Free up the land

July 16th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

The Productivity Commission has renewed its call for more land to be freed up for lower-cost housing.

The commission in April released a report into which found house prices doubled in the last decade.

Among its recommendations was for more land to made available to ease housing affordability pressures, particularly in Auckland where the pressure was most acute.

Productivity Commission chairman Murray Sherwin today renewed his call for lower-cost land to be made available.

Even if you ignore the extra million people that will live in Auckland in the next 40 years, there’s already an estimated shortfall of 15,000 houses. The Government can not build 15,000 houses (unless you know of $6 billion it has spare), so the private sector needs to. But people will only buy (and in turn rent) these houses if they are affordable – and it is the land rather than the house which is pushing prices up.

Mr Sherwin said councils and developers needed to work together to bring section prices down.

“In Auckland now the analysis we did suggested that around 60 per cent of the value of the property is represented by the land alone, and the rest of the country it’s around 40 per cent. We need to get that back down.”

If you get Auckland in line with the rest of NZ, then that is a 20% reduction in price.

He said that could come about through more green fields development or more intensification within existing urban limits.

We need both. Just as only idiots argue that it is a choice of roads or public transport (they are complementary not substitutes), only an idiot would say all new development should be just brown fields or just green fields – we need both.

Tags:

35 Responses to “Free up the land”

  1. kowtow (8,774 comments) says:

    Is it possible that there is just too much self interest in keeping house and section prices high?

    As housing is such a high proportion of so many policy makers and average joes’ portfolios,where is the incentive to destroy ones own wealth?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Mr Sherwin said councils and developers needed to work together to bring section prices down.

    What planet is this guy from? Time for Economics 101.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Dave Mann (1,251 comments) says:

    I agree with what you wrote re: demand etc…. but I would have thought that idiotic bureaucracy (RMA et al) is more responsible for adding extra costs than the price of the land itself. If it costs $30,000* in bribery and extortion to the local bodies’ goons in order to build a garage, then who in their right mind is going to undertake developing whole subdivisions?

    *OK, maybe not in all cases…. but you get my point :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    According to Helen Kelly on Q&A, it is about forcing wages up. And the govt building cheap houses. And land tax/CGT.

    So let’s see,

    – artificially increased wages make it seem that people can pay more
    – but those increased wages lead to higher unemployment, so it is only some of those people that could, in fact, pay more. (And a bunch who would be in a worse position than they are now)

    – those increased wages will also result in reduced profits – which equals a reduced tax take – somewhat eroding the funds to build those cheap State houses
    – the reduced profits also reduce the capital for investment, suppressing growth and future jobs
    – the accommodation supplement will still be required – due to Helen’s great idea of increasing unemployment through artificial wage increases

    – and a land or capital gains tax will disproportionately eat into the incomes/wealth of lower income families that have purchased a house (it is not only the filthy rich that own homes – most Kiwis still do)

    So Helen Kelly is advocating measures that will harm the group that are her natural constituents… Clever

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dubya (243 comments) says:

    I live in an apartment so have no land value, but just checked out my mum’s place on the WCC website. Land Value: $820,000 Capital Value: $940,000 – that’s 87% of the value (according to the council rating agency) in the land.

    I’m no property developer, but 1.) I cannot see anyone sane paying $820k for a 950 square metre section in Wellington, and 2.) cannot see how by any stretch of the imagination, you could replace the 240 square metre house (about standard for a new home in NZ these days) for $120k. Seems like the valuers for council have got something horribly wrong here, and are just pouring more fuel onto the high land prices fire?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    And now waiting for the first “we have to have a green belt” nob to comment. If you have driven into Auckland recently from the south you will alread see signage from the “Im alright jack ” brigade who dont want neighbours

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kiwi Dave (95 comments) says:

    My wife and I, thinking to extend our house and convert the rear garage into a granny flat, found Auckland City Council staff very helpful, but the regulations were strict and the compliance costs excessive. So a financially feasible scheme which would have provided employment for Auckland tradesmen, an income for us in retirement and enabled an existing inner suburban section to house five or six people in comfort, has been abandoned; now just the two of us will live there. Still, we will have the pleasure of subsidising Len Brown’s railway fantasies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    Funny that the findings of the Savings Working Group never get quoted
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices

    and that the Australian Productivity Commision said:

    “In an Australian context, the Productivity Commission – hardly a hot-bed of xenophobia or populism – concluded that any benefits from migration to Australia were captured by migrants and there were few or no discernible economic benefits to Australians.”
    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/mi-jarrett-comm.pdf

    while the NZ Productivity Commission was directed as to what to look at and that excluded immigration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    Even if you ignore the extra million people that will live in Auckland in the next 40 years, there’s already an estimated shortfall of 15,000 houses.
    ……
    What will the extra million be doing for a crust or is this industry based on property development and it’s flow-ons? If not what is likely to be the major source of the wealth. Winston Peters pointed out all the Asian Restaurants… that is a reality a real result. Hardly signs of a wealthy society, more like heading to the third world?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    bhudson says:

    – and a land or capital gains tax will disproportionately eat into the incomes/wealth of lower income families that have purchased a house (it is not only the filthy rich that own homes – most Kiwis still do).
    …..
    Not when it suits you,
    otherwise:
    “Creating wealth, security and financial freedom is often an investor’s ultimate goal. 90% of millionaires get there by investing in real-estate”
    New Zealand has strong population growth due to its progressive immigration policy and birth rates. Many parts of the country are experiencing housing shortages translating into strong tenant demand and price growth. This trend is expected to continue with recent population projections by the New Zealand Department of Statistics forecasting up to 64% growth over the next 17 years. Auckland city is predicted to almost double its population in the next 40 years. For property investors, this represents outstanding potential growth in demand and return on investment. New Zealand’s property prices are also relatively undervalued compared to its closest neighbour Australia.
    http://www.nzps.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    hj,

    You miss the point.

    X% lands tax and/or y% CGT will represent a higher percentage of the income/net worth of a lower income family. That is, those tax options will hit lower income families harder as a proportion of their total income/wealth, than it will families that have higher incomes/are worth more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    After the introduction of a land tax house prices are modelled to fall so that helps the first home buyer.
    You can’t really judge the right and wrong when you change course as had we had a land tax we probably wouldn’t have had the large run up in house prices and if we did it would have generated revenue for the community. Sometimes you have to break a leg to reset it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    The House of Lords defeated Lloyd Georges Land tax proposal (i.e. the vested interests). Same here perhaps?
    http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/…/McLean%20Land%20tax.p...

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Sometimes you have to break a leg to reset it.

    Well done hj. You’ve just proposed breaking both legs of the lower income earners. Winnie needs those votes. And you’re marginalizing them.

    Why do you think Labour didn’t go for a land tax and wanted to exempt the family home from their CGT (which also eroded it’s effectiveness)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. jamesmcgehan47 (1 comment) says:

    DPF your arithmetic leaves something to be desired. If a house and land have a 40:60 relationship in Auckland, bringing the ratio to 60:40 requires either ramping up the building costs(not the answer we wanted) or dropping the price of the land to less than half. That will require attention to the available supply and the current council pre-loading of expenses.
    Then we can start looking st resuming the style of group housing common through the 70’s and 80’s , which could drop the cost of the houses by nearly 40%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    hj

    I am presuming you have recently lost your home to a mortgagee sale, because you are a broken record

    Yep, house prices will fall according to you and Bernard Hickey (Mr “They’ll fall by 40%) – in your dreams

    There will be cheaper housing south of Papkura but the inner city will always be the inner city and command premium.

    And I say fuck the community, why should I pay more tax to give it away to the smokers and the boozers and the druggies, when as I do none of these things I subidize a lifestyle for the ‘.can’t be fucked to have an ambition.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    What will the extra million be doing for a crust or is this industry based on property development and it’s flow-ons? If not what is likely to be the major source of the wealth. Winston Peters pointed out all the Asian Restaurants… that is a reality a real result. Hardly signs of a wealthy society, more like heading to the third world?

    hj, you are comedy gold mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    anecdotal – but currently looking in Auckland and talking to a colleague doing the same – the majority of decent properties are selling very quickly, above asking price and well above QV. Better properties have historically led housing trends.

    Might be a short term bubble but I’m not convinced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    One element adding to the apparently increasing cost of houses is the expectation of today’s younger folk that their first home will be as good as, or better than, their parents have worked their way up to after many years of working from a basic home to something better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Viking2 (11,568 comments) says:

    What we really need to do is take two actions. 1. Shift business to other places which will move people to cheaper housing. Damm foolish to continue to collect business in concentrated patches. Spread the commercial area’s more widely.
    2. Spread the schools and eliminate school zoning. Limit the size of schools. Allow more development of schools away from the city and allow the schools to develop their own brand. Working really well in Tauranga.
    The two main reasons why people live where they do.
    Patently clear that school zoning drives the Auckland house pricing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Viking2 (11,568 comments) says:

    No shortage of houses in Auckland. today there are 5000+ houses for listed(on Trademe), for sale in Auckland and a further 69000 in the rest of NZ.
    Some 32000 of them are 4 bedrooms or less.
    Demonstrates that the houses are there but the jobs that people need are not where the houses are.
    Perhaps we should have immigration permits strictly enforced for anyone wanting to move to Auckland.

    Oh and if you are wondering, commercial is the same.
    I am aware of a company that had a business manufacturing in Auckland becuase they thought the needed to be near the airport for their exports.
    Turned out that wasn’t so, when they needed to expand. Needed an acre. Went to Paeroa, built the complete new plant with new equipment for the same cost as the land cost in Auckland. Takes barely 10 minutes longer to get to the airport from Paeroa than it did from their previous workplce.
    So why in Gods name would you live in the stinking metropolis of Brown Land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    V2

    Yep all good ideas of your there but…. younger people want to go where there are things to do and where they can get a starter job and thats Auckland.

    Its all very well for me living in the big O but prospects for my kids are zero here, one has already made the move to Auckland with the wife going up to look after her the other will follow.

    The police tried the ‘you will work in Auckland ‘with the pommy cops, they all lasted 5 minutes and the administration found it was against their “rights” to force them to live there.

    The other negative with small town NZ is a labour pool, a decent labour pool, not too many will move a family from the smoke to a decile 1- 3 school in the sticks.

    Auckland mayors come and go, Browns bad, Hubbard was worse, Fletcher was a goose, I beleive Les Mills was the last decent mayor Auckland had

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Anthony (798 comments) says:

    Capital gains tax on anything other than a high value family home is much better than a universal land tax. As I have said before, landlords hardly ever add to the housing stock so persuading them not to invest for capital gains would be a good thing. The houses would still be there for owner occupiers.

    Adding to the land supply and reducing compliance costs is also necessary to allow new houses to be built more cheaply by more owner occupiers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    Viking

    you appear to be confusing normal turnover with supply.

    People move – so there will always be properties for sale to cope with that

    I’ve been house searching for about a yeat in North Shore, Auckland – there is bugger all supply there – it’s not a small catchment area

    Your determination that this then translates to lack of jobs is utter bollocks as if that was true then prices would not be going up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. campit (467 comments) says:

    If you want to improve housing affordability, shouldn’t the goal be to construct cheaper housing? Building large houses on relatively large sections on the outskirts of the city won’t achieve that. More apartments and townhouses would. Good comments over at Auckland Transport Blog on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    One element adding to the apparently increasing cost of houses is the expectation of today’s younger folk that their first home will be as good as, or better than, their parents have worked their way up to after many years of working from a basic home to something better.
    ……………
    Their parents, or parents parents had an out door loo, a hen house and vege garden.

    “Christchurch architect Roger Buck, a longtime advocate of sustainable housing, says this could have been the moment to make the move to not just greener homes, but greener suburbs.
    More innovative ownership models could have emerged, such as community designs grouped around shared garden spaces.
    Instead, all he sees are cookie- cutter estates offering standalone houses on ever-shrinking plots. “They’re short-life buildings to begin with, what I’d call stick houses,” he says.
    They look ritzy when first built, but use flimsy materials and are unlikely to age well.
    Also, the sections are too small. Buck says people are clinging onto the old quarter-acre Kiwi ideal, but trying to make it work on half the land. We are building a rash of new suburbs that will never have vegetable patches, proper gardens or the shelter of trees.
    “When the easterlies blow through, they will be utterly bleak.”
    Nor do these subdivisions allow people to capture the winter sun.
    “You need do no more than orient your house to the north and that’s free winter energy.
    “However, developers just chop up the land at random to get as many sections out of it as possible. The house are then plonked down to fit the roads.”
    As for solar water heating and other green design basics that should by now be standard, he says people question the payback and leave these options out. “Yet they’ll spend $50,000 on a kitchen without batting an eyelid.”
    Leaving it to the market is just asking for shallow choices, Buck says. “People are only interested in the fancy brochures – the latest gear, the flashy stuff.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/6865085/Big-ambitions-for-small-sites?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    “The Half Gallon Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise[1] was a popular book by Austin Mitchell, published by Whitcombe and Tombs (Christchurch, 1972), with illustrations by Les Gibbard. It provided a witty, satirical description of life in 1960s New Zealand, and Kiwi culture.
    Described as “a celebrated vision of New Zealand as heaven on earth”,[2] the book was a great success in New Zealand. The phrase “Half Gallon Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise” soon became part of the New Zealand vernacular, with the term “quarter acre pavlova paradise” being included in the Dictionary of New Zealand English.[3] Mitchell revisited New Zealand 30 years after writing his original volume, and motivated by the social changes he observed, he penned a sequel entitled Pavlova Paradise Revisited.[4]”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Half_Gallon_Quarter_Acre_Pavlova_Paradise

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    “New Zealand’s change in immigration policy dates back to the early 1990s when the gap in productivity with other nations became pronounced between the years 1970 and 1990. Higher immigration was intended to fix the problem.

    In its report, the SWG claims the move backfired.

    “The policy choice that increased immigration, given the number of employers increasingly unable to pay First-World wages to the existing population and all the capital requirements that increasing populations involve – looks likely to have worked almost directly against the adjustment New Zealand needed to make and it might have been better off with a lower rate of net immigration.”
    http://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver/52140/migration-policy-linked-inflated-housing-prices-government-spending-and-low-savings

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    The Property Council
    “A land tax would be efficient and fair only if broadly and uniformly applied. New
    Zealand has a long history of land taxes beginning in the late 1800s. Exemptions and
    reductions have made land taxes politically unsustainable. They were finally repealed
    in 1990. We see no reason why a land tax in the future should be any more politically
    sustainable, particularly given the strong views of key stakeholder groups such as
    farmers, retirees and Iwi.

    [we are against strong effective measures]

    A land tax would also impact on land prices. This would impact on banks – at least
    2/3 of bank lending is to land based and housing segments. This could impact on the
    cost and availability of capital – and consequently on economic growth – perhaps for
    a protracted period.

    [ a fall in land values will hurt our members who are filthy rich and lounging in hammocks at Omaha Beach]

    Our initial analysis strongly suggests that far more detailed analysis and rigorous
    debate is required before these ideas progress further. Otherwise potentially
    damaging policy decisions could be made.

    [put it off until it is forced on us].
    http://www.propertynz.co.nz/files/Media/NZIER%20Final%20Report.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    In the 1909 budget, Lloyd George
    introduced taxation of land values, to be implemented when a land valuation register was
    ready. It was this aspect of the budget that most inflamed the dukes and that provoked Lloyd
    George’s finest oratory:
    [A] fully-equipped Duke costs as much to keep as two Dreadnoughts – and they are
    just as great a terror – and they last longer.
    Anticipating (and helping to provoke) the House of Lords’ rejection of the budget, Lloyd
    George went on
    11
    The question will be asked “Should 500 men, ordinary men chosen accidentally from
    among the unemployed, override the judgment – the deliberate judgment – of
    millions of people who are engaged in the industry which makes the wealth of the
    country?” That is one question. Another will be, who ordained that a few should
    have the land of Britain as a perquisite; who made 10,000 people owners of the soil,
    and the rest of us trespassers in the land of our birth[?]… These are the questions that
    will be asked. The answers are charged with peril for the order of things the Peers
    represent; but they are fraught with rare and refreshing fruit for the parched lips of the
    multitude… (At Newcastle upon Tyne, October 10, 1909, quoted by Jenkins 1968, p.
    94).
    These were perhaps the most memorable speeches ever made by a Chancellor of the
    Exchequer. They are in direct line of descent from Paine, Ricardo, and Henry George. And
    not only Lloyd George took up the message in that administration. In reading the quotation
    below, note not only who first said it in 1909, but who revived it in 2003.
    Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night
    into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains —
    and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected
    by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those
    improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by
    every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the
    community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to
    the process from which his own enrichment is derived. (Winston Churchill, 1909,
    quoted by Barker 2003, p. 116).
    12
    http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/…/McLean%20Land%20tax.p

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    hj
    you obviously waited until everyone went to bed and then posted the last load of bollocks ,so unchallenged you could go to bed feeling good about yourself.. sad , very sad

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    Houston Goes Green = fail
    //
    In fact the city has been sceptical of regulations in general, and even more of central planning. Houston famously has no zoning, which helps explain why the city covers some 600 square miles. It is America’s fourth-largest city by population, but less than half as densely populated as sprawling Los Angeles. People are heavily dependent on cars, the air quality is poor and access to green space is haphazard. At the same time, Houston has jobs, a low cost of living and cheap property. Many people have accepted that trade-off. Between 2000 and 2010 the greater metropolitan area added more than 1.2m people, making it America’s fastest-growing city.

    Still, the public is taking more interest in sustainability, and for a number of reasons. As the city’s population has swelled, the suburbs have become more crowded. Some of the growth has come from the domestic migration of young professionals with a taste for city life. And despite living in an oil-industry hub, the people of Houston are still aware of the cost of energy; during the summer of 2008, when petrol prices hovered around $4 a gallon, the papers reported a surge of people riding their bicycles to bus stops so that they could take public transport to work.

    The annual Houston Area Survey from Rice’s Kinder Institute also shows a change. This year’s survey found that 56% think a much better public transport system is “very important” for the city’s future. A similarly solid majority said the Metro system should use all its revenue for improvements to public transport, rather than diverting funds to mend potholes. In the 1990s, most respondents were more concerned about the roads.

    People’s views about houses have changed, too. In 2008 59% said they would prefer a big house with a big garden, even if that meant they had to use their car to go everywhere. Just 36% preferred a smaller house within walking distance of shops and workplaces. By 2012, preferences were running the other way: 51% liked the idea of a smaller house in a more interesting district, and only 47% said they wanted the lavish McMansion.”

    http://www.economist.com/node/21558632?frsc=dg|a

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    David Farrar is in favour of a land tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    In March the Productivity Commission presented it’s report on housing affordability to the Government. The Government has yet to respond to that report.
    On Sunday’s Q & A, Shane Taurima interviewed Productivity Commission Chair Murray Sherwin on issue’s related to that report as well as a general commentary on housing affordability in Auckland. Bernard Hickey of interest.com was also present at the interview to discuss his perspective on the housing situation in Auckland.
    Housing Commission Chair Murray Sherwin had this to say on affordability:

    MURRAY Well, it’s around councils consenting, and working with developers. I think we actually need councils to sit down with developers and say, ‘If we want to build a whole pile of houses that are going to be closer to $400,000 than $600,000 or $700,000, working backwards from that price point, what do we need to do, right back to consenting?’ Because there’s a lot of cost tied up in the length of time it can take to bring a new development through. It can take six, eight, ten, twelve years in some cases, and that means tens of thousands of dollars per section in carrying costs, in interest costs for the developers. So we need to be able to work the price of that section down. In Auckland now the analysis we did suggested that around 60% of the value of the property is represented by the land alone, and the rest of the country it’s around 40%. We need to get that back down. Now, that can come about by more green fields development, so more urban expansion, if you like, or intensification within existing limits. I’m perfectly relaxed about which way it goes, but whatever we do, we need to be able to provide affordable houses, so that means lower-cost houses than we’re doing now. And attractive lower-cost housing, and I think that’s perfectly possible.

    MURRAY And we took a different view on that. We looked at capital gains taxes and felt that they wouldn’t make the difference that was proposed for them. And also, if you’re going to do a capital gains tax, you need to be really careful about the unintended consequences and to do it across the board. It’s part of a broader tax issue. So, in principle it can be done; in practice it’s really tricky.

    BERNARD There are other ways, though, too, to try and reduce those land prices – some more politically controversial ways, which perhaps haven’t been looked at, particularly around land taxes and capital gains taxes. Now, this was something talked about when the tax working group looked at this a couple of years ago, and it was shown that this would reduce land prices significantly. That’s a political hot potato, one that neither side of politics is looking at, but if you really want to come from left field and actually make a difference to land prices, that’s one of the things you could do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Well said Pauleastbay, HJ is talking complete crap.
    This New Zealand not the bloody UK, it’s the case and always been the case right back to 1838 and the NZ Colonial Company settling Wellington that the DEVELOPER or subdivider pays for ALL the infrastructure works associated with the development. They pay for or build the roads, the footpaths, berms/margins, foulwater and stormwater drainage, the electricity/gas/phone/comm’s reticulation, the water & fire supply, etc to the required standard or consent/permits conditions and they are then vested in the local Authorities – the Local Council or Government didn’t pay for or build a single bit of it as ignorant people like HJ seem to imagine. Plus on top of this the land developer will still have to contribute land or in kind or money to the local authority or Crown for reserves plus pay one-off levies for the council to distribute in their largess to the community plus pay development levies to pay for regional infrastructure like sewer treatment plants or arterial roads or state highways. Plus a large subdivider/developer will have to make “supranormal” contributions for schools, hospitals, public areas, commercial and industrial usages etc. Plus the land purchaser/builder will have to pay further fee’s to connect their branch lateral drains, water supply, gas, phone, vehicle access crossing etc and pay a further set of development levies to double pay for the regional infrastructure. Plus the land owner will pay a never ending stream of significant property taxes based on purely arbitrary criteria until the end of time. And thats not including the Resource Consent costs or the risk you’ll even be given permission to develop the land or have land designated or taken for the “public good”.

    How about you subdivide some land HJ to help NZ’s housing situation, something simple to start with like chopping a single allotment off your existing urban zoned and built title section, say a small 450sqm for a single dwelling only, no roads or infrastructure to build just a R.o.W. and branch services. And then come back with how easy and quick and cheap it was, and how right the millionaire landowner lord Earl of Dwyfor PM LLoyd George was in sticking up for the common Englishman against the evil rapacious land developer and landlord – thats right maybe he was just another lying liberal hypocrite politician chucking out some “prole-feed” to the ignorant and stupid POME masses. And then try building a new house: if it’s a single storey detached dwelling, of small size and very basic shape and details and had over 10,000 similar ones built you can use the “Reduced NZ Building Code for Basic Housing”, it’s only 256 A4 pages of rules and regulations plus an additional 1940 pages in the minimum AS/NZS standards you HAVE to comply with.

    Thats the NZ situation, the land owner has always ultimately paid every single cent and then some for land development, and people wonder why land or housing or any property in general is expensive.

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