Government wants to 'flood the market' to make houses more affordable - how will that work? ( www.rnz.co.nz )

Housing Minister Chris Bishop has told real estate agents that the government wants to "flood the market" with opportunities for housing development.

It has agreed to a range of changes that would free up land for housing, and, the government hopes, make housing more affordable.

My rough summary of proposal:

  • Most cities will be required to have zoned enough land for 30 years of housing demand all the time
  • These cities won't be allowed to determine urban/rural boundaries
  • Must intensify, especially around major public transport routes. If they decide not to for character reasons, then equivalent capacity must be opened up in another area
  • cafes, dairies, etc (mixed use) must be allowed in residential areas
  • appartments not allowed to have minimum floor area or requirement for balcony set by council
  • councils already intensifying under a previous agreement (MDRS) will keep this, but if they change it then they have to move to using new rules

Let me know if I've got something wrong!

Xcf456 ,

  • Expensive unsustainable sprawl

  • expensive unsustainable sprawl

  • deciding not to intensify for character reasons will lead to denser sprawl on city fringes without amenities, defeating the point a great extent given public transport funding has been slashed. This is already happening in Auckland

  • mixed use fuck yes do that

  • no minimum apartment size seems terrible when combined with the other sprawl idk. Banks are already very squeamish about lending less than 45sq m aren't they or has that changed

  • Wasn't the MDRS better than this though?

Build good quality, well sized apartment blocks and terraces in centrally located connected areas people actually want to live. If the private market can't or won't do that, then the state needs to step in and do it, like in every other housing crisis we've had in this country.

Ilovethebomb ,

Isn't the whole point of the legislation encouraging just what you're suggesting though?

Fizz ,
@Fizz@lemmy.nz avatar

Sounds good on a headline but I think the policy misses a huge opportunity and will ultimately only help rich people.

Theyre right in that Flooding the housing market with houses is the only way to bring the cost down. But national is letting housing developers try and fill the demand gap
Housing developers will build houses to make money but not enough to fill the demand gap. It's also not going to work because the demand is to high and housing developers don't want to "flood the market"

If the housing was built and owned by the government at least it could be used as a safety net for the people unable to keep up with rising house prices. In nationals situation developers win, people who can afford to own investment properties win, renters lose and poor people lose.

Every dollar the government "saves" not building those houses will be spent renting emergency housing from those developers or subsiding rent for people who can't afford to live in them.

Dave OP Mod ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

While I may not have done exactly this, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world? Possibly even a step in the right direction?

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

This is exactly what needs to be done.

Cheap government owned, privately rented housing, and lots of it. It won't be fancy, but it will be safe and efficient and regulated. Imagine having a landlord/agent who is actually accountable? It would be amazing.

Ilovethebomb ,

That's easy to say, but the truth is landlords are absolutely held accountable. The tenancy tribunal is heavily in favour of the tenant, meaning the burden of proof is on the landlord, which is fair enough.

I posted a story here a few days ago about a landlord getting reamed out over dodgy practices actually.

eagleeyedtiger ,

I’m all for housing intensification in cities and flooding the market, but for the love of god can they please invest in improving public and alternative transport infrastructure? I already hate returning to visit Auckland due to how bad the traffic is

Dave OP Mod ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

I think we've got the wrong government for that. This policy is effectively free, while building infrastructure is... well not free, but probably cheaper as a whole than not building needed infrastructure.

eagleeyedtiger ,

I think we've got the wrong government

You can say that again hah!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • politics@lemmy.nz
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •