat, as do the elected Councillors. Over time, the rules have been manipulated and amended at the behest of the hired help to empower the bureaucracy and isolate those elected to supervise them.

The way the local authority act now works is that all the elected officials are permitted to do is read reports and sip tea. Their only allowable point of contact with the council staff is the council CEO who can ignore, stall or frustrate them as he chooses - with no apparent penalty. The elected cannot pick up the phone and say 'mend those potholes' or 'remove those bus lanes, my voters hate them'. We have even had the Auckland Council CEO publicly gagging the elected Councillors from discussing controversial subjects with the media and the ratepayers.

The reality is that the inmates have taken over the asylum and are running it for their own benefit and according to their own agenda and beliefs.

There is quite a discussion now about the low level of voter turnout, and how to improve this. The widespread disinterest in voting is actually quite a logical and rational reaction to the ratepayers eventual realization that the whole thing is a meaningless and impotent charade that will change nothing. So people just don't bother.

So don't lose any sleep about your vote - because it is really just a futile exercise left over from past era when different rules applied.

Once upon a time, I can dimly recall councils making a lot of effort and concessions to attract people, businesses and development. I.e. A Council Business Development Unit. Those days are long gone.

[donna]

Here's someone taking matters into her own hands. Cheap rent! And probably doesn't need a tenancy agreement as the dwellings are on her land. Not sure I'd want the responsibility of social tenants.

cheers,

Donna

[Perry]

The critical point seems to be:

Because there are no cooking facilities or bathroom, they are sleepouts, and not classified by the council as separate dwellings.

That's not to detract from what's being done.