Labour’s housing policy falling apart

November 27th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The media are starting to realise that ’s policy to build 100,000 houses for under $300,000 is out of touch with reality. It simply can not be done. have in fact been proving this themselves with their photo ops.

First Shearer visited some affordable housing in Newtown as an example of what they will provide. But the houses there were not $300,000 but $495,000.

However, at the Newtown development Mr Shearer saw first-hand how expensive even entry level housing can be. The four four-bedroom homes he visited were each valued at $495,000.

So he tried again.

Opposition leader David Shearer got a closer look at what houses built under the Kiwibuild scheme could be like today. …

Shearer spent the morning touring New Zealand Housing Foundation properties across Auckland to promote the policy by illustrating innovative projects already underway.

The foundation is a charitable trust that helps low to middle income people into houses through a range of shared equity programmes.

His second stop was in Mt Roskill where he saw larger homes worth $400,000-$500,000.

”A lot of people are asking what can you build in Auckland for that money. We’re saying if you can build these here so close to central Auckland, we should be able to build much bigger homes if we’re doing it en masse.” 

Yeah the Govt will wave a wand and homes will both be bigger and cost less, under $300,000.

The foundations properties are an excellent example of what could be built under Kiwibuild, MP Phil Goff said.

”These are at the higher end for middle income families, but there are still about $100,000 cheaper than most houses in Auckland.

Yes the foundation properties are cheaper. In fact they even do have some homes for $300,000. But do you know why?

They are already being subsidised by the taxpayer. From May 2012:

The majority of the new projects are in Auckland, with the New Zealand Housing Foundation receiving the largest share of funding with $8.86 million to build 68 homes in West Auckland, Takanini, Mt Albert and New Lynn, and a further two in Kaikohe in Northland.

That is an average of $130,000 subsidy per home. Now Labour are saving they can do houses for under $300,000 with a mere $15,000 capital per home. Their numbers are so out of kilter with reality that I don’t think it is too harsh to call them a lie. There is just no way they can make it happen unless they can reduce the cost of land to $50,000 a section. Ironically they oppose almost every initiative to reduce the cost of land and consenting building on land.

Shearer’s credibility on this was savaged on 3 News last night:

Labour leader David Shearer hit the streets today, on a mission to prove his affordable home policy will actually work.

But one of Auckland’s top property experts has offered Mr Shearer some advice: start buying caravans, because it’s not going to happen.

Publicity stunts don’t always go to plan, and Mr Shearer found that out today as he showed off a low-cost subdivision.

Just over a week ago Labour announced, if elected, it would build 100,000 homes – many in Auckland – selling for just $300,000 each.

Construction costs would make up $220,000-250,000 of that, leaving just $50,000-$80,000 for the section.

When asked if he knew the average section price in Auckland, Mr Shearer says, “it depends where the section’s going to be”.

The average section price in Auckland is actually $300,000.

It is simple – we need to reduce the price of land. The supply of land is artificially constrained. Labour are against increasing the urban land limit in Auckland, so section prices are not going to decrease – and only on Planet Labour will you get land for $50,000 – not just one or two pieces of land – but 100,000 sections!

 

Tags: , ,

68 Responses to “Labour’s housing policy falling apart”

  1. Brad (75 comments) says:

    “Auckland currently has capacity for thousands of dwellings on existing greenfield land. So the issue is clearly more than just land supply.” Len Brown, NZ Herald, 26/11/2012

    You talk about waving magic wands, but your miracle land release cure is hardly a magic wand either

    [DPF: Just because there is some land available, in no ways means the restricted supply is not pushing prices up. There will always be some surplus land. If there was no spare land at all, then prices would be heading into the millions as people bid for the last piece of new land.

    The price of land is eight time greater on one side of the urban limit than the other.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    There is no magic wand. There is supply, and there is demand. And for those who can’t or won’t pay what it costs to get the house they want, they can settle for a different house/apartment, or they can rent.

    Really, this is a non-issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. sparky (235 comments) says:

    David Shearer needs to wake up and smell the coffee, he is living in fantasy land. Who does he think he is fooling. Ollie Newlands explained it well last night on Television. The nearest Mr Shearer is going to get to building homes in Auckland in particular is a Caravan Park, or maybe he is building Kennels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    When asked if he knew the average section price in Auckland, Mr Shearer says, “it depends where the section’s going to be”.

    That’s not a fair indication of what he said, there were also pauses, confused looks and ums.

    On student radio 95bFM yesterday Shearer was also asked about Kiwibuild. Their website explains it:

    Ethan tries to get Labour party leader David Shearer to explain his recent actions towards MP David Cunliffe, how KiwiBuild could ever possibly work and whether or not his bold plan is unrealistic.

    It was a now typical bumblefest. One of his comments:

    Kiwibuild is a great policy, it gets first home buyers back into their own homes.

    This really is getting quite embarrassing, it seems to be a sad concoction of ignorance and confusion.

    http://yournz.org/2012/11/27/back-to-the-shearer-problem/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I’m struggling with this idea that you need 220k to build a house.

    Maybe it’s just Auckland or maybe prices of something have gone up but I’m sure that you could build one for under $150k just a few years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Shearer’s plan is delusional. His advisers/handlers must also take some blame for letting him look like an idiot time and again.

    However what I can’t understand is why the plan appears to shun apartments. I have lived in apartments, and many people do. A well-built (not necessarily high-end) apartment building can be great. They may not have a back yard but they are good “first homes”, and do solve the unafordable land problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. rg (214 comments) says:

    The ACT Party was the only party to campaign at theh last election on freeing up the RMA and making housing more affordable by removing the constraints on land. No one voted for them. We have expensive houses in Auckland because voters are dumb.

    Talk of average house prices is misleading, first home buyers don’t need an average home, that is what they can work up to for their whole life. They need a start up home.
    GJ Gardenr home, 100 square meters $150k. on their website. It is only the section price that is the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Simon Lyall (60 comments) says:

    The problem is not going to be solved by opening up greenfields. You also need to remove restrictions on existing areas. I don’t mean building 20 story apartment houses in residential areas but the existing regulations mandate things like 4 metre setbacks for all houses and minimal section sizes.

    The trick is to look at areas like Ponsonby where 50 year old small houses on small sections ( check places like Lincoln St or Summer St in google streetview) are in demand. You need to be able to replicate similar buildings in other areas. When council regulations make it illegal to build a copy of houses that people admire the most then there is a problem with the regulations.

    Remember over half Auckland households are 1,2 or 3 people and demand is close to town. Building 5 bedroom homes in greenfield sites is not the whole solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. CJPhoto (221 comments) says:

    It is easy to build accomodation for less than $300k. Here is an example of 400 and there are plenty more examples, very close to the CBD:

    http://www.highprofiles.co.nz/fpbd-7-The-Volt-Apartments-floorplans-430-Queen-St-Auckland-City-Auckland.aspx

    More:
    http://www.highprofiles.co.nz/fpbd-16-Harvard-On-Hobson-Apartments-floorplans-147-Hobson-St-Auckland-City-Auckland.aspx
    http://www.highprofiles.co.nz/fpbd-113-Stamford-Apartments-floorplans-26-Albert-St-Auckland-City-Auckland.aspx

    Unfortunately they were banned as no one wanted to live in them – well not kiwis anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Jacinda Ardern could take one for the team and offer to buy the first of these when completed. After all she is a first home buyer.
    QST.
    Agreed on the apartments.
    My first home was an apartment on a major arterial road in Auckland. All I could afford at the time but it was the first step.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer (286) you are absolutely right. Go overseas and see how people live in big cities. They live in apartments and there is nothing wrong with that at all. Why the obsession with a house and land in a big city such as Auckland? if you want that move to a smaller city.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Simon Lyall (60 comments) says:

    CJphoto writes: “Unfortunately they were banned as no one wanted to live in them – well not kiwis anyway.”

