Labour gets its housing sums wrong again

January 31st, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Claire Trevett at NZ herald reports:

The Hobsonville Land Company says claims its affordable homes will include a 300sq m four-bedroom stand-alone house for less than $485,000 are wrong – and the biggest it can offer for that price is a three-bedroom house less than half that size.

The Hobsonville Pt development was dragged into the debate over affordable housing in Parliament yesterday after ’s Annette King said the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment had provided information showing National’s affordable housing plan for Hobsonville Point included a four-bedroom house on 300sq m for less than $485,000.

However, Hobsonville Land Company chief executive Chris Aiken said the largest house in the under-$485,000 affordable homes project would be a three-bedroom stand-alone home of 135sq m.

“We certainly couldn’t do anything at Hobsonville Pt for any more than that without a pretty big subsidy.”

He said the affordable homes part of the development also included some 100sq m two-bedroom stand-alone houses for between $390,000 and $400,000 which were completed.

Labour’s credibility is plunging down the sink rapidly. First they finally admit that their $300,000 affordable homes may costs $550,000 in Auckland and now their claim that there are already four bedroom homes in Hobsonville for $485,000 has been shot down. It’s incredibly sloppy work. Labour could have verified their figures with the Hobsonville Land Company before rushing off to the media. This is a failure to do basic homework.

Tags: ,

23 Responses to “Labour gets its housing sums wrong again”

  1. MikeG (425 comments) says:

    Insurance companies seem to think that you can build houses very cheaply in Christchurch, but I don’t see any criticism of them!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    And Annette king repeated on TV last night that $300,000 is the ‘average’ price so where and what are the $50,000 homes?

    I doubt that would build a granny flat much less the Coronation Street terrace houses the Labour Party wants us all to live in, just like the working poor of the 19th century!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Yet they want to run this country. It’s pretty embarassing really for them and NZ that our main opposition party is so incompetent.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    300 sq m – did they mean the land?

    thats a freakin big house. even the glorious Dime pad hasnt cracked 300 sq m.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (13,735 comments) says:

    HMS Captain Mumblefuck is taking water and sinking rapidly.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. pq (728 comments) says:

    You can look up the boss, it is now nearty $NZ3000 per meter, want a good good home , you need a million dollars, wake up get real fast, because I am here

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (9,915 comments) says:

    300 square metres is HUGE for a 4 bedroom house!!!

    That must be a mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    They haven’t got their sums wrong, they are just being dishonest.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (888 comments) says:

    According to Brian Rudman, Labour’s housing policy is a winner and it has John Key rattled. So I don’t know why you guys are findin fault with it. According to uncle Rudman, John Key got so scared with this policy, he sacked Phil Heatley.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    The 300 sq m should have rung immediate alarm bells, especially in relation to ‘affordable’ homes.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. anonymouse (715 comments) says:

    Whoever edited that Herald article needs to be shot,
    Are they talking about a 300sqm 4 bedroom house, or a 4 bedroom house on a 300sqm section.. These are hugely different….

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Typical politicians, deliberately leave their wiggle room by not being clear about whether they are discussing house area or section area. It is as simple as mumbling the word “on” or “of” so that some hear “on 300 sq metres” and others hear “of 300 sq metres”. The last thing then is to clarify so that the argument descends into farce until the masterstroke moment when Annette king can back down under a smokescreen of accusations that John Key is deliberately misleading the public and what she really said was “of 300 m2″

    Do they have lessons in fudging (being deliberately obstruse) at MP school 101? It certainly takes the listening public for idiots. Well I suppose most (except me) are!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    Sir Cullen’s Sidekick (64) I almost wet myself when I saw that he said PH was sacked because of this policy. The desperation of the left is staggering!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    Annette King is a skilled Labour politician.

    She knows how to get the media headlines, and ignore the facts – typical of the media not to questionthe facts though –
    the Herald is still the worse,

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

    $675k for 4 bedrooms. Landsize is 207sqm – no meantion of house size:

    http://www.hobsonvillepointliving.co.nz/property_listings/property_details/Terraced%20Houses/88/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Mobile Michael (451 comments) says:

    300sq is a small section – there would not be any room for a backyard for kids, even after you put a 120sqm house on – unless it is not a house but a semi-detached and built on the boundary.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. B A W (99 comments) says:

    To be fair Labour’s plan will remove the profit margin this company would be making.

    And Labour would get everyone to live in small dwellings thus reducing cost further.

    But even so they are not dealing with other factors such as supply of land, time taken to get consents etc.

    Building a cheap house is easy we can do that already, getting cheap land is another factor – as they say they are not making any more of it.

    And being lucky enough to actually get into one of these houses – well demand will outstrip supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (9,915 comments) says:

    “4 bedroom house ON 300 sq.m…”

    Oh… that makes more sense.

    So in preparing to debate their housing policy, Labour have researched this slightly better than I research my comments on Kiwiblog.

    Doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence! :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. lastmanstanding (1,293 comments) says:

    Any political party that takes actions that drive down the value of residential houses will find themselves consigned to the Opposition benches for a decade.
    Fact is most people have most of their net worth tied up in the house they live in.
    If they have borrowed at 80% plus as many have over the past decade any substantial downward movement will see them underside down ( in other words their mortgage will be greater than the value of the house).

    The Nats know this thats why they are not rushing to flood the market (especially Auckland) with low cost houses. They cant because of the following;
    1. Council will have to give consent to bare land being developed. And that takes lots of time.
    2. Infrastructure takes time to install.
    3. Building trades are in short supply and most are heading to CCH.
    4. Materials are in short supply and most will be consumed in CCH.

    The Auckland house price increases will continue unless the Gumint builds a Berlin wall with machine gun posts on it to keep the hoards who want to live in AK out.

    And the Nats aint gonna do that any time soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rich Prick (1,699 comments) says:

    I think it was a typo. Was meant to read 30 square meters …. and has wheels …. and is on blocks …. on leased land …. in a trailer-park …. out West somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    The Savings Working Group blamed house prices on successive governments (the Govt didn’t agree :roll: )
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    The Property Council argues that land available in Auckland doesn’t have enough infrastructure to make it worth while. They want rate payers and taxpayers to pay.
    Meanwhile

    80% of our population growth in the last couple of decades has been the net inflow of non NZ citizens

    and
    “Among policy and analytical circles in New Zealand there is a pretty high degree of enthusiasm for high levels of immigration. Some of that stems from the insights of literature on increasing returns to scale. Whatever the general global story, the actual productivity track record here in the wake of very strong inward migration is poor. 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. And that was in a country already rich and successful and with materially higher national saving and domestic investment rates than those in NZ.”
    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/mi-jarrett-comm.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Hobsonville point is a new development with high ingoing costs therefore it would be unrealistic to expect properties in this development to retail for less than K500.It is a prestigious development with modern designs than would not appeal to the budget end of the market.
    However up the road from there are the old state style houses on quarter acre sections that are currently in use as housing for Airforce staff. Some of the houses are empty and could be recycled back into the housing market, some already have been. Therefore there is potential to recycle some of those houses back into the budget end of the market and due consideration must be given to that as a potential answer to the lack of budget accommodation in West Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote