Craic, getting back to housing, did you spot this in the Herald today?
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/new...ectid=11448155
Printable View
Craic, getting back to housing, did you spot this in the Herald today?
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/new...ectid=11448155
Actually, not all of them. My sister-in-law is one of those people let go. She will be staying in the Waikato, but will need to find another job.
Dene MacKenzie on the housing bubble:
http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editori...housing-bubble
Tim Keenan on the rock-star economy.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/budget-...ay+15+May+2015
Actually - here is an idea ... Why don't we sell Auckland properties at inflated prices to greedy speculators (be they foreigners or not) and use part of the surplus for a long holiday overseas (think a couple of years on a nice beach in Malaysia ...). If all (or a sufficient number of ) Aucklanders are overseas to live off their housing windfall, than house prices in Auckland would obviously drop and honest, hard working (and holidaying - sic) New Zealanders could afterwards buy houses back from the greedy speculators (foreigners or not) for a pittance.
Would solve lots of problems: No traffic problems anymore in Auckland, our foreign currency account would look really healthy (assuming at least some of the speculators are foreigners - obviously the more, the better), a shot into the arm for some developing countries with a nice climate, and reasonable property prices everywhere after the exercise. This would teach the speculators - wouldn't it?
Now - just in case you didn't notice - I am applying here some irony, but still ...
If we assume that we have a housing bubble in Auckland - than, wouldn't it make sense to short the market instead of complaining about the buyers in an inflated market?
Much simpler. Get a copy of "Carpentry in New Zealand" about the 1960-5 edition - the official bible for all apprentice carpenters. In the back there is a complete house plan that any half-competent builder/carpenter can build, following the instructions and standards in the book. Now pass a law that says this house, built according to those standards, will be passed, regardless of all the planning crap that has grown like a fungus on the industry in recent times and councils and other experts will have no say in the matter. You will then have a fine home that is the same as the many thousands that sheltered and nurtured generations of New Zealanders. It will not be insulated, but it won't be a leaky home. It will have an open fire something else can be stuck in there in due course. It can be built on any suitable piece of land that the owner/farmer chooses. It will be a fraction of the cost of the stuff around now. A struggling dairy farmer may be able stick up two or three on unproductive patches to tide him over the low milk prices. But only the owner will be allowed to occupy the house.
I think you've lost the plot, Craic.. Labour have a modern version of that idea with state assistance, KiwiBuild, but NZ voters didn't pick up on it. In any case, dairy farmers appear to have locked up their wallets for the most part.
No I haven't lost the plot - the electorate decided that Labour were not a viable option on many fronts and decided not to waste time on them. While I mentioned Dairy farmers, they were one option and not all dairy farmers are without cash. I have half an acre or so at the front of my property that is effectively waste land and there are thousands like me. I have already taken the bull by the horns and put this house here when people said it couldn't be done And there are bedrooms etc. here that don't appear on plans. One guy I know turned the inside of a big implement shed into a three bedroom house and collects a reasonable rent.
Actually - I think Craig might have a valid point. As a country we spend ways too much resources into paying bureaucrats to tell citizens what they are not allowed to do. Very inefficient process - and adds no value what so ever.
If we allow people to build on their property without all this red tape, than we would have a sufficient number of houses in Auckland - and any bad apples (like sub standard housing) would automatically drop out of the market anyway. Who would want to live in a dog kennel, if there are as well nice houses for a reasonable price around?
It is just our current over the board bureaucracy forcing people to live in garages and worse. I remember - some years ago we supported our children to find a place to live in Christchurch. Some of the "apartments" offered to us (and apparently with all the required approvals) were so bad, I wouldn't allow a dog to sleep in them. One of the apartments had already gaping holes in the bathroom floor, one was separated from the next "apartment" only by a thin (and unplastered) board wall (with any noise getting through), and one had only one entrance - using a ladder through the window. Suffice to say - we didn't choose any of these accommodation opportunities, but if you remove the red tape from our building process, than nobody would even bother to offer c**p like that for rent - because they had to compete with other landlords offering better quality space.
The biggest enemy of affordable and high quality living is red tape. Thanks to Labour (and to a lesser degree to National). Shame on both.
I can't believe that is wholly true, although whoever the dimwits were who decided we'd use untreated pinus radiata within the outside walls of homes a few years ago, need a good telling off.
I suppose you're against the greens' idea of insulating more kiwi homes.
A correction here. Exterior framing in Radiata Pine has always been treated to a low level, purely for borer protection. It was never treated to a level for fungal protection. Exposed timbers and subfloor timbers were. Protection from rot in framing relied on good building practice and still does. The principal cause of rot in modern buildings is the use of unproven cladding material, sold in vast quantities by a couple of the very major companies who seem to have the power to change the rules to suit themselves. This stuff breaks down in sunlight and lets the water in. For the record,As a Forestry Timber Inspector between 1968 and1973, I was also trained as a Timber Preservation Authority Inspector and had to examine all the plants in my area monthly as well as advising local bodies in odd or weird uses. Then the industry said that they could police themselves and the whole system was thrown out. Douglas Fir framing never had to be treated because bore don't attack it and for much of its life State Housing used untreated Rimu in their building.