    – “banned as no one wanted to live in them ” . Those two statements contradict each other.
    – “well not kiwis anyway ” – cause “real kiwis” only want to live in 1/4 acre sections, drive Holdens and spend their weekends mowing the lawns, eating on the BBQ and fixing the deck?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    There is only one medium to long term solution to Auckland’s housing issues — encourage business to move out of Auckland. With modern technology probably half of them don’t need to be there. They could be based in any provincial town.
    Even retailers –just look at the statistics for online sales growth compared to traditional retail, overseas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Reid (16,440 comments) says:

    cause “real kiwis” only want to live in 1/4 acre sections, drive Holdens and spend their weekends mowing the lawns, eating on the BBQ and fixing the deck

    No Simon, “real kiwis” are perfectly happy with a normal apartment, they just don’t want to live their whole life in a broom closet, which is what these are. Apparently Asian students are quite happy with broom closets, but that’s them, and we’re not them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. CJPhoto (221 comments) says:

    I did post those as some of the worst examples but which easily fit within Labours $300k budget.

    I have lived in multiple cbd apartments and loved them at that stage of my life. No reason why small 1 and 2 best apartments can be part of the plan, as can low rise suburban apartments which are slightly bigger.

    Density is the key, if people are willing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Building houses for less than $200k is easy. The idea that building under $300k is impossible is nonsense. It’s a shame the Right has to resort to lies to make its case.

    http://www.a1homes.co.nz/content/auckland-select-home

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Rather than focusing on Labour, who of course are not in government, the question is: what is National doing to alleviate the housing shortage? Banging on about Labour won’t help the situation one iota.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    What shortage?
    http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Property/RegionListings.aspx?sort_order=price_asc&cid=3399&134=1

    12566 listings for Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Meanwhile former builder John Key has opined:

    “You probably can build something for $300,000 but not at the level of expectation that those first-home buyers that will be hearing that policy think you can build.”

    Right, so a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom new home won’t meet first home buyers’ expectations? What’s the weather like on Planet Key?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. lastmanstanding (1,293 comments) says:

    Watch the Gumint that destroys the value of ALL existing houses so the owners owe the banks more than they are worth lose the next election they face and not get re elected for at least a decade.

    Cause that will be the result even if the Socialists and Shearer could build 100K houses for under $300K’

    Other random questions. WTF are the trades to build the houses. A Gone to Oz

    Where are the stock piles of building materials to build 100K houses under $300k A Dont exist.

    Shearer Ardern and the rest of the Socialist MORONS are on another planet. Not surprising as they have FA understanding of teh real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    ross69: thanks for the link, proves my point.

    I just don’t get this insistence in “finding” houses that are “cheap” at $300,000. That’s insane. And it’s not new either, I saw a newspaper article a few years ago which informed it’s readers that you could find low cost housing in a certain area and then proceeded to quote prices that were well past the average for the area.

    Seems to me that neither the goverment nor the opposition are much interested in really doing anything. But then when I see people turning up their noses at apartments I’m no more impressed. Too many people want it all, immediatly and without the hard work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Where are the stock piles of building materials to build 100K houses under $300k A Dont exist.

    It’s one thing to bash the Labour party, but you do realise that it’s the private sector that will be providing the materials. I don’t think that part will be any issue at all.

    There may not even be a big issue with skilled labour either, if it’s ramped up as the Christchurch recovery is ramped down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mara (784 comments) says:

    If the young middle classes cannot buy the houses they wish in the “nicer” parts of Auckland, it means that they cannot afford them. Well, whoopee, so what? There are cheaper parts of the country where prices would suit them better. Even, gasp, other parts of Auckland further away from the latte set that they demand to inhabit immediately. Real estate reports indicate that outer suburbs aren’t selling as quickly as inner city ones are, despite being progressively cheaper, in general, the further out they are. There are many ultra cheapo appartments in the big smoke but only immigrants seem to want to buy them. Do we have an expectation problem?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    People need to be told:
    * live in a large city
    * have cheap accomodation/house
    * have lots of room

    Pick any 2.

    It’s that simple.

    It goes by degrees: the larger the city the higher the costs or less room you have to settle for. It’s called compromise, and it’s how we plebs live in the real world ™.

