If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Trumpeted ‘damp rental’ claims are wishful thinking (if not lies) by Dhil Twitford, probably designed solely to garner votes for Labour from unsuspecting tenants
19 December, 2018
According to a 17 Dec 2018 independent assessment report on a government discussion document:
Fewer than 3 percent of tenants find their homes cold and damp
The World Health Organisation did not recommend a healthy temperature
Government-policy-friendly (I.e. politically-biased in the interest of further paid work) research understated the costs of heating and insulation proposals for rental properties.
Iconoclastic economist Ian Harrison of Tailrisk Economics has taken aim at the cherished beliefs of Housing Minister Phil Twyford in a discussion document titled The proposed Healthy Homes Regulations: An Assessment.
Twyford is finalising a series of standards for New Zealand’s 588,700 rental properties on heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture and draught-proofing under the so-called Healthy Homes Guarantee Act that was passed last December. As justification, the Minister points to assertions that many New Zealand houses, not just rental houses, are “cold and damp” and that has health implications.
A critical point to the housing Minister's dubious assertions is that NZ homes don’t meet the World Health Organisation recommendation that indoor spaces be heated to at least 18C. The Healthy Homes Standards discussion document put out for public consultation in September has six pages of references which give the appearance of sound and thorough research. But for anyone who reads the papers to verify the claims, it quickly becomes obvious that:
Only 2.7 percent of tenants thought that their rental was cold and damp, according to a survey by the Building Research Association of New Zealand in 2017, and of that percentage it was not clear what proportion was due to inadequate use of heating and / or a failure to ventilate by tenants.
The World Health Organisation did not recommend a minimum indoor temperature of 18C. What WHO did say was that no conclusions could be reached on the average indoor ambient temperature below which the health of the general population may be considered endangered.
Research evidence shows that the common New Zealand practice of lightly heating bedrooms does not present a health risk.
The bulk of the paper was devoted to a cost benefit analysis done for the Government by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, a cost benefit analysis that Harrison described as “client friendly.”
Critically important but unhelpful documents were sometimes ignored, costs were systematically understated, and unrealistic methodologies were adopted that overstated the net benefits, Harrison wrote. Harrison redid the cost benefit analysis by including the unhelpful documents while correcting costs and methodologies to find that a heat pump in every living room would come at a capital cost of $457-million bringing a net loss of $500-million.
Insulation top-ups would cost $410-million bring a loss of $269-million, ventilation would cost around $200 million with very limited benefits, moisture proofing would cost around $300-million with no material benefit, and draught-proofing would cost around $300-million, again with limited benefits.
The NZIER’s assessment of the cost of insulation was based on outdated prices and only considered ceiling insulation, which by excluding subfloor costs, increased its benefit. When questioned on why underfloor insulation was not included, NZIER said that they were directed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
to not consider it.
Political interference of the worst kind! But no surprise, really, given those involved.
The value of underfloor insulation is marginal because only 10 percent of heat is lost through the floor while 40 percent is lost through the ceiling. The evidence shows that “healthy homes guarantee” slogan is nothing more than political spin, which is very bad news for all rental property owners who may be forced to spend around $7000 per dwelling on unnecessary upgrades. And even worse news for tenants as rents increase to cover those pointless expenses.
Since an insulation top-up costs the same as insulating from scratch, all those “good” rental property owners who have installed insulation since whenever have probably wasted their money because they may have to re-do it.
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 27-277 7295 [email protected] Ian Harrison, who has a BCA Hons from Victoria University Wellington, and a Master of Public Policy SAIS Johns Hopkins, has worked with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Bank for International Settlements.
PT Forumites: please appreciate that these posts (Stop the War on Tenancies) are not a consequence of any detailed research work done by me. My involvement is minor - if not minuscule - compared to the stoic efforts put in by the leading PI lobbyist involved.
I and others have been predicting for a while that landlords will not be too keen on buying more properties - existing, new builds or off the plans - because of uncertainty and hostility caused by the current government.
Seems chickens are coming home to roost - "Investors may not be selling up en masse but they aren’t buying either – going by new data which shows the amount getting mortgage lending has dropped significantly." Link below.
All the more for Kiwibuild - where there has been a shift away from ballotting to just rock up and buy. Please.
How much notice will Mr Twyford and his advisors take of changes to the rental pool when deciding how much extra cost to lay on tenants?
Not sure his slogans about 100,000 affordable homes and more protections for tenants are having quite the intended effect.
Investors may not be selling up en masse but they aren’t buying either – going by new data which shows the amount getting mortgage lending has dropped significantly.
Mr Harrison of Tailrisk Economics is being smacked on the Trademe real estate message board by one poster. Link below, but I have copied in two posts on the subject from that poster as need to be logged in to read.
Always good to have a reasoned debate, unless of course one doesn't agree with the the other party.
The author of that piece calls himself an economist, but he's not a very smart one, as per his previous persistent inability to understand the economics of the earlier WUNZ subsidy health cost:benefit analysis.
There are so many things wrong with this version, that it's hard to know where to begin to describe them all, and I run out of energy (really, I can't believe I still have to argue about this), but here's my starter for 10:
- he's obviously still sulking about his inability to understand the mortality cost benefits of insulation, because he's decided to ignore these altogether on the basis that insulation can't prevent death because it's "not a pill", and it's warmer temperatures that prevent death, not insulation. Despite the high-quality evidence showing that retrofitting insulation increases indoor temperatures, even in low-income households.
Still, nice to know that anyone can come up with an edgy sounding company name with "economic consultancy" in it and then start publishing any old rubbish they feel like and people will take it at face value.
"Normally I'd entirely agree, but it's the end of the year, I'm tired, and I'm over it. I've had my time wasted by this guy once before, and although he's not as bad as anti-vaxxers, it feels like it's about the same waste of breath.
