But Helen said it was all a beat up

August 18th, 2009 at 9:13 am by David Farrar

Do you remember Helen Clark attacking the NZ Herald over their coverage and claiming it was all a bit of a beat up, with the NZ Herald banging on about it needlessly.

NZPA today reports:

Wellington, Aug 18 NZPA – The bill for leaky homes is likely to top $11 billion a review found.

The news prompted Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson to meet with local government leaders yesterday.

He was tight-lipped about the meeting but Radio New Zealand reported the cost of leaky homes was up to $11.5b, from the previous estimate of $3.6b.

Bring back George Hawkins to fix the problem. Oh wait, wasn’t he the Minister who replied to builders informing him of the problem, that there wasn’t one according to his officials?

Tags:

26 Responses to “But Helen said it was all a beat up”

  1. Simon (721 comments) says:

    The developers were operating within the building code. It didn’t matter if the houses were crap or not the finish line was the building code.

    This is the culture of big government.

    Now it has become is a $11 billion big government Gravy Train. Big government retards everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    You know – why are taxpayers paying for people who didn’t do their homework when buying a house? My house is built totally out of untreated timber (it is old) and has no leaks apart from the odd rust hole in the roofing iron. Nothing a new sheet wont fix when summer comes around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Simon (721 comments) says:

    Why not say a $30 billion fix up and then National can call it stimulus spending.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. 3-coil (1,219 comments) says:

    If bringing back George “Drongo” Hawkins is the answer, I hate to think what the question was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    The building code is the same around the country so we have to explain why the leaky homes are focused in a few jurisdictions.
    My homes don’t leak.

    Notice that the incidence of leaky homes coincides with those cities and territories that have adopted Smart Growth.

    There is a reason for this and we find the same failures in construction standards in those US states and cities that have adopted Smart Growth – although in the US the failings are normally in cut price plumbing and electrical systems.

    When will we learn and why do councils refuse to face up to the obvious?
    Smart Growth is Dense Thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide is your elected right wing hero who says Leaky Homes are all the fault of “excess red tape” when in fact quite the opposite (1991 replacement of old [GOOD] prescriptive building code) is the case. As long as the discussion continues to twist the facts to suit political ideologies, don’t expect anything to be solved.

    And FFS don’t buy any house built between 1991 and about 2005 unless it has brick veneer AND external gutters on a roof with a decent pitch (10 degrees or more) and decent overhangs (900mm or more) AND you have had a builder or engineer carry out a thorough inspection.

    AVOID Auckland-style mushroom houses where the top storey is a little bit smaller than the lower storey so that the upper storey sprouts out of the top of the ground floor roof.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    RRM – like I said – buyer beware. I will always buy a house with eaves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Don’t know a hell of a lot about the issue but if local government set the rules and local government signed off on these houses why don’t those affected from their own organisations. I doubt if local government has the funds to fix their problems. If all those effected refused to pay rates till repairs have been made and paid for, I bet that would get local council attention. Surfice to say the problems may not be fixed but bloody local government would be given a strong message, ” If you make the rules, back them”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Doesn’t this show how poorly trained our builders and building inspectors are. We continued to build these houses even after we knew there was a problem and our builders continued to get away with it. Why do we accept cheap and shonky workmanship?

    I not sure we can guarantee that these sort of houses aren’t still being built hence the figures given by Williamson may still be too low. Until someone does something about building and engineering standards in this country, I doubt that we will ever get rid of this problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    I frankly don’t believe that $11 billion number. We have about 1.5m houses in NZ and that means over $7k for every single house. Given that most houses haven’t been built in that time of leaky construction, and most houses built in that time probably aren’t leaky. it seems a number that is highly suspect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    I should add that now you are seeing a counter productive reaction from councils which is pushing up the cost of homes and renovations. Everything is needing fastening with stainless steel ‘just in case’. I can wander beach front suburbs where 100-140 year old houses nailed with iron or galv nails are not falling down or leaking, but i would not be allowed to build one because of blanket council paranoia.

    You don’t even have to be near the sea or even see the sea to be caught up by this. Whoever heard of sea air corrosion of homes in Ngaio for goodness sake?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Insider:
    (1) Sea Spray zone = within 500m of the shoreline.
    Within a sea spray zone, exterior fixings, brackets etc 304 Stainless Steel.
    Outside a sea spray zone, exterior fixings brackets etc hot-dip galv. Unless within 600mm of the ground, in which case 304 stainless there too.
    Not new and not hard to understand.

