Labour will free up density and height controls to allow more medium density housing and reform the use of urban growth boundaries so they don’t drive up section costs. This will curb land bankers and speculators.
Labour has struck at the heart of two major constraints on urban land supply New Zealand: restrictions on density and height of new developments, and much more importantly, the use of urban growth boundaries to drive up land prices. These proposed regulatory reforms could not be more welcome.
The other new element is changing the way we fund infrastructure for new developments. Currently those costs are either subsidised by the ratepayer or passed by the developer onto the price tag of a new home. That makes houses much more expensive. It also means they are paid off through mortgages at expensive bank interest rates.
Our new policy will see infrastructure funded by local government bonds, paid off over the lifetime of the asset through a targeted rate on the properties in the new development. This will substantially reduce the cost of new housing.
The reforms proposed by Labour to local government financing will reduce the financial burden on existing ratepayers of the local government funded infrastructure necessary to support new land developments.
These Labour Party reforms are fantastic because the main party on the left-wing of New Zealand politics has faced up to restricted land supply as a key reason behind housing unaffordability. I wonder what the New Zealand Greens will think of these major new reforms.
A few more sensible economic and fiscal policy announcements such as those today by the New Zealand Labour Party and it will start looking like a credible alternative government.
It is time for the environmental movement to face up to the fact that there never will be an international treaty to restrain carbon emissions. The practical way to respond to global warming is healthier is wealthier, richer is safer. Faster economic growth creates more resources for resilience and adaptation to a changing environment.
New Zealand housing prices were pretty stable until the passage of the Resource Management Act in 1993. After that, prices took off New Zealand and didn’t slow that much for the recession subsequent to the Global Financial Crisis.
American prices just had a bubble because of loose monetary policy by the Fed and loose lending criteria by banks at the behest of regulators. Real housing prices in the USA started to rise again last year after a dramatic fall.
Australian prices were rising steadily until about 2000 but then took off with a strong economy and the usual restrictions on land supply by local governments at the behest of the existing homeowners.
The Labour Party and the Greens both plan to build 100,000 affordable houses as a way of offsetting soaring housing prices in Auckland and other New Zealand cities. These plans were announced in the 2014 Election in New Zealand.
A trite but insurmountable objection to the proposal to build 100,000 affordable houses is there are no plans to increase the supply of land. That would require RMA reform which both Labour and the Greens oppose. They oppose RMA reform partly for ideological reasons and partly to cultivate middle-class home owner votes.
Unless there is an increase in the supply of land in Auckland and the other New Zealand cities, the government under the plans of the Labour Party and the Greens are building houses the private sector would have built anyway but for the government bought from the same new supply of land released every year by local councils.
The proposals of Labour and the Green to build affordable houses simply changes the identity of who builds the same number of new houses in New Zealand. There is no net increase in this supply of houses so there will not be any improvement in housing affordability.
If the supply of land were to be increased through RMA reforms, there be no need to for the government to build the houses. This is because the market will take care of building the houses on the additional land released by local councils if there is a demand for them and they’re obviously is.
Attempts by a Labour and Green Government to build affordable houses is no more than displace the efforts of private developers to supply houses but in configurations more closely aligned with market demand in terms of the quality and size of the house.
Another insurmountable but still minor objection to supplying 100,000 affordable houses is Friedman’s second law of economics: you can’t give anything away for free because people will queue up for access.
If the government is selling cheap houses to ordinary families, people change that circumstances to make themselves more eligible for the house, which presumably will be targeted by income. Easiest way to do that is to fund a low income family member such as a student to buy the house and sell it to you. Alternatively, you could make an advanced of them against their inheritances as a way of them buying a house.
The classic New Zealand example of the inability to give anything away for free was the introduction of school zoning. People now pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more for a house if it is in a favourable school zone.
A more serious objection that can never be overcome is as soon as the lucky ordinary family buys the affordable house, they will renovate it to the proper standing reflecting the underlying value of the land. Affordable houses under the plans of the New Zealand Labour Party and the Greens is to build a cheap house on expensive land in Auckland. Land in Auckland is 60% of the price of a house. Land use to be 40% of the value of the house in Auckland.
Plenty of people are in the game of home renovation; some do it as a full-time occupation. They buy an old rundown house on good land and a good location and renovate the house to match the value of the underlying land and location.
The possibility of subsequent renovation to the cheap house on the good land is the death knell of any attempt to sell affordable housing in Auckland or the other New Zealand cities where house prices are spiralling upwards because of restrictions on the supply of land.
Building 100,000 affordable houses were simply present 100,000 renovation opportunities to entrepreneurs. The families who are lucky enough to be first to buy the affordable house will get a marvellous windfall. There will be no long-term impact on the price of land in Auckland because you can’t give anything away for free. Any undervalued good as quickly resold at a profit by budding entrepreneurs after renovating the house to bring it up to market standard given the value of the underlying land.