    (mara beat me to it!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    ross69, your a fuckwit.

    Read about the houses in your link. No carpets, drapes, fences, paths, driveway, heating, site works, services (you know like plumbing!) or site leveling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    My Bro in Law is looking at bringing a container of building materials over from USA. Things like double glazed windows are 1/4 of NZ price. That kind of thing could help the cause of “affordable” homes but its will run against keeping NZ in employment and be political suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    It’s a pity the nay sayers don’t do some research before falling about in the aisles laughing. Transportable homes range from $1,342 p sq m to $1631 p sq m on sites I checked out. The result is a 3 bedroom home of 109sq m home at $146,500. Those figures show that modest home have risen from about an average p sq m of $1,100 to approx 1,400.
    Another fact DPF continues to overlook, indicating that he is concerned that Shearer’s plan might be realistic, is that Shearer has said some apartment living. I think that was in the article referred to above.
    It’s one thing to cackle about affordable homes and another to front up with them which many of the public expect the Government to do.
    Additionally Rodney, the ‘peoples polly’ plans to stretch the city limits has been undone somewhat by what Len Brown has said about utilising the land within the existing building zones. Brown also looks for apartments, more modest homes of modest but liveable size. He made the good point that extending the boundaries accounts for a lot of additional expense for services and roads etc.
    In a recent round of ‘sell ups’ of HNZ land offers double sites were in the 400s including the original state house home in some cases, this was for existing tenants, and the was part of the Glen Innes pre-amble shake out. That’s a section under 200 of the current residential 6a size of 375 sq m. Add that to the mid line transportable, drainage, movement, consent and gain a figure of around 380 to 400.
    I was involved in the recent sale of a house on approx 1000sq m which fell just outside being able to be divided in to three sections. The price (fairly high) was $590,000 therefore making available a good size 3 bd rm home and a spare section which on DPF’s meanderings meant a spare almost 500 sq metre site for under 200.
    All this talk about Shearer’s bumbling talk may yet get a positive reaction of support from the electorate, because good politics does not necessarily a good speaker make. This programme is still on the table and bs won’t fool all of the people all of the time – particularly over an issue of concern to young families.
    I fairly closely monitor section and house sales in a couple of areas of interest to me and there older homes under 400,000 are not exceptions. I know another double site with solid brick home going for 450 at auction, on a sub-divided basis that’s either a 3 b r home for 250 and or spare section for 200.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. CJPhoto (221 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – You make some good points. But remember this is not about finding a few sub dividable sites or putting MDU on the back section (which Auckland Council predesessors effectively shut down). He wants to build 100k. He needs cheap green field sites or large sections, in the right area, where he can put apartments/terrace housing etc.

    That is a much bigger ask.

    However, the first thing you have to sell is getting people to want to buy a 100sqm house. They may be ok renting as they think it is a stepping stone but buying it. Not so sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    I know another double site with solid brick home going for 450 at auction, on a sub-divided basis that’s either a 3 b r home for 250 and or spare section for 200.

    It will of course cost you $50,000 to carve it off, fence and service it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    I have said it before on here but…

    It is possible to build a cheap home that is warm and safe however…

    It will be 1 dbl and 2 singles, combined kitchen family dining and lounge. No hallway. All bedrooms come off living areas like they do in Aussie. IF they have a attached garage it will be a single and the laundry will be in there. One bathroom and very basic appliances. Tiny section. Lots of house all the same or very close to it.
    100 M2 @ $1400 at M2.
    Very very easy to build a slum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    I have no experience of Auckland’s housing costs but I can give an idea of prices locally (Masterton). For example (Ex TradeMe) a 489sp/m section….asking price $79K. A 120sq/m house, 2 bathroom, 4 bedroom erected by a firm of builders I know & trust for $181K. Site excavation & services not included & I have no idea what the parasites in the local council would charge for consents.

    Still definitely possible for under $300K. It would seem that the local authorities in Auckland need to be confronted with pitchforks, feathers & tar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    In the Bay of Plenty the Council charges are closer to $30,000 to build an ordinary single 3 bed house.
    Section for very ordinary section 650 sq mtr for house around $230,000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    Colville

    For the house I used as an example: http://www.a1homes.co.nz/content/a1homes-wairarapa Ref. eh120.

    I’ve seen a few of their showhomes & I’m not so fussy that I wouldn’t live in one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Akaroa (557 comments) says:

    One day people are going to wake up and realise the convenience, value and desirability of apartment living.

    (I’d only make one reservation – and that is that apartment living and children do not mix! No sir! Not nohow!!)

    When we came to this fair land nearly forty years ago we bought a new house. A house. That’s it! No paths. No landscaping. No kerb-crossing. Just a basic Kiwi man, woman and children shelter. With a ‘car-shed’ – as my Kiwi neighbour termed it.

    $28,500, and thank you very much Housing Corporation of NZ. I didn’t really mind all that back-breaking ground breaking, fence-building, lawn planting, concreting, etc.etc. (You lie!!)

    Since then we’ve moved on, and – with offspring having sprung off – have lived in a Central Wellington apartment before trying up-market Wellington suburban detached house and section living and then finally moving on to Auckland – (I know, I know. Backward Step!!) – where we bought an eighth floor central city apartment. I wouldn’t live anywhere else now.

    Apart from no gardening, lawn mowing or having to remember to put the garbage at the road side, we are within strolling distance of a host of restaurants, dairies, and all the central Akl shopping. The car? Garaged on the third floor and used at weekends only. All wider building maintenance and operating matters taken care of by the resident manager at a derisory corporate fee,

    Cost? Don’t ask! But not a bank-breaker by any means. (And, no, I am not a Lotto winner!!)

    Finally, Let me just say that IMHO anyone who prefers the ‘joys’ of living in the suburban wastelands to the convenience and enjoyment of city-centre high-rise apartment living just hasn’t yet seen the light!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    This is very funny.

    But here’s some ideas to assist with house purchases.

    1. Go to school and get a useful qualification.

    2. Get a job.

    3. Save your money – don’t piss it up against the wall on things you can’t afford – including accomodation.

    4. Don’t vote for Governments that expect you to pay for people who can’t be bothered doing that or that expect you to subsidise others through the tax system because they have chosen to breed when they can’t afford to.

    5. Buy a house or apartment you can afford in an area you can afford.

    6. Don’t breed until you can afford it if owning your home is a priority.

    7. Accept that having three children doesn’t mean that you need 4 bedrooms.

    Old fashioned I know, but it seemed to work last century. What’s changed? Oh I know, it’s now everyone’s right to own their own home …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. simo (150 comments) says:

    The BOP Council may as well be charging a capital gains tax, they are just collecting the same at the build with all suckhole fee’s they charge…where have all the lefties migrated to including Auckland City Council? There is such a clear game plan here it can’t be disguised. It just needs some churnalists with real ball sacks to call it the commie rort that it is. Meanwhile back in reality land the peasants are getting screwed by the very commies that purport to spread the wealth. Its empire building at its utter cockroach lowest level.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    thedavincimode

    Well put, but one point needs emphasis. For some God known reason the thought of buying an entry level property & trying to improve its value by a few bob seems to have flown by the latest generation of nest seekers. Akaroa detailed what many Kiwis went through….paths, gardens, fences & whatever were constructed during holidays contributing to what was colloquially known as sweat equity.

    In my own case it involved rebuilding a 1870’s dunger from the piles up but it got us started & effectively mortgage free by my early thirties.

    Perhaps I’m showing my age but screwing the letterbox to a post seems a bit taxing for some of the bleaters who want the ‘gummint’ to sort it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. the conservative (66 comments) says:

    Of course Labour’s housing policy is full of holes. As Key says ‘releasing more land and refining the RMA’ is the right approach; however, why has he left that so long? He should have been doing that years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pongo (372 comments) says:

    You can’t help but wonder. Clearly this was policy made up to counter Cunliffe at the conference and so give Shearer a good speech to appeal to the base. Poor beggar is a bit stupid so couldn’t see the holes in it and will now get rightly smacked around for months for a dopey ill thought through election bribe. I think Shearer is no doubt a nice guy but is a bit thick, clearly being a teacher and then on the UN gravy train has left him I’ll equipped to understand the real world. His advisors installed by Robertson who has even less experience have hung him out to dry, innocently.
    When you have a political party with ZERO life n the real world it is to be expected, no wonder the idiot greens poll so high.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. duggledog (1,554 comments) says:

    This is just what they do. A Labour / Greens coalition in charge of the company cheque book is only going to end one way.

    Davincimode @ 5.44, that’s basically what I learned by osmosis since childhood. There’s a new word for it these days ‘austerity’ apparently it’s Terrible!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    CJPhoto.

    Yes that number of houses is a far bigger ask and I concede that readily. On the other hand some developments of this nature have happened in Mangere and Glen Innes that I know of where there are still vast parcels of land housing relatively few state houses per sq m. Some of those government developments seem to be moderately successful, but the problem I see is that such developments should totally or almost exclusively exclude state houses. HNZ stocks in may older areas of Auckland are basically shot, even though this is unlikely to be Shearer’s plan – develop that land into a mixture of modest sized homes and apartments but privately owned. If any Government help is offered make it fit a certain criteria for first home buyers.

    Even though it may have started with the last Labour Government or the previous National Government the current development planning in Glen Innes is looking like a disaster to me at the moment. It’s piece meal and shoddy, there is also a private partnership involved that will obviously be working in it’s own interest. With a lot of logistic changes in east Auckland it should be poised to take off with modern affordable homes but it looks like more of the 80 and 90s carve ups where new homes were placed behind or beside 60 year old state house homes many in poor condition – a situation that is a further deterrent to wombats who think they can pick and chose with affordable homes.

    I fully agree that with others here who point out buyers have to be realistic and in my opinion most are when it comes to a first home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    You’re dreaming pongo if you think the policy was made up to counter Cunnliffe, going into the conference Shearer said Cunnliffe had pledged his support. Try to concentrate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. sparky (235 comments) says:

    The Left just don’t get it, they live in a dream world. If it was that easy to build houses so cheaply on cheap land, then why is there such a discussion about it. We would all be out there building. Ollie Newlands explained it well last night on TV, now he would know more about the housing industry (especially in Auckland) than David Shearer and his mob would know, that is for sure. He said it was not possible to get these very cheap sections, and the closet David Shearer would get to putting homes on a section for his costing’s would be CARAVANS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Key is our man (888 comments) says:

    My uncle Matt McCarten thinks Shearer has a credible economic policy. God save NZ when the toxic coalition of Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana take power in 2014.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. sparky (235 comments) says:

    I so agree, GOD HELP NZ, if the Labour/Greens/NZF/Mana, get any where near the baubles of power. It will be the blind leading the blind, and NZ would be in one hell of a mess. They have no idea, and Shearer leading the coalition, bumbling and trying to control them would be disaster. NZ would look worse than Greece, with that lot spending at will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. alwyn (424 comments) says:

    I was very impressed by the arithmetic nous of David Parker in Parliament today.
    According to his arithmetic, and he is supposed to be Labour’s Finance spokesman isn’t he, he claimed, near the end of question 8, the following.
    Building one house per hour, for 24 hours per day, every day of the year would produce 613,000 houses in 10 years.
    Perhaps my calculator is broken but it tells me that
    24 (houses/day) * 7 (days/week) * 52 (weeks/year) * 10 (years) = 87,360.
    This is the man that Labour woud put in charge of New Zealand’s finances?
    Where do they get these idiots?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Boglio (78 comments) says:

    Was all done in the ’60’s and ’70’s. Called Mangere, Glen Innes, Otara, Manurewa West, Papakura and probably areas in west Auckland with which I am not familiar etc. You can still buy many a house there for under $300,000. No garage, a path to the front door if you were lucky, no fences and put in your own clothes line. You can see what happened to those suburbs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Did you get wet coming down in the last shower Sparky, look at the actual examples I gave above. Nobody is saying that it is easy, but if the homes were available they’d be brought. Jolly Ollie would know! He could smell one coming at a 100 paces have your money off you and signed up in heartbeat.

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

    There is no shortage of housing in NZ. There is a shortage of people with the right amount of money.
    There is a shortage of determined people who want/ need to buy a house.
    There is a shortage of savers.
    There is a lot of people who want to start at the top instead of further down the scale.
    There is plenty of cheap housing in places people don’t want to live but times is a changing and why in god’s name anyone in their right mind wants to live in the cesspit that’s Auckland when more and more work can be done in other places more efficiently and with less cost is beyond logical comprehension.

    One could look at Rotorua for example. Ample housing for less than 350K. 14 lakes within 30 minutes drive.(less than a work comute and lots of fishing and water skiing), Bush walking, skiing and hour away, the beaches of the Bay 50 minutes away, doesn’t rain as much as Auckland, warmer in the summer and yea can be colder in the winter., no traffic jams, shoppingok and like most places going on line anyway etc etc.
    Just oner example and being Queenstown. Plenty of the smart people there but Auck dorks exist to the detrement of the rest of NZ.

    The way to fix the housing is to provide incentives for people to move out to the rest of NZ and stop wealthy Chinese from buying to establish their saftey bolthome. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10850092

    Roll on broadband as it will cause the biggest movement of people for more than 50 years.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10850196

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Boglio (78 comments) says:

    Called Mangere, Glen Innes, Otara, Manurewa West, Papakura and probably areas in west Auckland with which I am not familiar etc. You can still buy many a house there for under $300,000. No garage, a path to the front door if you were lucky, no fences and put in your own clothes line. You can see what happened to those suburbs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Boglio. Yes they left the majority of them in the hands of state tenants on virtually life time tenancies, they remain on vast sections and at the prices you’re talking about would be prime for a development of affordable housing, 90 to 110 sq m on 375 m sites, and mixed with apartments, sold on. The state should be a limited landlord, but it looks like they’re repeating the mistake in Glen Innes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Lack of supply bullshit. Even getting rid of the urban island is a sort temporary measure. The real reason is too much demand because real estate is still an export commodity in nz and Auckland is where those millions of rich foreigners and retirees want to buy. Two things are needed. Make sale of land to foreigners less attractive by taxing it the same as any other industry and encourage other industry so that we have a high wage economy so those working here can compete when buying houses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yep, v2 nailed it. The last thing we need is Auckland sprawling further leaving enormous ghetto liabilities for ours children and grandchildren all over New Zealand to have to pay for. I’m disgusted at the false righties here always banging on about lack of land supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. sparky (235 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, (good name.) Anyone that believes the Labour Party (Shearer) can buy sections for fifty thousand in Auckland, definitely came down in the last shower. Every builder I have spoken too, has said it won’t happen. You might get a kennel, or box. These 100 thousand homes are supposedly for families, you know the one’s that are in poverty. They can’t eat, but they can afford a mortgage. Your dreaming. Ideology at it’s best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer

    However what I can’t understand is why the plan appears to shun apartments. …

    Apartments aren’t part of reviving the once great Labour party and the 1/4 acre section… Where is the backyard cricket, the broken down cars on the lawn and the letterboxes to sit on drinking the cheap freshly delivered milk ….

    This campaign isn’t about logic or reason queenstfarmer, it’s nostalgia to give a failed ideology one more try because as an ideology it gets votes in tough times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. sparky (235 comments) says:

    Alwyn, we were watching this afternoon and heard David Parker, we all just roared with laughter. Sure are idiots. The Labour Party, just haven’t got a clue. Worst group of Labour MP’s I have ever come across.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    In the end what the houses are sold for is not the point – the cost of building the house will depend on the land cost and this is variable. There will be jobs building them, there will be more houses after they are built – this will lower the value of housing from where it would have been. That will generate more discretionary spending in the economy and lower the cost of foreign debt ( financing home mortgages)

    A future Labour government intention to procure land will probably involve support for a wider effort to free up more land for housing (making this bi-partisan).

