Random Politics

[CCS]

You actually believe that.

[Lightspeed]

BNZ offers no interest loans for poor

I don't know what BNZ's game is. NZ has a rockstar economy, there are no poor who need help, nor loan sharks taking advantage of them. This will flop.

/s

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

BNZ offers no interest loans for poor

I don't know what BNZ's game is.

begins with m, ends in arketing

[Lightspeed]

It's partly government initiated, so it kind of dampens my "the government sucks" message. I suppose an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is better than nothing.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Ab

begins with m, ends in arketing

Slightly, yes, but it's insured by the government, so at worst BNZ isn't making a loss, and at best they help those customers by educating them to financial literacy, allowing them to leverage themselves into being customers BNZ can turn into regular (profitable) customers. It's one of the few things BNZ does as a company that I actually have enthusiasm about and no ethical qualms.

[Lightspeed]

Auckland rates to increase by ~10%:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11444701

Ostensibly to pay for transport costs the government is refusing to chip in on.

[Ab]

Spot the rates hike designed for Baby Boomers. Rates change by suburb:

Mangere-Otahuhu 16.9%
.
.
.
Rodney -1.4%
Waiheke -2.8%

[Juju]

As a Rodney dweller, this pleases me.

To be honest I can't really figure out why Rodney has been spared. Oh well.

[Juju]

Oh wait, no I'm Bays and Hibiscus (Which Ab, includes Orewa and the baby boomers).

+6.3%

'Rodney' is all the people out in the sticks with dirt roads, so you can probably understand that.

[spigalau]

Originally Posted by Ab

Spot the rates hike designed for Baby Boomers. Rates change by suburb:

Mangere-Otahuhu 16.9%
.
.
.
Rodney -1.4%
Waiheke -2.8%

The percentage increases are a bit bogus. You really need to look at the starting prices.

If average rates in ABC were $3000 per annum, adding in the $100 dollar 'transportation shaft' bring it up to $3100, an increase of 3.33%.

If average rates in DEF were $1500 per annum, adding in the $100 dollar 'transportation shaft' bring it up to $1600, an increase of 6.66%.

If average rates in GHI were $1000 per annum, adding in the $100 dollar 'transportation shaft' bring it up to $1100, an increase of 10.00%.

As rates are supposedly based on property prices, those in South Auckland are historically lower than those in central Auckland, which in turn would reflect back as a higher percentage increase when the transportation levy is added in to the mix. Reality is though, those property owners in South Auckland would still be paying less rates than a comparable property owner elsewhere in Auckland.

[Lightspeed]

David Seymour is actually saying something sensible:
Home ownership now for privileged few

[Pimp-X]

Auckland's population, in figures decade to 2011, increased by ~50 persons per day. I'm willing to suggest it's the same or possibly slightly higher now.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Auckland)

Slow that down and perhaps there may be a chance of housing affordability in the future.

Someone get Winston on the phone, I'm sure he'll have a solution!

[Ab]

Again for the slow, NZ does not have a housing crisis. Auckland has a housing crisis.

Solutions:

1. Let Auckland get bigger horizontally.
2. Let Auckland get bigger vertically.
3. Stop people moving to Auckland.

Option 1 is out because all those boomers on lifestyle blocks in Rodney don't want to live near new housing developments. Option 2 is out because middle-class nimbies don't want any changes to anything they can see (no skyline changes). Option 3, well good luck with that.

[pxpx]

There's a fair amount of build-up-not-out happening already. It's not happening fast enough, but it's happening.

http://transportblog.co.nz/our-analy...pment-tracker/

[Lightspeed]

There's stacks of land in South-East Auckland, I'm not sure why that should remain undeveloped.

[pxpx]

I'd guess because building further away from SH1 too quickly will put too much pressure on infrastructure, particularly transport.

There's stuff happening out east too: http://ormistontown.co.nz

Then south has the rather huge Pokeno Village Estate development: http://www.pokenovillageestate.co.nz/

Despite what is presented in the MSM, there's an absolutely insane amount of residential construction happening in the region.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Despite what is presented in the MSM, there's an absolutely insane amount of residential construction happening in the region.

Yep, no one's disputing there's a hell of a lot of development going on. The point is the demand is outstripping the development.

[Lightspeed]

That and investors are being allowed to exploit the situation, exacerbating any consequences.

[pxpx]

Gotta be careful with blanket statements like that. Houses aren't built without investment.

Anyway, RBNZ is set to announce something tomorrow. Probably the new asset class for residential property investment.

Going to be interesting! Hopefully it doesn't hamper further investment in new property.. because then it's going to do sweet fuck all for supply.

[Pimp-X]

In summary: LOL, Auckland.

[Lightspeed]

Pretty much. I mean, it's a fantastic place to live (if you're not wanting to party in the city every weekend), and rent isn't that expensive. It'd take me about 30 years to pay for the place I currently live in if I had an interest-free loan and paid the same as I pay in rent, based on what a neighbour's place in similar condition recently sold for.

