Comments on: $122,000 deposit needed on average http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html DPF's Kiwiblog - Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:38:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: PhilBest http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427509 PhilBest Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:06:30 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427509 I wonder if Mr Tim Shadbolt would be interested in turning Invercargill into a shining example of this sort of thing........sometimes people who WERE lefties in their youth make the best free-marketers when they are older. Yeah, and thanks for that link Fred. We should keep posting it, and keep up the argument. This thread is a bit late now. I wonder if Mr Tim Shadbolt would be interested in turning Invercargill into a shining example of this sort of thing……..sometimes people who WERE lefties in their youth make the best free-marketers when they are older.

Yeah, and thanks for that link Fred. We should keep posting it, and keep up the argument. This thread is a bit late now.

]]> By: vto http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427428 vto Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:44:59 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427428 why not just try it somewhere. one part of one city. no rules. build what you want. bags be the first city. x why not just try it somewhere. one part of one city. no rules. build what you want.

bags be the first city.

x

]]> By: Fred http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427425 Fred Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:36:11 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427425 Phil, the lecture series I linked to made an impression a wet Sunday last winter, I think it should be compulsory viewing for all planners. Of course tastes in architecture, lifestyle, and work/leisure change with time and with economic necessity. What do you prefer? The big box, acres of car park and mall, or the avenue and alley. Much as we all would like (nostalgically) to live in a village the city is an expression of wealth and success. Public transport, justified only at population densities way above ours. Phil, the lecture series I linked to made an impression a wet Sunday last winter, I think it should be compulsory viewing for all planners. Of course tastes in architecture, lifestyle, and work/leisure change with time and with economic necessity. What do you prefer? The big box, acres of car park and mall, or the avenue and alley. Much as we all would like (nostalgically) to live in a village the city is an expression of wealth and success. Public transport, justified only at population densities way above ours.

]]> By: PhilBest http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427332 PhilBest Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:51:32 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427332 FRED: " the features that create a “sense of space” in successful old towns/cities cannot be created under current town planning rules". This is an important point. It is actually town planning and zoning that has forced us to live long distances away from where most of the work is, and all commute en masse to the same spot at the same time of the day. Even completely Lassez-Faire growth would have actually resulted in much shorter average commutes AND MUCH LOWER EMISSIONS. Sigh. WHEN, OH WHEN are thick, thick people gonna wake up to the endless harm that little Napoleons running their lives actually DO in contrast to the empty platitudes of all the "good" they allege to be doing? If you want to actually PLAN for lower emissions and resource conservation, you should divide your region up into suburbs each of which has a balance of employment opportunity and living. These suburbs should be extensively interconnected so that anyone travelling from home in one suburb to work in another can get there in as short a travel time and distance as possible. And forget public transport altogether. Anyone who needs assistance to get to work should just be given a new Tata Nano. FRED:

” the features that create a “sense of space” in successful old towns/cities cannot be created under current town planning rules”.

This is an important point. It is actually town planning and zoning that has forced us to live long distances away from where most of the work is, and all commute en masse to the same spot at the same time of the day. Even completely Lassez-Faire growth would have actually resulted in much shorter average commutes AND MUCH LOWER EMISSIONS.

Sigh. WHEN, OH WHEN are thick, thick people gonna wake up to the endless harm that little Napoleons running their lives actually DO in contrast to the empty platitudes of all the “good” they allege to be doing?

If you want to actually PLAN for lower emissions and resource conservation, you should divide your region up into suburbs each of which has a balance of employment opportunity and living. These suburbs should be extensively interconnected so that anyone travelling from home in one suburb to work in another can get there in as short a travel time and distance as possible. And forget public transport altogether. Anyone who needs assistance to get to work should just be given a new Tata Nano.

]]> By: Pascal http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427093 Pascal Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:47:12 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427093 So indicating that you make gross generalizations and deal in duplicitous double standards is "pin-head dancing"? Ok. Carry on then. But I'd see somebody about those delusions. So indicating that you make gross generalizations and deal in duplicitous double standards is “pin-head dancing”? Ok. Carry on then. But I’d see somebody about those delusions.

]]> By: philu http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427090 philu Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:42:18 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427090 oh sorry..didn't realise you were pin-head-dancing.. carry on..! phil(whoar.co.nz) oh sorry..didn’t realise you were pin-head-dancing..

carry on..!

phil(whoar.co.nz)

]]> By: Pascal http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427084 Pascal Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:27:51 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427084 Good job on missing the point philu, you're showing that NO U is probably the best phrase to apply to any of your petty little insults. Once you've pulled your head out of your arse long enough to actually think - consider that sweeping generalizations made from a partisan viewpoint can just as equally be applied from the opposite perspective. That is the point. 'Course, I realize you don't have the mental capacity left anymore to understand that, but no matter. The point is made. Good job on missing the point philu, you’re showing that NO U is probably the best phrase to apply to any of your petty little insults. Once you’ve pulled your head out of your arse long enough to actually think – consider that sweeping generalizations made from a partisan viewpoint can just as equally be applied from the opposite perspective. That is the point. ‘Course, I realize you don’t have the mental capacity left anymore to understand that, but no matter. The point is made.

]]> By: philu http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427079 philu Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:08:56 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427079 gee pascal..! how does 'overwhelming evidence'..fit into your 'story'..? and hey..!..we are the ones going 'heads up!'.. you lot are the 'nothing to see here!' crew.. but we are the ones wearing the 'blinkers'..eh..? (feckin' idjit!..) phil(whoar.co.nz) gee pascal..!

how does ‘overwhelming evidence’..fit into your ‘story’..?

and hey..!..we are the ones going ‘heads up!’..

you lot are the ‘nothing to see here!’ crew..

but we are the ones wearing the ‘blinkers’..eh..?

(feckin’ idjit!..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

]]> By: Pascal http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427076 Pascal Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:37:48 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427076 philu: <i>you’ve ‘nailed’ the climate-change/economic-meltdown ‘deniers’.</i> I wouldn't want to break that pea-sized brain of yours, but consider this for a moment. The statement you quoted - “..I find a natural tendency in humankind to simply put on blinkers and ignore propositions that do not support their own ideals..” - could just as well apply to either side of any debate. You've chosen one you happen to agree with. But equally - you might be the one wearing blinkers and ignoring porpositions that do not support your ideals. Oh. Wait. You do. philu: you’ve ‘nailed’ the climate-change/economic-meltdown ‘deniers’.

I wouldn’t want to break that pea-sized brain of yours, but consider this for a moment. The statement you quoted –

“..I find a natural tendency in humankind to simply put on blinkers and ignore propositions that do not support their own ideals..”

- could just as well apply to either side of any debate. You’ve chosen one you happen to agree with. But equally – you might be the one wearing blinkers and ignoring porpositions that do not support your ideals.

Oh. Wait. You do.

]]> By: Mr Dennis http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427074 Mr Dennis Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:23:07 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427074 Many posters have pointed that a major issue is land supply, and allowing more new land to be developed would reduce prices. This is true. However you must bear in mind that cities were generally sited on the most fertile land that could support the population. As they expand, houses are built on the best soils that have traditionally been used for market gardening and horticulture, to feed the population. It is a terrible waste to put this good land under housing. There is an alternative. Rolleston (near Christchurch) is built on very poor soil for farming, and a large area of land has been put into good sized sections for brand new subdivisions. There are many criticisms that could be made of Rolleston, but at least it has minimal impact on agriculture. Unrestricted urban sprawl will cover good soils, but planned development can be sited in more appropriate areas. New land is necessary. But it should be poor agricultural soil, not the best soils in the country. Many posters have pointed that a major issue is land supply, and allowing more new land to be developed would reduce prices. This is true. However you must bear in mind that cities were generally sited on the most fertile land that could support the population. As they expand, houses are built on the best soils that have traditionally been used for market gardening and horticulture, to feed the population. It is a terrible waste to put this good land under housing.

