http://www.nzherald.co.nz/residential-property/news/article.cfm?c_id=76&objectid=10861410

FYI, the S is for super and the C is for correctness, not social or credit.

You aren’t related to Vern Cracknell or Bruce Beetham by any chance are you?

Our property valuing system is a major part of the problem. This needs to be addressed.

I doubt expanding the supply of land for new building change that.

For example – land was valued at $100,000 and the improvements at $100,000 in 2000. After existing property prices doubled, the land is now valued at $300,000 and the improvements reamin at $100,000. Now land yet to be built is also valued at $300,000 a section – 3 times what it was worth before property prices doubled

(and given building a new house is around $200,000 – so not much change from $500,000 for a new home).

The second factor – banking practice.

Because banks in New Zealand have no risk – if there is a mortagee sale and no net equity the remaining debt remains to the bank – so banks will lend the $500,000. Whereas in some markets, such as the USA, the bank takes the loss and thus property prices fall in any recession causing mortagee sales. Here prices always rise and thus the property investment speculation and thus banks risk lending at high levels of borrower income.

This means the RB has to constrain banking practice – that means minimum deposit ratios/loan to value for home ownership. As for investor ownership (beyond a first home as some invest to step into property ownership), a higher deposit and a falling loan to value ratio over the period of ownership to reduce leveraging for speculation.

Wherever people want to live. You don’t have to live 40km outside of the Auckland CBD if you don’t want to. You can live in a shitty shoebox flat in Mt Eden if you want. Those are your choices. But don’t deny them to other people.

Then you don’t want to live in a Reid built 3 beddy of 75 sq mtrs

Well, if it’s your first house then why the fuck not?

The developers have to put in the services infrastructure eg sewage, roads, footpaths; not the council (which takes ownership at completion). That cost is included in the price to home owers. The thieving council charge a development cost on top of that something like $20,000 in the big taro I think, plus, the building consent costs – maybe a couple of grand, and that’s without the squillions spent on subdivision resource consent where they have to deal with some miserable old bag who isn’t happy because she thinks the subdivision will make her teeth fall out or disorientate her poxy cat. On the bright side, it keeps a few pencil pushers in cardigans and corduroy shoes in wage, but is otherwise a slush fund for waste and excess by big-noting deadbeats.

The Christchurch City Council had a number of Earthquake reports made available over many years (many ex DSIR as was) and Council’s past. They all talked about liquifaction being one of the products in the East city. But rate collection by new building was more important.
Such reports were politically undesirable, so was quietly shelved internally.
It should be asked as to how many reports the Council have in their files, or were they “lost” in the quakes.
This is over many Mayors and Councils, not as currently blamed the present mayor and Councillors. I heard one former well known Mayor obfuscate when asked why he did nothing about these reports. Pure waffle.
We could ask whether new members were not acquainted with these reports.
Undesirable political proctice by Council staff probably.
NIMBY – yes nasty Wellington, but not the Holy City of New Zealand, Christchurch

Then you don’t want to live in a Reid built 3 beddy of 75 sq mtrs either so you grow the size and adornment’s of your house. and its the builders fault or the building supplies and materials are costing so much. But being the builder or supplier you don’t want to go broke either.

The building design can’t be what it used to be either. You want double glazing fully insulated etc etc building with an inbuilt garage and all the necessities of modern theatre. you want it to withstand earthquakes and floods and fire and tempest generally, not something that is going to fall over in the wind.

You want to live in a posh suburb so you insist that developers protect your investment for the longterm by having covenants the set out exactly what you house can and cannot be. Your palace could never have a cheppie built next door, nor a house without an inbuilt garage that is constructed with Hardie plank and not your brick. You don’t want a recyled house plonked down in your paradise.

You want your castle to be surrounded by park lands and good roading, water and sewerage and services like swimming pools and playgrounds supplied by some other dumb cunt called the ratepayer.

And fuck me you all wonder and whinge and moan about house prices. Idiots at large just like your new Minister.

As I pointed out yesterday it’s all about expectations. Yours.

http://www.businessinsider.com/suburban-america-ponzi-scheme-case-study-2011-10?op=1#ixzz2IqCx5w7T

what a drippy useless (bent) government this is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/21/i-agree-with-churchill-shirkers-tax

Silence:

” Immigration and tax breaks for investment in residential property are being cited as the underlying causes of steep increases in the cost of housing over the past decade.

New Zealand now boasts one of the highest rates of home unaffordability in the world as a result of prices rising far faster than incomes, and the government’s Savings Working Group blames that squarely on the policies of successive governments.

Although “the favourable tax treatment of property investment” accounted for about 50% of house price increases between 2001 and 2007, the working group said, there was also strong evidence that rapid swings in immigration brought about price-rise “shocks”.

There was a sharp spike in immigration in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and, said working group committee member Dr Andrew Coleman, it appeared that property prices did not fall anywhere near as greatly when immigration fell again.

The report added that there was little evidence that immigration boosted local incomes. In fact, the need to build roads and schools meant that net migration contributed to the national deficit. ”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices

Regarding provision of infrastructure. This is only an issue because we don’t have a proper user pays system. Water is underpriced. All major water infrastructure has to be funded via rates not water prices. Why? Watercare is legally not allowed to make a profit. If you can’t make a profit you can’t borrow as you won’t have the money to pay it back. Look at supermarkets. You don’t see them complaining about having to build new stores (a significant investment) because of a new subdivision. Obviously it is the opposite. This would be the same for council infrastructure if it was priced properly.

The other issue is the politicisation of infrastructure provision. Recently one of the senior managers at the Auckland Council announced (with a straight face) that Auckland would eventually need to produce zero waste as we are “running out” of landfills. Why building more landfills did not occur to this guy as an alternative, I have no idea.