And they are not comparable analysis. One is a lone "economist", who has provided no credentials (who is he? What are his qualifications? I think I looked last time I wasted time on him, but I can't find them), and does junk analysis. The other was overseen by a former Chairman of the Reserve Bank, and the Chair of the World Health Organisation Housing and Health Guidelines Working Group. I know which expertise I prefer.
Also, I provided a starter for ten.
Here's the next thing (though really, why do I bother. I know all the science in the world won't convince you): he spends a bunch of pages deriding MBIE for selecting 18 degrees as the minimum indoor temperature, complaining that it was based on a WHO paper from 1987 and a 2014 review by Public Health England (which recommends 18 degrees). But he's not an epidemiologist, and he has no expertise to criticize the quality of the evidence he's decided isn't good enough. And besides that, the WHO has just last month released its updated housing and health guidelines, which, based on an all-new and updated review of the evidence, still recommends a minimum indoor temperature of 18 degrees for the protection of health.
I could go through the rest of the blasted thing, but for me the two things already mentioned are big enough fails that I really, really can't be bothered going through any more of it. My children would say something like "The stupid pains me." And yes, that was more ad hominem, but if I can't vent on a (semi-) anonymous message board, where else is good?
So nobody (since he/she/it is not even stating the name) from Trademe criticising somebody from company I never heard off criticising idiot from the Government who ignored any professional advice. Close enough?
One needs to be careful of intentional side-show distractions like that sort of verbal diarrhoea.
Let us simply stick with this assertion:
When questioned on why underfloor insulation was not included, NZIER said that they were directed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to not consider it.
True?
False?
If true, why was the study result intentionally distorted by that pre-meditated government department instructional bias?
- "Investors may not be selling up en masse but they aren’t buying either – going by new data which shows the amount getting mortgage lending has dropped significantly."
Why do people take some news articles as gospel and others as rubbish - especially if Miriam Bell can't even use proper English.
It should be 'number' - amount is used where you couldn't reasonably count the object (like the amount of rubbish) whereas you can count the number of people.
Why do people take some news articles as gospel and others as rubbish - especially if Miriam Bell can't even use proper English.
It should be 'number' - amount is used where you couldn't reasonably count the object (like the amount of rubbish) whereas you can count the number of people.
Heh, I agree it was clumsy wording, but not the way you say. The problem is the weird use of 'getting' because the article is all about an amount (bucks). Even though the dollars are countable, obviously, it makes no sense to call them 'number'. The exception proving the rule?
Heh, I agree it was clumsy wording, but not the way you say. The problem is the weird use of 'getting' because the article is all about an amount (bucks). Even though the dollars are countable, obviously, it makes no sense to call them 'number'. The exception proving the rule?
Ms Bell could have just used 'of'.
So now we have confusion.
I thought she was talking about the number of people purchasing rentals (via mortgage) whereas you think it is the amount of mortgage ($) obtained.
Either could be right - this is why proper usage of the language is important.
But why put credance on this article at all? Could it be because it suits the narrative people have in their heads - confirmation bias?
So now we have confusion.
I thought she was talking about the number of people purchasing rentals (via mortgage) whereas you think it is the amount of mortgage ($) obtained.
Either could be right - this is why proper usage of the language is important.
But why put credance on this article at all? Could it be because it suits the narrative people have in their heads - confirmation bias?
The article is about dollars not people. But yes, confusing and wrong either way.
I think we can reasonably assume the amounts are correct as from Reserve Bank. And have not been reported widely (if at all), even though it is a major shift. If it continues, there is a potentially large flow on effect for several sectors, including banks and development / construction. There will be a few furrowed brows out there.
PM Mendoza said tenant Williams told him "if the car was not returned in two hours, you will be in deep s...", and "you will get it from me if I don't get the car back". The call made Mendoza, who lives in the building with his family, feel as though there was a threat to him personally, he said. To get his car back, Williams paid $340 – money that he deducted from his next rent payment.
Tribunal adjudicator Jane Day said the tribunal's task was to determine whether or not Williams' behaviour gave Mendoza "reasonable grounds" to believe he might be assaulted. Although Williams' messages to Mendoza were "unpleasant, rude and ill considered, and caused offence and concern", the evidence fell short of that threshold, the Kangaroo Kourt Klown gushed.
"This is not to say that I condone Mr Williams' behaviour, but abusive and offensive comments are not the same thing as threatening to assault. "The application for termination of the tenancy for threatened assault is therefore dismissed."
55 Termination on non-payment of rent, damage, or assault
(1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that—
(c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault . . . any of the following persons:
(i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family:
(iii) any agent of the landlord:
So according to this Kangaroo Kourt numpty, the tenant making a deduction from (not paying) the rent and saying to the PM that, "if the car was not returned in two hours, you will be in deep s...", and "you will get it from me if I don't get the car back" is not a threat, but a comment that's rude, abusive and ill-considered and not sufficient grounds for s55 to apply, and that's despite the illegal deduction from the rent due.
Dhil (make life easier for tenants) Twitford to the rescue . . .
I wonder if we'll see Dhil Twitford blathering on (Ahhh assume that it's not going to happen) about this article, when he gets back from his ill-earned break from media & photo opportunities?
A mother and her four children have been roughing it for the summer, but not out of choice. They're living in tents and a car near Palmerston North and the novelty is starting to wear off. Sharon Baker and her four children, aged from 9 to 17, spent seven years living with Baker's uncle, Robert White, at a property in the city.
The landlord decided to sell and Baker and her family had to leave by October 28. After a brief stint camping at Tangimoana Beach, the family have been living at the Ashhurst Domain camp ground for 28 days in a group of tents, and White sleeps in a car.
Comment