There is an alternative. Rolleston (near Christchurch) is built on very poor soil for farming, and a large area of land has been put into good sized sections for brand new subdivisions. There are many criticisms that could be made of Rolleston, but at least it has minimal impact on agriculture. Unrestricted urban sprawl will cover good soils, but planned development can be sited in more appropriate areas.

New land is necessary. But it should be poor agricultural soil, not the best soils in the country.

]]> By: Fred http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427072 Fred Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:04:45 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427072 Talking about town planning education this is worth a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwd4Lq0Xvgc&feature=user all 9 parts of it. He argues strongly against the "silos" we build, increasing dependency on the car, points out that the features that create a "sense of space" in successful old towns/cities cannot be created under current town planning rules. Also observes that flats above shops command good prices. Talking about town planning education this is worth a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwd4Lq0Xvgc&feature=user all 9 parts of it. He argues strongly against the “silos” we build, increasing dependency on the car, points out that the features that create a “sense of space” in successful old towns/cities cannot be created under current town planning rules. Also observes that flats above shops command good prices.

]]> By: Anthony http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427056 Anthony Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:35:03 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427056 npog I think National is scared of saying anything that might alienate any centre to slightly right of centre voter - whether this is about fixing the tax system to tax the capital gains that were always intended to be be taxed or offering some support for Act. I still think it is digusting that tax consultants who should know better invariably support the status quo mess on capital gains - and make feeble excuses like a capital gains tax wold be too hard to administer! Yes, well the rest of the tax system is so simple isn't it - only 20 bibles worth of legislation. Better to keep the current law on capital gains which can only be interpreted with the assistance of a raft of case law! Much better if clients have to pay for advice from tax consultants to understand whether they are liable. npog I think National is scared of saying anything that might alienate any centre to slightly right of centre voter – whether this is about fixing the tax system to tax the capital gains that were always intended to be be taxed or offering some support for Act.

I still think it is digusting that tax consultants who should know better invariably support the status quo mess on capital gains – and make feeble excuses like a capital gains tax wold be too hard to administer! Yes, well the rest of the tax system is so simple isn’t it – only 20 bibles worth of legislation. Better to keep the current law on capital gains which can only be interpreted with the assistance of a raft of case law! Much better if clients have to pay for advice from tax consultants to understand whether they are liable.

]]> By: RRM http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427013 RRM Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:00:48 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-427013 If (like me) you can't afford to buy a house - DON'T BUY A HOUSE! There are other forms of personal investment, that are much more flexible about the size of the initial buy-in. The myth that houses are "safer" is promulgated among people who don't know (and don't want to know) about things like rot, rust, soil slope stability, blocked drains, concrete cancer etc... If (like me) you can’t afford to buy a house – DON’T BUY A HOUSE! There are other forms of personal investment, that are much more flexible about the size of the initial buy-in.

The myth that houses are “safer” is promulgated among people who don’t know (and don’t want to know) about things like rot, rust, soil slope stability, blocked drains, concrete cancer etc…

]]> By: PhilBest http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426885 PhilBest Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:23:01 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426885 Nice to see a few guys here getting the point. But yes, Bwakile, you are right about areas like West Auckland. Of course we now have situations where all the land immediately adjacent to metropolitan areas is owned by developers who are waiting for the zoning to be changed. There needs to be some way to break this impasse, otherwise we are condemned to a steadily-reducing rate of first-home ownership among NZ-ers. I DO believe that a concerted legislative move to turn the zoning restriction thing around WOULD work. By that I mean that instead of it being illegal to develop land unless it is zoned for housing, it should be made ILLEGAL for local and regional authorities to DISALLOW housing developments ANYWHERE that the existing owners are prepared to sell their land for that purpose. Can you see anything short of that actually working? But can you see that happening? Really what we get into here is an ideological, almost a religious dispute. As Randal O'Toole points out, insisting on the conservation of 97% of your total land rather than 95% might be making property for housing 3 times as expensive. So what we are talking about here is the Green/Gaia religion belief that MAN is a parasite who is not entitled to that extra 2%. I don't know what the percentages are for NZ - Randal O'Toole is comparing California with other parts of the US. I suspect that the amount of NZ landmass that is in housing is much lower than California. We might be talking about Gaia ideology restricting "parasitical" Man to less than 1% of the total area............ Very few people actually understand it this way. If they did, I suspect that there would be much stronger anti-Green feeling among those locked out of home ownership, who by the way, are increasing in number the longer this madness goes on. How do YOU feel about being made to suffer for the "nature" God? And they've got the cheek to mock medieval Catholicism !!!!!!!!!! Nice to see a few guys here getting the point. But yes, Bwakile, you are right about areas like West Auckland. Of course we now have situations where all the land immediately adjacent to metropolitan areas is owned by developers who are waiting for the zoning to be changed. There needs to be some way to break this impasse, otherwise we are condemned to a steadily-reducing rate of first-home ownership among NZ-ers.

I DO believe that a concerted legislative move to turn the zoning restriction thing around WOULD work. By that I mean that instead of it being illegal to develop land unless it is zoned for housing, it should be made ILLEGAL for local and regional authorities to DISALLOW housing developments ANYWHERE that the existing owners are prepared to sell their land for that purpose. Can you see anything short of that actually working? But can you see that happening?

Really what we get into here is an ideological, almost a religious dispute. As Randal O’Toole points out, insisting on the conservation of 97% of your total land rather than 95% might be making property for housing 3 times as expensive. So what we are talking about here is the Green/Gaia religion belief that MAN is a parasite who is not entitled to that extra 2%. I don’t know what the percentages are for NZ – Randal O’Toole is comparing California with other parts of the US. I suspect that the amount of NZ landmass that is in housing is much lower than California. We might be talking about Gaia ideology restricting “parasitical” Man to less than 1% of the total area…………

Very few people actually understand it this way. If they did, I suspect that there would be much stronger anti-Green feeling among those locked out of home ownership, who by the way, are increasing in number the longer this madness goes on. How do YOU feel about being made to suffer for the “nature” God? And they’ve got the cheek to mock medieval Catholicism !!!!!!!!!!

]]> By: emmess http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426801 emmess Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:26:58 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426801 From Phil Bests article Third, existing homeowners tend to be wealthier than new homebuyers, so anti-sprawl planning effectively taxes the poor and gives the money to the rich. This is the key and it is such a massive factor that it probably more than counterbalances all of Labour's attempts to reduce inequality Good one Labour From Phil Bests article

Third, existing homeowners tend to be wealthier than new homebuyers, so anti-sprawl planning effectively taxes the poor and gives the money to the rich.

This is the key and it is such a massive factor that it probably more than counterbalances all of Labour’s attempts to reduce inequality

Good one Labour

]]> By: natural party of govt http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426799 natural party of govt Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:22:23 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426799 One of the reason that despite the occasional bleat housing prices will stay high is that there is a class of people who will howl with pain if they reduce. And the class that benefit or have factored high real estate prices into their finances has far more political clout than those who are struggling to enter or are shut out of the market. Sooner or later the situation will implode and the longer it is delayed the more painful the correction will be. National has no more a (realistic) plan for making houses more affordable than it has for lowering Australian wages - for the simple reason that a large section of its voters benefit and feel secure with high housing prices. One of the reason that despite the occasional bleat housing prices will stay high is that there is a class of people who will howl with pain if they reduce. And the class that benefit or have factored high real estate prices into their finances has far more political clout than those who are struggling to enter or are shut out of the market.

Sooner or later the situation will implode and the longer it is delayed the more painful the correction will be.

National has no more a (realistic) plan for making houses more affordable than it has for lowering Australian wages – for the simple reason that a large section of its voters benefit and feel secure with high housing prices.

]]> By: philu http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426796 philu Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:07:59 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426796 "..I find a natural tendency in humankind to simply put on blinkers and ignore propositions that do not support their own ideals.." spooky..!..vto..! you've 'nailed' the climate-change/economic-meltdown 'deniers'.. (esp the person you are butt-kissing...phil-the-inferior...) good one..! phil(whoar.co.nz) “..I find a natural tendency in humankind to simply put on blinkers and ignore propositions that do not support their own ideals..”

spooky..!..vto..!

you’ve ‘nailed’ the climate-change/economic-meltdown ‘deniers’..

(esp the person you are butt-kissing…phil-the-inferior…)

good one..!

phil(whoar.co.nz)

]]> By: philu http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426795 philu Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:59:33 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426795 here is one for the (irrational) optimists amongst us.. http://whoar.co.nz/2008/capital-gain-forget-it-for-quite-a-whilelike-until-2028/ oo-err..! eh..? phil(whoar.co.nz) here is one for the (irrational) optimists amongst us..

http://whoar.co.nz/2008/capital-gain-forget-it-for-quite-a-whilelike-until-2028/

oo-err..!

eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

]]> By: bwakile http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426788 bwakile Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:16:10 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426788 Thanks for the posts Phil. will study them in detail when I get back next week. I quite agree that no restrictions on developers would certainly lower land prices but was just trying to point out that the horse has already bolted around Auckland. I know West Auckland best and believe me there is not a cheap piece of land within 40 miles of Westgate and the stuff that can be developed "easily" for housing is well and truly stitched up by major players who will fight tooth and bone to protect their margin. I'm sorry but cheap land just doesn't exist anymore. As others have pointed out the government is really to blame by giving property investment a tax advantage over other investments . The town planners are just doing what they were "educated" to do. Thanks for the posts Phil. will study them in detail when I get back next week.
I quite agree that no restrictions on developers would certainly lower land prices but was just trying to point out that the horse has already bolted around Auckland. I know West Auckland best and believe me there is not a cheap piece of land within 40 miles of Westgate and the stuff that can be developed “easily” for housing is well and truly stitched up by major players who will fight tooth and bone to protect their margin.
I’m sorry but cheap land just doesn’t exist anymore.
As others have pointed out the government is really to blame by giving property investment a tax advantage over other investments .
The town planners are just doing what they were “educated” to do.

]]> By: Anthony http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426779 Anthony Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:14:59 +0000 http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/122000_deposit_needed_on_average.html#comment-426779 Rex, you are quite correct. All political parties bar the Greens are too scared to tinker with the tax system to fix the flaws that let properties investors claim tax deductions on the rental loss but not pay tax on the capital gains. As I said in other threads property investment is not taxed the same as other similar investments like forestry, where all the gain is taxable. National is quite wrong to say that it is. It is so easy for the fast money men to sell property investment because of the tax breaks - and Blue Chip is only one of the many companies around who cashed in on the last property boom. They will be many more hard luck stories coming out in the next few years! This current government knew what was going on and as I understand it some Ministers within the government tried to get changes made but of course Culllen and Clarke would never have a bar of that. Rex, you are quite correct. All political parties bar the Greens are too scared to tinker with the tax system to fix the flaws that let properties investors claim tax deductions on the rental loss but not pay tax on the capital gains. As I said in other threads property investment is not taxed the same as other similar investments like forestry, where all the gain is taxable. National is quite wrong to say that it is.

It is so easy for the fast money men to sell property investment because of the tax breaks – and Blue Chip is only one of the many companies around who cashed in on the last property boom. They will be many more hard luck stories coming out in the next few years!

This current government knew what was going on and as I understand it some Ministers within the government tried to get changes made but of course Culllen and Clarke would never have a bar of that.

]]>