In NZ politics, when in opposition, you only fight the law changes that are good for the country or the government would benefit from. Then if your lucky enough to stop it you can bring it in when you're in power and claim the glory. The the government is shooting themselves in the foot, such as this law, you put up a token resistance and let it go. Just think of how many law changes that have been viciously opposed that have then be resented. Somewhere between F all and hardly any. Lady J is too green to see the trap. Tyifford is too blinkered with his 15 mins of fame. It's Winny how should be speaking out about it but where is he?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Consultation on proposed RTA changes
Collapse
X
-
Don't fret: the Labour Minister for Small Businesses will stymie Dhil Twitford in stoic defence of all small business mum and dad PIs.
Stuart Nash saith:
This Government is committed to growing the economy and working with businesses to encourage productivity.
Comment
-
Worse Still
Originally posted by Learning View PostIn NZ politics, when in opposition, you only fight the law changes that are good for the country, or that the government would benefit from.
Comment
-
The media are searching for examples of terrible landlords with slum-like rentals in order to justify the rewrite of the RTA and support Jacinda and her stardust party.
Only problem is - there's only one in NZ - that rental with the pond under it that was in the headlines a month or two back.
After extensive searching they finally found another rental in poor condition:
Da-da
Only problem with this one is - it's owned by the Government!
LINZ is the landlord.
Will Twyford use this example of a damp, cold and mouldy rental to show that landlords can't be trusted and the law needs to change?
You see, there aren't many rentals in bad condition and those that are, are usually owned by the government or councils.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BDub View PostYep, only one dodgey rental in nz.... gummmmmon lol
Can you supply a third?
And now for the big question:
can you show me a damp, cold and mouldy rental that could not be fixed using the existing RTA provisions?
Comment
-
Bob Kane has it so right. The mish-mash that Dhil's legislative plans represent is a stupid solution in search of a non-problem. However . . .
At some point, a stand-back, objective appraisal seems apposite amidst all this hoo-hah. A starting point is that there are a few horror stories relating to LLs and a few relating to tenants. I suspect that they are, in total, a tiny fraction. The reality is more likely to be that 90% plus of LL-tenant relationships work well. Perhaps a slightly higher percentage for private tenancies and a little lower for government 'social' tenancies. Despite that, Dhil Twitford and the media seize on the few horror stories as if they are common and therefore a valid justification for all these Draconian legislative measures.
Loud assertions about 'modernisation' and an out-of-date 1986 Act are also obfuscation. The Act has been amended several times since then and just what modernisation means depends on who utters the word and the context. The talk about renting long term also seems to be a solution in search of a problem, as are (usually very selective) blithe comments about what happens in foreign countries.
Modernisation in most contexts means extra costs - costs which will deter both tenants and LLs. And - despite head-in-the-sand and I-ignore-my-officials-advice prognostications from Dhil Twitford - the consequences will be that the pool of private rentals will shrink and rentals prices will go up. The end result will hurt the very people whom Dhil deceptively propounds that he is 'helping.'
That's quite normal for socialists. Also normal is that they never seem to learn. When the consequences of these rental ructions reach a certain point, Dhil will assert that the market has failed (rather than his legislation has distorted and screwed with the market) and Dhil will introduce rent controls. If he and his crowd are still in government, of course.
One thing that it does appear that the socialists have learned is that having a socialist regime 'own' everything does not work, as the dis-incentives of state ownership of everything kills innovation. So the next best thing for the socialists is control. Yes - it's privately owned, but with the owner carrying all the risks. The socialists then control what the owners can and can't do via legislation.
For socialists to have a reason for being, there needs to be a constituency of poor, down-trodden, 'exploited,' etc., in the population to vote for them. I.e. They would find themselves jobless and out of their cosy sinecures, if all the 'poor' were suddenly doing very nicely, thank you. Whether conscious or subliminal, that thought is likely to be lurking in their minds, somewhere. Their objective most certainly isn't to improve everything to the point that they become redundant.