    (2) I suggest you strip away some wall linings in any of those “lovely” old beachfront houses and examine whatever is left of 120 year old hold-down bolts etc. Hint: not much apart from borer bugs holding hands. Proper modern durability specifications are not part of some leftist conspiracy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    (3) PS: One of the worst leakers I have seen was in Khandallah F.W.I.W.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    (4)PPS: on a sunny day when there is a sea breeze, consider the centennial highway between Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki. Note how the salt spray blows all the way up the hills and over the tops. The salt spray is not a lefty conspiracy either, it is a meteorological reality!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Jane (12 comments) says:

    Tell my friend it’s a beat up. About two months ago he bumped into a wall in his Tuscan styled house (flat roof, no eves) in Auckland and his elbow went straight through the plasterboard and out came a torrent of water! $160K minimum to sort it out and yes, he and his Mrs did their due diligence on the property. They’re shattered but hey it’s just a beat up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Because Smart Growth drives up the price of land and also encourages high density developments in less desirable areas (like near railway stations) builders and developers have a massive incentive to cut costs.

    Also Smart Growth makes density a goal rather than a measurement. I know of architects who designed a development with eaves and with decks outside the building envelope which is good design and anti leak design but it drives the walls back from the boundaries.
    The planners would say “we want higher density or we won’t approve it”. The quality architects said “This is the best we can do.””So the land owner goes to another designer who is willing to remove the eaves and put decks inside the building envelope, and cut flashing into slots which penetrate the cladding to save money, and gets the job and another leaky building goes onto the market.

    I am really insulted by claims being made that all building leak and you just have to let the water run out. Crap. I design my houses with removable panel walls (using a joint system that is no longer allowed) but they have eaves and the flashings are lapped under overlapping double cladding. They don’t penetrate the cladding. When we have removed panels by taking out the screws so as to add another room the walls are bone dry.

    It’s dead easy as long as you don’t work in a city where the planners are screaming out for density and consolidation and driving up the price of land so that the land is 60% of the developed value rather than 25-30 percent as it used to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    So we are in a recession and want to get out of it?
    You would not think so. This decision makes sure we have a shortage of housing and that’s also several thousand jobs down the tubes. There are some incredibly selfish people out there. And they wonder why their children are leaving the country.

    From NBR On Line:

    Environment Court rejects 460ha Waimauku Estate development
    Jazial Crossley | Tuesday August 18 2009 – 12:40pm
    A proposed development that would have housed triple the number of people already based in Waimauku has been rejected by the Environment Court, leaving the developers unsure what the site’s future will be.

    The development was first proposed by Rick Martin’s company Cornerstone, which built Orewa’s Nautilus apartments and the Sentinel in Takapuna.

    Cornerstone sold the 460ha section to Malory Corporation last year.

    With 1,375 properties the subdivision proposed for the site aimed to house up to 3000 people, when the current population of Waimauku is only 930.

    The proposal for the subdivision was rejected by Rodney District Council in September 2008 because it was considered inconsistent with the area’s Structure Plan which outlined only limited growth in the area. etc etc.

    Say, four jobs per house on site and a multiplier of six to seven – say 12,000 jobs?

    But who cares. We are building a cycle lane.
    But we really need to change Part 2 of the Act so that employment and housing affordability trumps rural character and plain selfishness. All those objectors got cheap housing when they got started in life but are now destroying their own children’s future.
    So much for caring about future generations. What about the present ones?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Yes, this is the sort of madness you get when we have to have approval from the Historic Places Trust to even modify a building let alone make a new one.

    An architect friend is having a commercial building extension blocked by HPT because it is “too bulky” even though it is smaller and lower than adjacent buildings (which are not historic at all, they are recent fakes) and much smaller than the few actually historic buildings on the sacrosanct waterfront.

    So a small business is stymied from offering more and better tourist accommodation, tradesmen sweating out the recession are denied the work and eventually the architect may be forced into an inferior design.

    By incompetent, unqualified, uncontrolled and self-anointed bureaucracies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. starboard (2,536 comments) says:

    He was tight-lipped about the meeting but Radio New Zealand reported the cost of leaky homes was up to $11.5b, from the previous estimate of $3.6b.

    ..previous ” estimate ” $3.6 b..new ” estimate “…$11.5b..who, and where do they get these estimates from…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. annie (539 comments) says:

    Let’s not forget it was our friends the Greens – notably Sue Kedgley – who pushed legislation to allow untreated timber framing. Put the blame for the origin of the problem where it belongs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Homes always leaked but were built in a manner that allowed for those leaks and were built from either native timber or treated timber.
    There are a bunch of issues that are the problem.
    Poor cladding and waterproofing, poor construction, i.e. balcony joists running through walls, bad use of non treated timber, poor inspections and failure to adhere to plans or good building practice and many more.

    There are a number of area’s of responsibility including subbies down to inspectors, designers and so on.
    The issue for a house owner is simply that they are not house designers, builders certifiers and there fore as a customer of said people they should be entitled to a house that is fit for purpose, (as with other goods purchased.), and houses are supposed to be that for 50 years.
    The problem is they are not and everyone involved has run for cover by liquidating and various other ways out including taking their own lives.(along with some of the home owners. Not at the same time in case you are thinking of being funny.)
    The last man standing is the councils and so they or rather the ratepayer is going to have to pay to fix the sins of others.

    All this has been known now for years but Clark refused to even acknowledge the issue and even Williamson was damm slow off the mark considering that Clarkson had been on about it for a number of years.

    So its nice to see some thought and progress being contemplated at last.
    BTW I do not have a leaky house issue but I am aware of a lot who do.

    I not quite sure how Owen Mcshane can blame smart growth for leaky houses as smart growth didn’t make the rules the BMA did and the councils adopted them.
    To link the two is erroneous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. trout (939 comments) says:

    Leaky buildings can be compared with early Japanese cars that rusted out in 3-5 years. The design, construction, and materials, were just not durable. It all started with faux Tuscan houses becoming fashionable in the 80’s; no eaves, tile rooves, and monolithic cladding. There were serious flaws in the design of commonly used aluminium joinery ( protruding sills had been abandoned earlier in favour of a common section being used for head, jambs, and sills) that allowed entry of moisture with no escape. Solid plaster cladding (or stucco) was replaced with cheaper fibre cement sheet material which, over time moves, cracks, and absorbs moisture. So much was done that relied on the stability and durability of the fibre cement sheet only to fail. Sure, details of decks and parapets were unwise, and untreated timber was vulnerable, but in my view the industry took on new materials, and new construction details, (as advised by the manufacturers) that were not proven. Incidentally this often happens in the industry, especially where materials are bought in from overseas that cannot withstand NZ conditions. When ‘weathersider’ w/b planks were introduced we were sceptical and soaked them in water for a period to watch them disintegrate. Sure enough after a few years the manufacturer was called on to pay for houses to be reclad. I am amazed at how the manufacturer of fibre cement cladding has avoided leaky home claims (perhaps there have been confidential settlements).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    There is a simple solution to preventing more leaky homes being built and sold. Simply pass a law exempting local authorities from any responsibility for building quality and durability leaving them only with health and safety requirements.

    Buyer beware on top of the ample publicity around the problem would ensure proper solutions are found.

    Trout is also right. This is the second disaster James Hardie has substantially contributed to, the first being the asbestos catastrophe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    Alan is right. Why should we as ratepyers pick up the tab. There is an interesting case involving the cerifiaction of a ship that the MSA got wrong and the owner paid over the odds for it, the court held that the certification had nothing to do with warranting the value of the ship, but had everything to do with its ability to float (which it did). The asshole wanted us taxpayers to pay for the difference in value. Fuckwits who fall in love with their “dream homes” (please shoot me when I hear that phrase) fall into the same category and do not deserve our rates to bail them out of their mess. My car failed its warrant because the headlights were set too high, should someone else pay to put that right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    Yes also another good point Alan. Hope everyone has noticed how Jamies Hardie quietly withdrew HardieBacker monolithic shit and their other shit products from the market when the heat went on. Now they sell equally shit products with smiling leaky homes folk as their spokes people. James Hardie products are crap and they never front up to put things right. Build with them at your peril. And they think their asbestos issue is big, wait untill NZ understands how crap their cheap crap clading products performed in NZ. They will disappear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    The 11.5 billion dollar bill is probably based on the inflated figures produced by the ‘cartels’ managing the situation for their own benefit:

    ‘Cartels’ of experts rort owners of leaky homes

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2764884/Cartels-of-experts-rort-owners-of-leaky-homes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote