Comments on: Labour gets its housing sums wrong again

By: KevinH

KevinH — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:32:38 +0000

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.

By: hj

hj — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:05:32 +0000

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

By: hj

hj — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:58:27 +0000

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

By: Rich Prick

Rich Prick — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 01:53:02 +0000

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.

By: lastmanstanding

lastmanstanding — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:15:50 +0000

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.

By: RRM

RRM — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:09 +0000

“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!

By: B A W

B A W — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:50:55 +0000

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.

By: Mobile Michael

Mobile Michael — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:44:22 +0000

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.

By: CJPhoto

CJPhoto — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:40:27 +0000

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

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

By: Paulus

Paulus — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:37:16 +0000

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,

By: Cunningham

Cunningham — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:30:11 +0000

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!

By: david

david — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:29:13 +0000

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!

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:24:27 +0000

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….

By: Pete George

Pete George — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:24:00 +0000

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

By: Sir Cullen's Sidekick

Sir Cullen's Sidekick — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:23:50 +0000

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.

By: queenstfarmer

queenstfarmer — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:16:34 +0000

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

By: RRM

RRM — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:15:36 +0000

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

That must be a mistake.

By: pq

pq — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:14:40 +0000

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

By: Manolo

Manolo — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:14:24 +0000

HMS Captain Mumblefuck is taking water and sinking rapidly.

By: dime

dime — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:13:27 +0000

300 sq m – did they mean the land?

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