Housing Crisis. What housing crisis?

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
20,040
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
For any potential refugees wanting to flee Covid and move to NZ this house recently sold for 1.7 million dollars. Approximately 1.2 million USD.

1 NZD= 0.7 USD approx.

1920's bungalow.

Average house price is around half a million.

So yeah. Fun and games. I live in the poor parts of the country.
 
And there was no picture of the house either.
 
Seems like New Zealand has so few inhabitants and so much empty space, you could build a whole bunch of affordable housing for people.

I suspect the problem is that everybody wants to live in Auckland, which is where rich foreigners are also buying up properties. Same thing is happening in Canada. Canadians are getting priced out of living in Vancouver and Toronto in particular. Everybody wants to live in our major cities, but it's becoming less and less possible to own property in these cities.
 
Seems like New Zealand has so few inhabitants and so much empty space, you could build a whole bunch of affordable housing for people.

I suspect the problem is that everybody wants to live in Auckland, which is where rich foreigners are also buying up properties. Same thing is happening in Canada. Canadians are getting priced out of living in Vancouver and Toronto in particular. Everybody wants to live in our major cities, but it's becoming less and less possible to own property in these cities.

Yeah, Aucklands also having a water shortage atm.

Planning, what planning?
 
Same thing is happening in Canada. Canadians are getting priced out of living in Vancouver and Toronto in particular. Everybody wants to live in our major cities, but it's becoming less and less possible to own property in these cities.

Halifax, N.S. has a 1% vacancy rate.
 
Our politicians are for the most part reactionary instead of proactive. They have their careers in mind far more often than the lives of those people they are supposed to be representing and fighting for. And who dares go against the status quo anyway? Why would you do that if you're an incumbent? Just shut up and stick to the script and react to things as they come up, every once in a while kiss a baby and hold up a rainbow flag, say some nice things, and you're on your way to a sweet sweet pension.

These people aren't leading us, they are leading their own careers. The people are an afterthought, something that's in your way to your next re-election, and not the citizens you're supposed to be working for.

So yeah, what plans? The only plans our politicians ever have are dinner plans. Yeah, they might plop down a 20,000 page document that's supposed to be a plan for infrastructure improvements in such and such city for the next decade.. But that's all reactionary with some occasional mandated attempts at progress thrown in for good measure.

What's my big idea for replacing career politicians? I don't have one. But I might vote for a party that promises to plan ahead properly, with transparency, without sticking to any one ideology and just promising to analyze the issues using a fact based approach.

Maybe the solution is more affordable housing. Maybe it's to raise taxes for foreign property owners. Maybe it's to ban them completely. Maybe it's some combination of all that.. Maybe it's something else entirely. I have no idea, but maybe some experts in these fields could model these ideas and we could have a discussion among experts as to what options are on the table that might actually have a chance of working in some way? Then the politicians can weigh the options and/or present them to the electorate. That way you'er not always going to do the right thing, but in 20 years you'd have done more things right than using our current approach.. which seems to be: "Let the richest people figure this out".
 
A fact-based approach is ideology unfortunately

this is why we can't have nice things

Technically every single thing you do here is going to be an ideology. Let me narrow it down though, because technically you are right.

I don't want politicians that completely ignore a set of possible solutions to a problem because it goes against their core set of beliefs. Unless that set of beliefs happens to be: "Let's just look at the facts and use a fact-based approach and bring in some relevant experts and all that jazz" and nothing else. (which never happens)
 
I mean here in the US we have a fact-ignoring based party getting somewhere around 40-50%. Not as a point of insult, but as a genuine point of policy that they publicize. no covid, no climate, no racism, *trump voice* "it doesn't exist."
 
Halifax, N.S. has a 1% vacancy rate.

How is there not a building boom? If there is such demand shouldn't supply be forth coming to meet said demand? What is failing here with the market model?

Our politicians are for the most part reactionary instead of proactive. They have their careers in mind far more often than the lives of those people they are supposed to be representing and fighting for. And who dares go against the status quo anyway? Why would you do that if you're an incumbent? Just shut up and stick to the script and react to things as they come up, every once in a while kiss a baby and hold up a rainbow flag, say some nice things, and you're on your way to a sweet sweet pension.

These people aren't leading us, they are leading their own careers. The people are an afterthought, something that's in your way to your next re-election, and not the citizens you're supposed to be working for.

So yeah, what plans? The only plans our politicians ever have are dinner plans. Yeah, they might plop down a 20,000 page document that's supposed to be a plan for infrastructure improvements in such and such city for the next decade.. But that's all reactionary with some occasional mandated attempts at progress thrown in for good measure.

What's my big idea for replacing career politicians? I don't have one. But I might vote for a party that promises to plan ahead properly, with transparency, without sticking to any one ideology and just promising to analyze the issues using a fact based approach.

Maybe the solution is more affordable housing. Maybe it's to raise taxes for foreign property owners. Maybe it's to ban them completely. Maybe it's some combination of all that.. Maybe it's something else entirely. I have no idea, but maybe some experts in these fields could model these ideas and we could have a discussion among experts as to what options are on the table that might actually have a chance of working in some way? Then the politicians can weigh the options and/or present them to the electorate. That way you'er not always going to do the right thing, but in 20 years you'd have done more things right than using our current approach.. which seems to be: "Let the richest people figure this out".

