Government Vs Private

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
20,983
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
So situation here.

Our local tavern is up for sale. It was renovated around covid times for 1 million.

Apparently it's been bought by a government agency for social housing. One side has a bar the other side is a restaurant/bar. Employs around 20 people probably the second biggest employer in the neighborhood after the supermarket.

Another business wanted to buy it that runs a tavern next suburb over. One below us their one burnt down and isn't reopening.

We do need social housing. It's av20 minute walk there used to be our local for breakfast we occasionally go there for dinner. It's a viable business anyway.

I'm not a big fan of the government outbidding businesses though and they're going to shut it down. I am a big fan of government oney for social housing or pretty much anything when lots, buildings etc have been vacant or derelict. For example a supermarket here closed down and was turned into government office. The chocolate factory also closed government bought it and it's been demolished and they're building a hospital here.

They also bought another lot nearby suburb but they can't use it for social housing not sure why. Wasted money. The old hospital not sure what they're gonna do with it.

Anyway your thoughts on government vs private in similar situations.
 
It does seem a bit odd that the solution for inadequate housing is to out-bid someone for a business that presumably isn't even really designed for housing in the first place. But I live in America, where there are generally lots of failed old businesses that can be repurposed, whether directly or being rebuild on the same land. A hotel went out of business? Worth consideration. An old office building that's under-utilized and not in demand? Could also be considered. Warehouse that's falling apart? Build some new social housing after tearing it down.

Maybe the people to ask would be those who live in geographically confined areas like Manhattan or San Francisco, where there isn't just more land and not tons of abandoned buildings to repurpose?

My overall impression is that New Zealand probably has not allowed enough land to be developed to keep pace with population growth over the past few decades, leading to the housing shortages and this seeming like a reasonable way to add social housing. But it seems like a bit of a band-aid approach... if they keep out-bidding bars, then eventually there will be a bar shortage too. Which may not sound serious, but the larger picture is that if the problem is a shortage of real estate, not in one sector while others have surpluses but on the whole, then re-arranging the real estate isn't going to solve the fundamental problem.

(Also that's a sizeable bar. My favorite bar only employs five people, including the ones who make the beer)
 
It does seem a bit odd that the solution for inadequate housing is to out-bid someone for a business that presumably isn't even really designed for housing in the first place. But I live in America, where there are generally lots of failed old businesses that can be repurposed, whether directly or being rebuild on the same land. A hotel went out of business? Worth consideration. An old office building that's under-utilized and not in demand? Could also be considered. Warehouse that's falling apart? Build some new social housing after tearing it down.

Maybe the people to ask would be those who live in geographically confined areas like Manhattan or San Francisco, where there isn't just more land and not tons of abandoned buildings to repurpose?

My overall impression is that New Zealand probably has not allowed enough land to be developed to keep pace with population growth over the past few decades, leading to the housing shortages and this seeming like a reasonable way to add social housing. But it seems like a bit of a band-aid approach... if they keep out-bidding bars, then eventually there will be a bar shortage too. Which may not sound serious, but the larger picture is that if the problem is a shortage of real estate, not in one sector while others have surpluses but on the whole, then re-arranging the real estate isn't going to solve the fundamental problem.

(Also that's a sizeable bar. My favorite bar only employs five people, including the ones who make the beer)

One location two businesses open 8am to late. Large building one sides a pub, others ides a restaurant.

Open 7 days a week. Even when it's quiets there's like 6 staff busy double that and replacement shifts.


Restaurant side.
 
^That's the one they're thinking of turning into social housing? Possibly the best pub in the world?

The food pictures look great, too, and it looks like they're a cafe in the mornings? I want to go there!

Definitely seems odd, unless there's a major flaw in their business plan, if a place like that went up for sale around here, there'd be lots of people interested in snapping it up, which would imply they could fetch a good price.

Now I'm going to have to go to the local Thai place and see if their pad thai is as good as Mornington's looks. I have some hope for it; their curry and pad kee mao were both quite good.
 
^That's the one they're thinking of turning into social housing? Possibly the best pub in the world?

The food pictures look great, too, and it looks like they're a cafe in the mornings? I want to go there!

Definitely seems odd, unless there's a major flaw in their business plan, if a place like that went up for sale around here, there'd be lots of people interested in snapping it up, which would imply they could fetch a good price.

Now I'm going to have to go to the local Thai place and see if their pad thai is as good as Mornington's looks. I have some hope for it; their curry and pad kee mao were both quite good.

Used to be our local for breakfast. We go occasionally for dinner.

20 minute walk home if one over indulges.
 
Well plated rib as it turns out.

One of the guys had insider knowledge and worded it cleverly around someone else who knew and confirmed the sale.

It's now public ithas been sold but it's not for socual housing lol. It went to the other business buying it which is one of our favorites next suburb over.
 
When it’s a municipal government using local tax money to outbid, that has to be definitionally fair and desired.
 
At least the people in the community nominally has a say in the decision unlike when a private business does it.
If "nominally" counts (the meaning of the word suggests it doesn't, but hey), then private business is nominally regulated by government, which answer to us, the people. No?
 
I'm not sure I got it correct, but why couldn't you have both?
You could have the restaurant and bar at the first floor and social apartments on the other floors.
 
Last edited:
When it’s a municipal government using local tax money to outbid, that has to be definitionally fair and desired.
Ideally, but I know a fellow whose town council seems to operate from a different planet, and has depleted the budget on vanity projects and pointless downtown redevelopment surveys that literally nobody wants, while basic infrastructure is on the brink of collapse.

And yet somehow the jokers keep getting re-elected, and the bloody mayor ran uncontested last cycle.

If "nominally" counts (the meaning of the word suggests it doesn't, but hey), then private business is nominally regulated by government, which answer to us, the people. No?
Given the amount of public money subsidizing fossil fuels, each and every one of us ought to be earning dividends.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I got it correct, but why couldn't you have both?
You could have the restaurant and bar at the first floor and social apartments on the other floors.

Social housing here they like buying large lots and putting medium density housing.

The classic kiwi section is 1/4 acre. 2-4 of them with multiple units is the way they like doing it.
.The business is also omly 1 story. There's another social housing place around 5-10 minute walk they recently built.

They like scattering them around so they don't concentrate thrm in certain suburbs.

Older social housing can sometimes be a million or 2 million dollar villa in a nice suburb.
 
Ideally, but I know a fellow whose town council seems to operate from a different planet, and has depleted the budget on vanity projects and pointless downtown redevelopment surveys that literally nobody wants, while basic infrastructure is on the brink of collapse.

And yet somehow the jokers keep getting re-elected, and the bloody mayor ran uncontested last cycle.


Given the amount of public money subsidizing fossil fuels, each and every one of us ought to be earning dividends.

We have that problem here in NZ. They've been kicking the can down the road since 89.
They're running out of road.
 
The goal should be balanced zoning; owned homes, rentals, social housing, some basic shops/services and perhaps something cultural all in walking distance from each other. What you don't want, is the kind of suburbs that have nothing but one kind of housing and everything like shops, supermarkets or the local school, is miles away.
 
The goal should be balanced zoning; owned homes, rentals, social housing, some basic shops/services and perhaps something cultural all in walking distance from each other. What you don't want, is the kind of suburbs that have nothing but one kind of housing and everything like shops, supermarkets or the local school, is miles away.

Suburbs here usually have a petrol station, pub, small supermarket or large store, fish and Chip shop or three and a cafe/restaurant or three.

Ours has a few more but not really a power shopping area. Some hairdressers, florists, doctors abd dentist sonevother snall business.
 
Top Bottom