    As for housing cost – its high per local wage income – it’s not a decline in saving or high expectations that is the problem. Mostly it’s the price of land, a generation back people would build a small house on a section and extend it as the family grew. Now the section price is the problem. So much so that couples resort to buying old houses on sub-divided sections – and they can only do this because they get 90% finance. In the past a real equity deposit was required. This kept land values down – no one was able to leverage a whole stable of rentals on 90% deposit then.

    PS Has anyone wondered what the price of land in Auckland would be if non residents could not buy property there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    SPC

    Can you imagine the donations to politicians (and generally to the permanent residence application process) if non residents could not buy land anywhere in NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Sparky you’ve still got water behind your ears old son. I never said sections for 50,000, you’re dreaming mate. Don’t get mixed up with politics left or right as it clearly clouds what little judgement you might have. I’ve given you real examples but instead of commenting on them your talk a lot of crap about politicians and make up stuff as you go along, I don’t recall Shearer saying affordable houses were for those living in poverty, rather it was for those first home buyers having trouble getting a start on the ladder. Auckland prices are inflated for a number of reasons, but the reasons are not universal. If there was Government will in doing something about freeing up land in Auckland in particular it would happen.

    There are plenty of ways to skin a cat, even very wet ones. Right now ex state homes are being ‘renovated’ and shifted north. Other’s in Waterview knocked down for the cost of around $9,000 – something not right there. If anyone on here has a suitable site in Auckland second hand houses are available at around 60 shifted and sat down on piles. But that would mean you might get your hands dirty sparky instead getting your rocks off standing around talking to builders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    burt

    Good we take their money and still deny them the opportunity to bid up local real estate values.

    Of the select few who we let in, they can pay tax here and make their qualifying investment as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    SPC

    I’ve no idea of what the prices would be, apart from the fact they’d still be high. However in a free market sellers are entitled to sell to the highest bidder unbound from nationalistic restraints. I am confident, in fact I know a number of such people, who are appreciating the prices they’ve achieved in Auckland from recent sales, and why shouldn’t they because they also brought in an open market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Jim (397 comments) says:

    …leaving just $50,000-$80,000 for the section.

    When asked if he knew the average section price in Auckland, Mr Shearer says, “it depends where the section’s going to be”.

    The average section price in Auckland is actually $300,000.

    You know how they solve that in most cities? Not everyone lives on the ground floor.

    Makes public transport more workable too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. sparky (235 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, Mr Self Importance. You wouldn’t have a clue, just like your bumbling stuttering Mr Shearer. Go back to your cave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    “The price of land is eight time greater on one side of the urban limit than the other”

    David by moving the urban limit you are more likely to increase the price of the land currently outside the limit than reduce the price inside. However that is an aside. Increasing the supply should have an impact on price however there are more factors that need to be addressed. Density of development and not necessarily high rise apartment development needs to be addressed. More housing units per hectare will mean a lower cost of land per housing unit in general terms. Auckland needs to start looking at places like Sydney and Melbourne where 3 and 4 storey medium density development is common place, especially along the arterial transport routes.

    The resource management and consenting process needs to be addressed. It is slow, cumbersome and expensive.

    Size of houses. in the 1970’s in NZ the average flow area of an entry level group house was 90 m2 or roughly 1000 square feet. Now entry level housing is 135 – 150 m2. Is there any wonder the pricing has ramped up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Poor old sparky. At least you made one correct choice when you decided against calling yourself ‘bright sparky.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    That’s right Mark, now many people live in houses far too big for them, however a four or five member family can easily make a home of approx 100 sq m. Actually building costs per sq haven’t increased dramatically over the last 10 or so years, it’s the new ‘size’ people expect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. sparky (235 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, Oh Mr SELF IMPORTANCE is still bleating, and bumbling. All have a laugh here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Nostalgia-NZ (5,190 comments) says:

    Good work sparky you nearly made an arguable point, perhaps sometime in the next decade.

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