Post by Crash Post by Rich80105
Quite a bit has been said about this "policy" decision of National,
but the short comment above encapsulates the lack of concern for
others very well. Remember that it was under National that Rheumatic
fever became resurgent - largely through their lack of concern over
slum landlords. Yet here they go again - demonstrating they just don't
care about poverty.
Labour has been held back by coalition necessities - Winston has not
endeared himself to anyone by being so proud of holding the government
back (and of course COVID has not helped, but National don't want to
work with anyone else - hopefully that will mean they do not have any
part of government for many years.
While I largely agree with your comments, the fact is that the
marketplace for domestic rental properties is under supplied meaning
that renters have to take whatever they can find. If the rental
property market were oversupplied then properties with inadequate
facilities would remain empty or very cheap.
The reality is that neither Labour nor National have the answers to
removing barriers that inhibit property owners from building new
rental units. It is far simpler to legislate what landlords must
include. Increased rental property costs will either result in higher
rents or fewer rental properties. It is also far simpler for
governments to lament higher rents rather than identify and correct
This is not a National or Labour issue - but a universal acceptance by
both parties that favours simple quick fixes instead of medium term
I agree with your analysis, Crash. I suspect a big issue currently is
still earthquake strengthening for multi unit buildings, but there may
also be issues with the body corporate structures commonly used (and
supporting legislation), and the lack of long term investors, which
again may be related to cultural issues, or legal issues or both. THen
there is the lack of real competition in our building industry, and
the culture of making money from fighting contracts after they are
agreed rather than basic trust (that has been evident in some roading
projects, but PPPs have also been a disaster).
There are some good developments with some city buildings being
converted to apartments, and currently we also have some underused
hoels and student accomodation. Greater ''work from home" will affect
where people want to live, but overseas experience suggests that there
is a demand for inner-city life, particularly for young people.
Putting all that together I suspect it would be reasonable for the
""Cullen Fund"" to invest in a property / construction company that is
promarily to help at the "top end" to give us better contracts for
design, to undertake some supervision, and better contracts for
construction; and possibly to encourage/ finance some ''standard
process" mass production. The governments move to remove some height
restrictions may make a big difference; it is also clear that we need
a lot more social housing in a wider variety of configurations;
privatising social housing does not appear to have worked to expand
the number of people able to be accomodated.
Hopefully if Covid issues allow, the next government can get on with
some of those issues.