If the Labour Party and the Greens want more affordable housing, they must support RMA reforms that will increase the supply of land. They won’t do out of sheer political expediency. Labour and the Greens want to win the votes of disgruntled National party voters who already own homes.
The next best arguments James Shaw made were xenophobia about foreign investment in land and some vast conspiracy theory regarding endangered dolphins.
When your next best argument is foreigners are coming to buy up all our land, you are playing from a weak populist hand. About half of million New Zealand born live in other countries.
About 80% of these live in Australia, the great majority as residents rather than as citizens. These New Zealanders living in Australia and elsewhere need protection under international agreements to ensure they are not the victim of populist outbreaks against the sale of land to foreigners.
Source: Statistics New Zealand.
In addition, if a foreigner wants to pay over the odds for my house I am glad to separate a fool from his money.
Source: Statistics New Zealand.
New Zealand has a strong interest in protecting the rights of its own expatriates as well as New Zealand foreign investors to buy land in other countries. As David Friedman explains:
Much more commonly, [economic imperialism] is used by Marxists to describe–and attack–foreign investment in “developing” (i.e., poor) nations. The implication of the term is that such investment is only a subtler equivalent of military imperialism–a way by which capitalists in rich and powerful countries control and exploit the inhabitants of poor and weak countries.
There is one interesting feature of such “economic imperialism” that seems to have escaped the notice of most of those who use the term. Developing countries are generally labour rich and capital poor; developed countries are, relatively, capital rich and labour poor. One result is that in developing countries, the return on labour is low and the return on capital is high–wages are low and profits high. That is why they are attractive to foreign investors.
To the extent that foreign investment occurs, it raises the amount of capital in the country, driving wages up and profits down. The effect is exactly analogous to the effect of free migration. If people move from labour-rich countries to labour-poor ones, they drive wages down and rents and profits up in the countries they go to, while having the opposite effect in the countries they come from.
If capital moves from capital-rich countries to capital-poor ones, it drives profits down and wages up in the countries it goes to and has the opposite effect in the countries it comes from. The people who attack “economic imperialism” generally regard themselves as champions of the poor and oppressed.
To the extent that they succeed in preventing foreign investment in poor countries, they are benefiting the capitalists of those countries by holding up profits and injuring the workers by holding down wages. It would be interesting to know how much of the clamour against foreign investment in such countries is due to Marxist ideologues who do not understand this and how much is financed by local capitalists who do.
Some public goods can be not provided much at all if even a few do not contribute – free ride. These are called weakest shot public goods. The link in the chain is only as strong as the weakest link for some public goods. The fighting against communicable diseases is an example of that.
Similar examples would be the protection of a military front, taking a convoy across the ocean going at the speed of the slowest ship, or maintaining an attractive village/landscape (one eyesore spoils the view).
Many instances of teamwork involve weak-link elements, for example moving a pile of bricks by hand along a chain or providing a theatrical or orchestral performance (one bad individual effort spoils the whole effect.)
Another example of weakest shot public goods is community cooperation after disasters. The quality of the public good provided is equal to the contribution of the weakest person who may start a criminal rampage despite the good efforts of everyone else.
People tend to be more cooperative after natural disasters. They realise their contribution is more important than normal to the maintaining of the social fabric which is currently hanging by a thread.
Vaccinations are example of a weakest shot public good. The quality of herd immunity depends fundamentally on just about everybody contributing by getting vaccinated. Not all public goods depend on the some of those contributions made. In some cases just a few people choosing to free ride can greatly undermine the public interest.
The reverse of a weakest shot public good is best shot public goods. Example of this is the development of vaccines themselves. The public good is only as good as the best effort at developing the new vaccine with all the others efforts pointless because the best of the vaccines is chosen.
The most curious people in New Zealand to oppose measures to address the under provision of weakest shot public goods are the New Zealand Greens.
Herd immunity protects those who cannot be safely vaccinated including new babies, those for whom the vaccine fails, which occasionally happens, and those with compromised immunity such as adults receiving chemotherapy.
We are all in this together. It is time for the New Zealand Greens to stop pandering to those are only think of themselves and what a free ride on others including the very sick and new babies.
Herd immunity requires vaccination rates of about 94%. The near universal vaccination rates required for herd immunity are to smaller margin to pander to an awkward squad who do not want to vaccinate despite the harm they do to others.
Harm to others is grounds and has always been grounds for public policy and public health interventions. Instead, the Greens are anti-science, anti-public health.
Measles is the most contagious disease known to man. Seven children died in New Zealand in the last measles outbreak in 1991. The dead are already too many from the anti-vaccination quacks and cranks.
The large differences in personality types between Green voters and Labour voters is one of the first explanations I have seen as to why someone joins and votes for one over the other given both are left-wing parties with fewer and fewer differences in policy.
One of the first things I noticed when feuding on Twitter with Green MPs was how polite they were. Twitter is not normally known for that characteristic and that is before considering the limitations of 144 characters. People who are good friends and work together will go to war over email without any space limitations for the making an email polite and friendly. Imagine how easy it is to misconstrue the meaning and motivations of tweets that can only be 144 characters.
The New Zealand Green MPs in their replies on Twitter make good points and ask penetrating questions that explain their position well and makes you think more deeply about your own. Knowledge grows through critical discussion, not by consensus and agreement.
Cass Sunstein made some astute observations in Republic.com 2.0 about how the blogosphere forms into information cocoons and echo chambers. People can avoid the news and opinions they don’t want to hear.
Sunstein has argued that there are limitless news and information options and, more significantly, there are limitless options for avoiding what you do not want to hear:
Those in search of affirmation will find it in abundance on the Internet in those newspapers, blogs, podcasts and other media that reinforce their views.
People can filter out opposing or alternative viewpoints to create a “Daily Me.”
The sense of personal empowerment that consumers gain from filtering out news to create their Daily Me creates an echo chamber effect and accelerates political polarisation.
A common risk of debate is group polarisation. Members of the deliberating group move toward a more extreme position relative to their initial tendencies! How many blogs are populated by those that denounce those who disagree? This is the role of the mind guard in group-think.
Sunstein in Infotopia wrote about how people use the Internet to spend too much time talking to those that agree with them and not enough time looking to be challenged:
In an age of information overload, it is easy to fall back on our own prejudices and insulate ourselves with comforting opinions that reaffirm our core beliefs. Crowds quickly become mobs.
The justification for the Iraq war, the collapse of Enron, the explosion of the space shuttle Columbia–all of these resulted from decisions made by leaders and groups trapped in “information cocoons,” shielded from information at odds with their preconceptions. How can leaders and ordinary people challenge insular decision making and gain access to the sum of human knowledge?
Conspiracy theories had enough momentum of their own before the information cocoons and echo chambers of the blogosphere gained ground.
J.S. Mill pointed out that critics who are totally wrong still add value because they keep you on your toes and sharpened both your argument and the communication of your message. If the righteous majority silences or ignores its opponents, it will never have to defend its belief and over time will forget the arguments for it.
As well as losing its grasp of the arguments for its belief, J.S. Mill adds that the majority will in due course even lose a sense of the real meaning and substance of its belief. What earlier may have been a vital belief will be reduced in time to a series of phrases retained by rote. The belief will be held as a dead dogma rather than as a living truth.
Beliefs held like this are extremely vulnerable to serious opposition when it is eventually encountered. They are more likely to collapse because their supporters do not know how to defend them or even what they really mean.
J.S. Mill’s scenarios involves both parties of opinion, majority and minority, having a portion of the truth but not the whole of it. He regards this as the most common of the three scenarios, and his argument here is very simple. To enlarge its grasp of the truth, the majority must encourage the minority to express its partially truthful view. Three scenarios – the majority is wrong, partly wrong, or totally right – exhaust for Mill the possible permutations on the distribution of truth, and he holds that in each case the search for truth is best served by allowing free discussion.
Mill thinks history repeatedly demonstrates this process at work and offered Christianity as an illustrative example. By suppressing opposition to it over the centuries Christians ironically weakened rather than strengthened Christian belief. Mill thinks this explains the decline of Christianity in the modern world. They forgot why they were Christians.
Like McDonalds, Greenpeace globally is a brand. I read the papers every day in detail but are utterly clueless as to who its leaders are. That is a deliberate branding decision so people cannot conflate the inevitably dodgy and far left backgrounds of its leaders and activist support base with self appointed environmental do-gooders brand.
That is no longer so in New Zealand where a middle-age political junkie retiring as co-leader of the New Zealand Greens will now be their CEO in New Zealand.
What is worse is the carrying on by the Greens about the retirement of Russell Norman to lead the Greenpeace in New Zealand.
If they wanted to maintain the political effectiveness of Greenpeace, they should have made a short press release congratulating him on his retirement and wishing him well in his new job and saying little more. The Greens should stop carrying on as though you have taken over Greenpeace New Zealand.
I do not wish Greenpeace well with its anti-growth, anti-science, anti-human agenda, so I hope this was a mistake and I hope I am not interrupting them in making that mistake.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.
People tend to be more cooperative after natural disasters. They realise their contribution is more important than normal to the maintaining of the social fabric which is currently hanging by a thread.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments