ACT claim ‘minimum 600,000 new homes’

ACT claim that bu cutting ‘red tape’ and allowing subdivisions anywhere around Auckland that it would “allow, at a minimum, 600,000 new homes in areas like Waitakere, Karaka, and Clevedon”.

ACT reveals massive housing negligence

ACT Leader David Seymour has revealed the massive scale of potential home-building that has been blocked on the edges of Auckland.

ACT WOULD CUT RED TAPE TO ALLOW, AT A MINIMUM, 600,000 NEW HOMES in areas like Waitakere, Karaka, and Clevedon,” says Mr Seymour.

The figures were presented at the launch of Mr Seymour’s new book, Own Your Future, which opens with a story about a Waitakere family denied the freedom to subdivide their land and provide housing for their daughter and others, because their property lies just outside the Rural-Urban Boundary.

“By failing to open up this land like this for housing, successive Governments are guilty of gross negligence.

“Land use restrictions are now responsible for 56 per cent of the average Auckland house price, according to one of the Government’s own reports released last month.

“This cost is THE SINGLE LARGEST CAUSE OF POVERTY, INEQUALITY, AND SICKNESS IN AUCKLAND AND BEYOND.

“The poorest 20 per cent of households now spend 54 per cent of their income on housing. When the RMA was passed in 1991 it was only 27 per cent. That’s why we see kids living in cars and garages, going without.

“ACT says IT’S CRAZY TO BAN PEOPLE FROM BUILDING HOMES DURING A CHRONIC HOUSING SHORTAGE.

“National say they’ll build 34,000 houses in Auckland over the next decade, Labour says 50,000. ACT will rezone land for hundreds of thousands.

Here is how many homes could be built if just two restricted zones were reclassified as residential:

  • Countryside Living zone – 223,560 homes
  • Mixed Rural Zone – 403,965 homes
  • TOTAL: 627,525 HOMES

These house numbers are estimated on the basis of 27 homes per hectare (the same density as the Hobsonville Point development) on just one third of each zone’s land area.

WHERE WE COULD BUILD

Blue: Current residential, bordered by Rural-Urban Boundary
Yellow: Where ACT would allow homebuilding (Mixed Rural, Countryside Living)

They give a number of examples.

Freeing up enough land for 600,000 plus houses does not mean anywhere that number would be built.

37 Comments

  1. ACT joins Peters’ party in fantasyland

  2. Conspiratoor

     /  August 6, 2017

    For evidence to explain why act continue to languish below the margin of error look no further than this brain explosion

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  August 6, 2017

    He’s right of course.

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  August 6, 2017

    Same applies up here. I’m allowed to build 1 house on 25 hectares. At the Council’s discretion I could maybe build 4. Meantime there is nowhere for workers or young families to live and tourist service jobs going begging. On the same scale (1/3 of land at 27 per hectare) I could build 200 – not that I would of course. F’ing lunacy on a nationwide scale courtesy of idiot Geoffrey Palmer and his followers.

    • Blazer

       /  August 6, 2017

      Ah the root cause of all your angst. .laid bare. ..red tape is hampering me from making. ..millions!

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  August 6, 2017

        If everyone was treated equally prices would collapse and no-one would make millions but lots of people would have better homes.

        • Blazer

           /  August 6, 2017

          Altruism. .Al!

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  August 6, 2017

            Sane policy lets the free market solve problems. Insane policy lets bureaucrats make problems.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  August 6, 2017

        What happens now is that people with a hard-to-get resource consent make millions.

      • Gezza

         /  August 6, 2017

        Probably depends, Blazer. What’s your plan to make a million?
        PR guru? Developer? Own Security Company? Chain of dairies? A Competitor Cook Strait Ferry? Acting? 🤔 😳

        • Blazer

           /  August 6, 2017

          Is that an ambition of yours? I have nothing against people making money. I find I get by O. . K.

          • Gezza

             /  August 6, 2017

            No, not really. $750k wouldn’t go amiss, but I haven’t got the guts, determination & drive to do whatever’s needed to earn it. I’m happy enough being a bit of a likeable semi-hermit with a family of waterbirds doing the odd solo concert for mostly insane elderly people, just at the moment.

