Housing Crisis What Housing Crisis?

[Bob Kane]

Just out of interest, what would you do with houses built to code at the time of construction that are:

1) full of asbestos
2) constructed out of the same cladding materials as used in the Grenfell Tower in London
3) homes in NZ built to code in late 1990's / early 2000's that subsequently turned out to be leaky?

For 1) and 2) I'd leave it for the owners to sort out - if they felt they had to do anything.
For 3) I would let the owners sue the builders of the leaky homes.

[Keys]

For 3) I would let the owners sue the builders of the leaky homes.

OK, Sue leaky builder July 1986 limited.
Your neighbor will sue leaky builder August 1986 limited.
Then the same director goes on to build several more homes under

"leaky builder (insert appropriate month and year) limited"

As all of these limited liability companies are in liquidation, who do you sue?

[Keys]

BTW.

This thread was started over 12 years ago. Surely time for anyone with any real constructive insight to make powerful inroads into the problem?


Anyone?


Hello?

[Bob Kane]

As all of these limited liability companies are in liquidation, who do you sue?

Yep.
That's how the leaky building saga happened.
Developers/builders should be held to account for their work.
Personal guarantees by directors/builders should be part of the permit/consent process.
There won't be any leaky homes if the developer has to put it right.
Some may say that developers/builders would never build if they had to give a personal guarantee.
No building is better than building leakies.

[Bob Kane]

BTW.

This thread was started over 12 years ago. Surely time for anyone with any real constructive insight to make powerful inroads into the problem?


Anyone?


Hello?

There is no housing crisis.
The housing affordability crisis is some nonsense devised by stupid economists.
The media just milk it to get headlines.
That's why in 12 years no solution has been found/suggested.
There is no solution to a non-existent problem.

[Perry]

Developers/builders should be held to account for their work.
Some may say that developers/builders would never build if they had to give a personal guarantee.
No building is better than building leakies.

It's not that simple, as I understand it.

The materials utilised were approved by BRANZ - a gummint, or quasi-gummint, organisation. Both councils and builders have pointed that out. The gummint - through those assorted lackey groups - does not want to be held accountable.

[Keys]

The materials utilised were approved by BRANZ -

And, as I understand it. BRANZ sets the minimum which is suitable for a particular situation. EG cladding, roofing, trusses s etc.

Then, wonders why problems show up when the whole home is built to the minimum.

[richard56]

It's not that simple, as I understand it.

The materials utilised were approved by BRANZ - a gummint, or quasi-gummint, organisation. Both councils and builders have pointed that out. The gummint - through those assorted lackey groups - does not want to be held accountable.

Hi
Wouldn't it be that BRANZ..."government" say "here are the materials that are approved...IF installed correctly".

Then if you could show that these "government approved" materials failed even when installed correctly the "government" is at fault.

If these material failed due to not being installed correctly by the builder then the Builder is at fault.

?

Thanks
Richard

[Perry]

A lot of the leaky home affairs were material failures which did not occur because of incorrect installation.

Some grey-haired building inspectors told me they had no choice but to sign off on work that they knew to be unlikely to last, because the job was done with correctly-installed BRANZ-approved materials.

One now-retired building certifier told me that BRANZ was hood-winked into approving untreated moisture-graded timber, giving me other details, too lengthy to go into, here.

[McDuck]

BTW.

This thread was started over 12 years ago. Surely time for anyone with any real constructive insight to make powerful inroads into the problem?


Anyone?


Hello?

There is no housing crisis.
The housing affordability crisis is some nonsense devised by stupid economists.
The media just milk it to get headlines.
That's why in 12 years no solution has been found/suggested.
There is no solution to a non-existent problem.

Well, this is all true, in some ways.

You do need to clearly define what problem you are working on.
Only then can you start to plan the steps get to a solution.

And remember the world is in a state of flux.
Change.
So if the process takes more than a moment, the game may have mutated while you are working.

While putting people in little secure, serviced waterproof boxes, (that they can afford to pay for) is the first goal.
Having it paid for quickly is important, for in a short time, age reduces income, or extra tiny mouths chew up income instead.

How difficult is it to make those boxes in practicality?
Not very.

How difficult is it to get common services to those boxes? a bit harder, but still not very.

How difficult is it to get the primates to do it? to put group interest, or long term benefit above their own short term gain?
You only have to look to Bob's answers to know.

[Bob Kane]

A lot of the leaky home affairs were material failures which did not occur because of incorrect installation.

Some grey-haired building inspectors told me they had no choice but to sign off on work that they knew to be unlikely to last, because the job was done with correctly-installed BRANZ-approved materials.

One now-retired building certifier told me that BRANZ was hood-winked into approving untreated moisture-graded timber, giving me other details, too lengthy to go into, here.

Say you get a new home built by professionals and it's inspected and signed off correctly.
8 years later you discover a serious problem with the home which could cost over 100k to fix.
In an ideal world, who would you expect to fix the problem?
- The builder who has delivered a product that failed?
- The inspectors who didn't pick up the problem?
- The owner because, well, he's rich enough to build a new house so he can pay for the repairs.

Please don't give the bland, "well it depends of the type of fault" answer.

[Perry]

The question is self-answering. If correct installation was proven, it was the council sign off. That then led to BRANZ. That then sort-of led to the gummint. Something it did not like.

We can trace our roots back into the 1950s as the Building Research Bureau, an industry-owned information service. In the late 1960s, the building and construction sector and the Government discussed the setting up of BRANZ, and Parliament passed the Building Research Levy Act in 1969. The Building Research Association of New Zealand Inc worked as an industry partnership with Government, similar to other research associations operating at that time. The Association was gifted the assets of the Bureau, and received on behalf of the sector the levy collected in accordance with the Act for investment in the development of knowledge for, and dissemination of knowledge to, the sector. Initially, the Government also provided an annual financial contribution, but this ceased in the late 1980s.

Source

[Perry]

Hopefully pragmatism will replace Twyford’s agendas

Tenants and owners may hope that some pressure may have gone now that Phil Twyford is no longer Housing Minister, paying the price for the political embarrassment that KiwiBuild became, Tenancies War spokesman Mike Butler said today.

His tinkering with rental property standards and tenancy law helped hike rents and drove a number to sell, creating a new housing crisis, Mr Butler said.

Insulation standards based on optimum costs and benefits had already been set by the previous government and Mr Twyford’s requirement for additional insulation would incur extra costs for little extra benefit, he said.

Requiring a fixed heater makes little sense when there is a wide range of affordable heaters that tenants already use to suit their needs, he said.

Installing extractor fans, which are costly, difficult to install, or have an opening window in the way, is in many cases a waste of money. Properties may be ventilated by opening windows.

The $200 million Mr Twyford allocated to the charity Housing First to house 1000 people over four years at a cost of $961 per person per week, relies on leasing properties from the private sector that have been difficult to find, Mr Butler said.

Mr Twyford’s somewhat desperate “build-to-rent” proposal would require substantial Government financial support and guarantees to get off the ground, just like the failed KiwiBuild programme, and would mean high-density, large apartment blocks that most likely would end up as ghettos, he said.

Whether the new Housing Minister, Megan Woods, is pragmatic or agenda-based remains to be seen, Mr Butler said.

The decider will be whether she proceeds with tinkering with the Residential Tenancies Act that would end the contractual rights of owners to end tenancies, and remove the ability to sell with vacant possession, as Housing New Zealand requires when buying properties from private owners, he said.

See CHB 86-year-old moves out
See Housing shortage first hurdle

Stop the War on Tenancies is a group that since last October has been highlighting the evidence that successive governments have ignored while creating rental property policy.

---

Contact:
Mike Butler 27-277 7295
[email protected]

[eri]

i doubt there will any "pragmatism"

from this gov.

not while media + commentators make and report stories like this

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/113795238/new-zealand-isnt-a-subtropical-destination-and-our-homes-are-piss-poor

how about compulsory double glazing of houses which can't be insulated?

of course they wouldn't force this on poor owner-occupiers

[Bob Kane]

They get headlines but then what?
Why don't these turkeys build their own houses to the standard that they would like and then tell us how much it costs?