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

[–] Ilovethebomb 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Xcf456 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It'll be great if it does, but there appears to be a big focus on greenfield both explicitly and giving opt outs to councils that can push to "other" areas if they don't upzone so called character areas.

So pushing development to the fringes that are less served by existing infrastructure and services, and therefore more expensive or just downright worse in that regard.

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

Does that give incentive for the council to not use the character clause? They can use it, but if they do they will face more expensive servicing of properties.

[–] Xcf456 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes I'd imagine so, and they might take it that way.

On the other hand, they might make the politically easier decision in the short term if those more expensive servicing costs are incurred in the future when it comes time to maintain/replace greenfield infrastructure.

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

Yeah, I'm pretty sure councils bend to NIMBYs all the time, even when it's a bad idea.

[–] Xcf456 2 points 4 months ago

But there have been some recent examples, Auckland, Wellington, where they haven't so I guess there's hope!

[–] Ilovethebomb 2 points 4 months ago

There is a greenfield development in Upper Hutt that is nearing completion, on a former Ag Research piece of land. It's a very dense development, a mixture of townhouses and stand alone buildings, with the standalone buildings mostly multi story. Still has walking access to public transport and shops, too.

It's definitely easier to build on a large scale when starting from scratch like that.