Then there are the woodenheads' spin doctors who collude to 'package' things for their political masters in a way that would do a camouflage creator proud. Dictum number one: take a policy's weakest point and eulogise it to the maximum possible while minimising the risk of the charade being exposed.
That seems to be what we have going on, at present.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AlFa View Post- Increases housing shortages.
Unlikely. Mom&Dad investors will sell up to large professional landlords
....
Why?
Because, unlike commercial property, the landlords obligations under the RTA are so demanding that there is no profit in it if everything is done under a professional cost structure.
Several have tried, over the years, none have succeeded.
Even the Hobsonville Land Company made a big noise about becoming a landlord back in 2015.
The NZ Super Fund, Ngāi Tahu Property Limited and New Ground Capital have teamed up to invest in a new housing development at Hobsonville Point in Auckland.
All gone rather quiet - as reality has set in.
Comment
-
But those mum and dad PIs may still sell and for every ten sold, eighteen (isn't it?) tenants become de-homed.
Oh! Silly me!
Dhil Twitforrd 'assumes' (makes and ass of u and me and him) that's a scenario which will not happen.
Oh! Gosh!
And the sun may not rise tomorrow, either.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post... And now for the big question:
can you show me a damp, cold and mouldy rental that could not be fixed using the existing RTA provisions?
Comment
-
Here's todays shock, horror nasty landlord, exploited tenant story:
(ok, it's not quite as nasty as that but it's the worst case the media could find today)
Sophie* has rented for 40 years....
Last year, she and her partner were given notice. "We'd maintained the property, and had never missed a payment. We asked why, and she said she didn't have to give a reason."
"I know there are tenants out there that destroy property, but the majority don't. The pendulum has swung so much in favour of the landlord, and we need that to change."
"The pendulum has swung so much in favour of the landlord...." where have I heard that before - in one of Jacinda's speeches?
So no stories of horrific rentals today, only an example of a landlord not renewing a tenancy.
And we need that to change?
Comment
-
The elderly are very exposed to rental market shocks as they do not have ability to increase incomes.Free online Property Investment Course from iFindProperty, a residential investment property agency.
Comment
-
23 Oct 2018
Owners not consulted directly on tenancy reforms
Why were the owners of New Zealand's 588,700 rental properties not consulted on Draconian proposals on tenancy law and extra housing standards when Tenancy Services holds the contact details of every owner who has lodged a bond, Tenancies War spokesman Mike Butler asked today.
The submission period for proposed changes to tenancy law and extra standards for rental property ended yesterday.
Tenancy law proposals would prevent owners from ending tenancies contractually, ban fixed-term tenancies, give tenants the right to modify a property, allow tenants to keep pets as of right, and enable Government officials to enter boarding houses at any time.
Extra standards for rental property may require fixed heating in every room, additional insulation beyond current requirements, extractor fans in kitchens and bathrooms, installation of polythene sheets under floors, and draught-stopping tape around windows and doors.
The Government has the ability to notify owners directly but this time notification was limited to a few posts circulated around social media, Mr Butler said.
Is the office of Housing Minister Phil Twyford dysfunctional to the extent that contacting owners was never considered, or was the failure-to-notify a plot to minimise owner submissions and encourage feedback from tenants, he said?
Anyone who spent the several hours required to complete the online questionnaire about proposed tenancy reforms would see that the proposals would make an already biased-against-owners Residential Tenancies Act even more steeply biased against owners, Mr Butler said.
Some questions were so poorly phrased that a rational response was not possible, he said.
Anyone who completed the online questionnaire about the proposed extra standards would realise that the Housing Minister is trying to solve a problem that largely does not exist, Mr Butler said.
The questions skirt around the major issue - the elephant in the room - which is a shortage of affordable housing, both own-your-own and rental, he said.
The group Stop the War on Tenancies aims to empower both owners and tenants in the face of ongoing Government ineptitude with housing.
Contact
Mike Butler 27-2777295
[email protected]
Comment
Comment