NZ Politics

562 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Dave

RaoulDuke

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

submitted 4 months ago by Dave to c/politics

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dave 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This does include forcing the councils to allow greater intensification of housing, but yeah, more sprawl is on the horizon.

With it being difficult for councils to support the new developments on the outskirts, what's to stop the council saying those rates are twice as high?

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Doesn’t that intensification policy come with a huge out in the form of councils just saying that intensification will destroy the area’s ‘character’?

[–] Dave 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

One of the conditions is that they have to provide equivalent elsewhere if they to pull that card. I'd guess the devil is in the detail.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m just wondering what that elsewhere entails. If they aren’t strict about it I could imagine councils just pointing to land far away from anything and saying ‘see we provided an alternative’.

[–] Dave 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah for sure. Not much point in intensifying transport corridors if you're just gonna transfer that intensification zoning to the outskirts.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sprawl has so many extra costs too particularly around transportation. Given council budgets are already severely pressured its hard not to pre-judge that there'll be at the least a decrease to overall public transport by dilution if not just no services in some areas. So more traffic on local roads which means more emissions and more cost on councils maintaining roads for more cars.

[–] Dave 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This might be something for the next government to build on. More housing (in the right places) is definitely something the country needs, and this government has made it clear they won't invest in infrastructure (other than roads). Changes will take a while to have an effect, with luck maybe we will have a new government with a plan to build better infrastructure.