That's free of rates, no maintenance costs, free water.

But yeah, a "place of your own" is a bit of a dream for anyone on a median income.

[MadMax]

See a house for a reasonable price in Auckland

O.o

Go looking for the faults in the pictures expecting a do er upper ... nope, all sweet

o.O

Check the detail - LEASEHOLD

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

But yeah, a "place of your own" is a bit of a dream for anyone on a median income.

...in Auckland. Don't like it? Live somewhere else. If you're that desperate to own something, go to where you can afford it.

[pxpx]

A colleague at work wondered why the government didn't decentralize and move some functions to other regions in effort to improve employment in/increase migration to those areas. Sounded like a good idea at face value.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

...in Auckland. Don't like it? Live somewhere else. If you're that desperate to own something, go to where you can afford it.

I think the problem is when it's in living memory that houses were affordable in the region.

Also there are issues with the demand for services that apparently require low wage employees, while denying those employees what at least to some is considered a basic right for the "hard-working" family. But that's laden with values and all that business.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Ab

...in Auckland. Don't like it? Live somewhere else. If you're that desperate to own something, go to where you can afford it.

So what you're saying is that when people are systematically priced out of the communities that they grew up in, and have been a part of for their entire lives, that's just fine eh? Like, the fact that you've been a member of a community for 20+ years just doesn't count for anything at all, eh? Real nice.

I've heard a lot about how various technological advances have reduced the cohesiveness of communities, things like the car, television, and later the computer. I wonder how much of a role economics is currently playing in that trend. And I wonder what sort of costs the loss of that communal social capital will have in the long run. Current economic dogma really fails miserably to properly account for the full range of things that could be called wealth.

[pxpx]

30% Deposit for investors..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11447728

[Lightspeed]

Seems a bit of a misnomer to call someone taking a loan to buy a house an investor. I mean, I get what the distinction is, but still.

[pxpx]

Great post LS.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Nothing

So what you're saying is that when people are systematically priced out of the communities that they grew up in, and have been a part of for their entire lives, that's just fine eh? Like, the fact that you've been a member of a community for 20+ years just doesn't count for anything at all, eh? Real nice.

It's neither fine nor not fine. It's the way it is. You think Auckland is the only place where this has ever happened ever?

[pxpx]

Wonder if this (the 30% requirement) will have any real mid term impact, or will non-bank lenders step into the vacuum created by this? The restriction mentions only bank loans as subject to the 30% deposit requirement.

Looks like the RBNZ is cautious about a sudden reduction in investment funded by offshore debt too (through collapse in overseas debt markets). If measures were put in place to curb foriegn investment, and at the same time there was a sudden withdrawal of foreign debt funded capital, that'd be real bad.

Originally Posted by Nothing

So what you're saying is that when people are systematically priced out of the communities that they grew up in, and have been a part of for their entire lives, that's just fine eh? Like, the fact that you've been a member of a community for 20+ years just doesn't count for anything at all, eh? Real nice.

Uh, welcome to every city everywhere in the world ever.

Except maybe Detroit.

[Lightspeed]

It's interesting how all the various stake holders spin this differently. It seems impossible to tell where reality lies.

My sense is that this change by the Reserve Bank was made not so much to reduce demand, but to mitigate the risk of borrowers not being able to make their repayments in the face of any kind of collapse that might occur. Something which can have a significant detriment on the economy should there be a surge of defaults.

I think that's what gets often overlooked. It's not what will happen, because that's not known, but rather what are the current risks we face, their nature and if/how we should mitigate them.

[pxpx]

The Herald is going for balanced coverage, as per normal:

[Ab]

Next week, the Herald asks: is Wifi responsible for Auckland house prices?

[Lightspeed]

Hahah.

[xor]

I hope that they enable land to be intensified around suburban areas tbh. I'd love to see 800m2 houses bulldozed and make way for 3 or 4 townhouses on each section or some type of medium density housing at least.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Ab

Next week, the Herald asks: is Wifi responsible for Auckland house prices?

[Juju]

Originally Posted by xor

I hope that they enable land to be intensified around suburban areas tbh. I'd love to see 800m2 houses bulldozed and make way for 3 or 4 townhouses on each section or some type of medium density housing at least.

Because Auckland's infrastructure is ready for it yea?

[fixed_truth]

How will capital gains rules affect The Block?

[xor]

Originally Posted by Juju

Because Auckland's infrastructure is ready for it yea?

Nope, because of the urban sprawl. Perhaps if they built up instead of out Auckland might have marginally better infrastructure

I live close to work so it doesn't affect me tbh, i also balance my life so i don't sit in any rush hour traffic at all.

If I could subdivide I would be lolling all the way to Otahuhu.