            Sorry I thort from what you said to Al that you were peed off with red tape stopping you from making millions. Hang on I’ll scroll back up & check …

            • Gezza

               /  August 6, 2017

              Oh, sorry – I see what you were getting at now. Probably just the way you switched from 1st person to 2nd person, with nothing in quotes & just a few dots. The dots probably distracted me. 😕

    • Conspiratoor

       /  August 6, 2017

      Al, I’m curious to know. If the beaurocrats buggered off and left you to it how many shoeboxes would you throw up on this Costa del Russell of yours?

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  August 6, 2017

        They wouldn’t be shoeboxes. Nice Fraemohs all-wood houses with storage and carport underneath. I figure I could put at least half a dozen on that block in places they couldn’t see each other or anyone else. With absolutely lovely views. But I’d just do them one by one to see how it went.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  August 6, 2017
          • Gezza

             /  August 6, 2017

            Blimey! Great view. So if you built them, how much would you be flogging one off for? 😳 And what’s the road to it like?

            • Blazer

               /  August 6, 2017

              He will probably throw in a puke and a duck to sweeten the deal. .for you.

            • Gezza

               /  August 6, 2017

              Cool as bro!
              Cool as .. um .. a rude word.
              Long as it’s a stoat-free zone. 👍🏼

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  August 6, 2017

              I wouldn’t flog them off, just rent them, G. Complete shortage of affordable rentals here.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  August 6, 2017

              Sealed road along the bottom of the block, G. Plenty of pukes around for you too. Built in exercise – climb to the top of the hill 20 mins and fabulous view out to the entrance to the Bay of Islands.

            • Gezza

               /  August 6, 2017

              So how much would you rent them for, what’s the average rorter rent (if they’re not “affordable rentals”) & what’s the access road like?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  August 6, 2017

              Last time I looked there were just no rentals at all here. I’ve got a ballpark target of $350/wk at present. The access driveway is very easy for the first few. A bit steeper to get higher up but nothing compared with Welly.

        • Conspiratoor

           /  August 6, 2017

          I’ll be up your way next weekend Al …along with 25,000 other foreigners. I hope you wander down to the waterfront at some stage … to get a glimpse of what the future holds for your sleepy little backwater

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  August 6, 2017

            Always a good weekend, C.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  August 6, 2017

              Not so much for moi now Al …but it keeps the missus happy. I’ve succumbed to enochlophobia in my advanced years. This year I’ve softened the ordeal by booking two rooms at the waterfront suites and opening one up to some very agreeable company

    • Mefrostate

       /  August 6, 2017

      I agree with you Alan, much more capacity should be freed up all-over. But ACT’s hypocrisy on suggesting we should build out, while ignoring the need to build up in Seymour’s electorate, is disgusting and suggests their ‘libertarian’ ideology is a facade.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  August 6, 2017

        As I’ve said ogyrn, there need to be universal tradeable property rights to environmental aspects including sunlight and freedom from air, water and sound pollution implemented alongside the abolition of all the RMA nonsense. These would apply the necessary controls on ability to build high without compensating neighbours.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  August 6, 2017

          ogyrn = often!

          • Gezza

             /  August 6, 2017

            Thanks, Al. Irish this morning, & now that. I was just about to bang that one into Google Translate & select Welsh.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  August 6, 2017

              When you touch type with your left hand one key to the right of where it should be.

            • Gezza

               /  August 6, 2017

              😝 Just out of curiosity I whacked it into Google Translate & left the default as ‘ detect language’. It selected Welsh!

              (And the default English translation is ogyrn) 👍🏼

        • Mefrostate

           /  August 6, 2017

          Interesting idea, I haven’t seen it before. How would this work for property? All properties are allocated with the legal rights their properties currently enjoy, and then neighbours could buy components of those rights?

          So my apartment building is going to block an average of 3 sunlight-hours a day for my neighbour, I can buy those and then build without consent?

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  August 7, 2017

            Yes, direct trades with affected parties to secure rights to breach environmental property rights. No settlement, no consent.

            • Mefrostate

               /  August 7, 2017

              Pretty neat approach, I’m into it in principle. How would it work in practice if I built up to 3 stories, shading my neighbour, and then he wanted to build up to 5, shading my 3rd?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  August 11, 2017

              Depends how the sunlight property right is specified. Normally it is an infringement measured at an angle from a specified height at the boundary. On that basis the first building would have had to negotiate recompense for that infringement and if the second building infringed in the reverse direction it would also have to negotiate a recompense unless that had been excluded in the first settlement.

  5. -D

     /  August 6, 2017

    Why do you think none of the media pick up on this thread of the argument?

    At the very least you would think it is an interesting pro/con discussion.