Lifetime appointments to particular positions? King/Queen of real estate planning? lol oh the possibilities for mischief!
 
Our politicians are for the most part reactionary instead of proactive. They have their careers in mind far more often than the lives of those people they are supposed to be representing and fighting for. And who dares go against the status quo anyway? Why would you do that if you're an incumbent? Just shut up and stick to the script and react to things as they come up, every once in a while kiss a baby and hold up a rainbow flag, say some nice things, and you're on your way to a sweet sweet pension.

These people aren't leading us, they are leading their own careers. The people are an afterthought, something that's in your way to your next re-election, and not the citizens you're supposed to be working for.

So yeah, what plans? The only plans our politicians ever have are dinner plans. Yeah, they might plop down a 20,000 page document that's supposed to be a plan for infrastructure improvements in such and such city for the next decade.. But that's all reactionary with some occasional mandated attempts at progress thrown in for good measure.

What's my big idea for replacing career politicians? I don't have one. But I might vote for a party that promises to plan ahead properly, with transparency, without sticking to any one ideology and just promising to analyze the issues using a fact based approach.

Maybe the solution is more affordable housing. Maybe it's to raise taxes for foreign property owners. Maybe it's to ban them completely. Maybe it's some combination of all that.. Maybe it's something else entirely. I have no idea, but maybe some experts in these fields could model these ideas and we could have a discussion among experts as to what options are on the table that might actually have a chance of working in some way? Then the politicians can weigh the options and/or present them to the electorate. That way you'er not always going to do the right thing, but in 20 years you'd have done more things right than using our current approach.. which seems to be: "Let the richest people figure this out".
Good plans tend to tie people down to particular results so they are avoided, but a bigger problem is that very few people actually know how to plan such that the plans can be carried out. Most people with a Planner title are not.
 
How is there not a building boom? If there is such demand shouldn't supply be forth coming to meet said demand? What is failing here with the market model?



Lifetime appointments to particular positions? King/Queen of real estate planning? lol oh the possibilities for mischief!

Usually some combination of.

Bureaucracy
Lack of tradesmen
Immigration

Resource consents,building codes, health and safety have functionally made it impossible to build a cheap house fast.
 
Lack of industrial capacity entirely, then?
 
In a world where there are vast differences in wealth, house prices are always
going to be extraordinarily high in the areas where the ultra rich decide to live.

New Zealand government ought to simply accept that, and profit by a capital value tax.

Regarding finding homes for others, the solution is to think strategically.

Identify locations where brand new towns can be built.

Create a government owned development body and allocate to it, by statute
the necessary powers to compulsorily purchase land, and build road, rail,
electricity, water, internet and sewage infrastructure, schools etc.

Have it allocate plots to developers with the provisio they must build houses.
 
In a world where there are vast differences in wealth, house prices are always
going to be extraordinarily high in the areas where the ultra rich decide to live.

New Zealand government ought to simply accept that, and profit by a capital value tax.

Regarding finding homes for others, the solution is to think strategically.

Identify locations where brand new towns can be built.

Create a government owned development body and allocate to it, by statute
the necessary powers to compulsorily purchase land, and build road, rail,
electricity, water, internet and sewage infrastructure, schools etc.

Have it allocate plots to developers with the provisio they must build houses.

Capital gains tax is kinda political suicide here.
 
What's my big idea for replacing career politicians? I don't have one. But I might vote for a party that promises to plan ahead properly, with transparency, without sticking to any one ideology and just promising to analyze the issues using a fact based approach.

Believing in human rights or the geneva convention is ideology. Believing in religious, sexual and reproductive freedom is ideology. Believing men and women should be equal before the law is ideology. Believing slavery is wrong is ideology.. And so forth. I get that your point, totally, was that this party should put their facts over their ideological leanings, but that's not always good. Men thought for centuries that women were provably less intelligent, that was an established fact in much of the world. Some neuroscientists today will still tell you that the "female brain" is fundamentally different from the male brain, and that therefore they should be treated differently. If you ask a climate denier, they will tell you proudly they have the facts and science on their side. When in doubt, I personally would much rather choose an ideology which usually tends to side with universal human rights, empathy and the less fortunate of us, than choosing a fact based approach which might end up in sensible policy, but might also end up in discrimination or genocide. "Facts" have zero allegiance to our human values. Facts are not interested in the idea that we strive for freedom for everyone or think a human life has worth. Not one person can prove factually that suffering is bad, or that a life is inherently worth protecting.

In a world where there are vast differences in wealth, house prices are always
going to be extraordinarily high in the areas where the ultra rich decide to live.

New Zealand government ought to simply accept that, and profit by a capital value tax.

Regarding finding homes for others, the solution is to think strategically.

Identify locations where brand new towns can be built.

Create a government owned development body and allocate to it, by statute
the necessary powers to compulsorily purchase land, and build road, rail,
electricity, water, internet and sewage infrastructure, schools etc.

Have it allocate plots to developers with the provisio they must build houses.

Usually I disagree more than I agree with you, but man I have been loving your posts recently. You're killing it. I agree capital gains tax is something NZ should consider, as well as a bunch of other contenders.

Usually some combination of.

Bureaucracy
Lack of tradesmen
Immigration

Resource consents,building codes, health and safety have functionally made it impossible to build a cheap house fast.

Immigration is stopping construction firms from building new housing blocks? You're making even less sense than usually
 
Top Bottom