On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:23:58 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes Post by Rich80105 Post by Gordon Post by Rich80105
Our government is doing well in increasing building activity,
(including reversing the decline in young people taking up
apprenticeships), but clearly all possibilities need tobe looked at.
Vancouver has a history of penalising owners of prperties that remain
We will know if the government is getting the public service to
investigate this - National would adopt it as policy before
recommendations are published . . .
Rich maybe refering to this
Maybe not as it is not very Labour Government kind.
Finally we all know that neither National, or Labour lead Governments have
cracked this problem.
No one solution will solve the problem either - fundamentally we
suffer from a programme of selling off social housing, from a run down
of apprenticeships; a concentration of the market to too few building
firms ; and legal structures that encouraged contract work that pushed
risks to sub-contractors, many of whom found themselves out of money
when the top level folded for financial reasons ; too concentrated
ownership of the supply chain ; and insufficient government capacity
to undertake or adequately supervise large projects.
Much of the housing sold by National was past it's use by date rich! It was sold so new housing could replace it. Hell ardern blatantly tried to claim the houses that were started by National and you and her repeating the same tired lies only show your paucity of sense and honesty!
National had two sorts of sales - one was as you say those past their
use by date, the others were sold to private providers - in some areas
that gave less flexibility for Social Welfare to find holes for those
in need. Labour has also sold some that were not needed - I am aware
of one unit that was sold in a location that gave enough to build 4
new houses in an area where beneficiaries wanted to live; but hte
biggest difference is that they have used sale proceeds to increase
the portfolio and refurbish some that were in to poor a condition to
be used - National put proceeds of sales into the general fund to help
them with deficits . . .. Your avoidance of the truth is noted.
Post by John Bowes Post by Rich80105
Penalising those that slow building down to maximise gains for
themselves need incentives to get on with processes - it is not just
empty houses that could be addressed developers sitting on land zones
for development need to be given time limits for getting development
under way. I suspect we are hearing little from National because they
probably have similar attitudes to Labour in ways to fix many of the
problems, but do not want to alienate supporters.
We suffer from over regulation and a government who only ever talk about the problems rather than attempting to fix them Rich! It is government regulations that slow down house building. Get rid of the RMA and they'll shoot up like mushrooms after a rain! National is silent because like you Labour ignore their good advice and only abuse them. Plus National is more than happy for Labour to use it's mouth to dig themselves a nice deep hole they'll be incapable of digging themselves out of :)
National could have reduced RMA requirements but did not - in reality
their rhetoric got away with them and when RMA reform proposals come
through you will find that National make some noises but actually
support keeping reasonable controls. You are right that they are
playing games however . . . they don't really have proposals of their