Can't do this; can't do that.

You know, every morning I wake up, brew a coffee, browse the news, and look forward to reading fine journalism and great events to discuss with you good folk.

This morning, like far too many mornings, I'm disappointed. Instead of great news and fine journalism, we're served up this crud [hat tip AB]:

Can't do this: the "controversial" $250 million Soho Square development in Ponsonby (left), opposed by "art and fashion leaders."

Can't do that: a "railway station-themed restaurant, cafe and function centre in rural Waimauku," opposed by "officers of the Rodney District Council and Auckland Regional Council."

Can't even do this: A proposed new house for a site in St Andrews Rd, Epsom (right), couldn't even get to consent because council's drainage infrastructure is unable to accommodate even one new house there -- and even though the drainage work proposed for the house will reduce demand on their own infrastructure, it still wouldn't meet the "gold-plated" standard the council now required for new drainage work (a standard that most existing infrastructure has no hope of meeting). A clear example of the tell-tale collision I blogged the other day.

Or at least not for three years: a "$180 million 30-storey mixed use development that would be the second highest building in Takapuna" (right). After three years of "negotiation" with council permission has now been acceded to; not permission to go ahead, but permission to go through a notified resource consent process.

Sheesh! And who would believe Building Consent applications are down: down to 25,740 houses and apartments per annum -- down from a high of 40,000 per annum in the seventies, and still much fewer than the 28,000 to 36,000 residential units that need to be built per annum to reflect demand (Hugh Pavletich backs up those numbers, and explains the inflationary consequence of not meeting them).

And can you believe how economically illiterate NZ Herald reporters are? In one breath they praise those who stop the plans of these (evil) developers, and with the next they're suggesting that rising prices are the fault of developers -- and never, ever will they consider the the idea that regulation that hogties developers needs to be slashed if housing supply is ever able to increase to sufficiently meet demand.

UPDATED, 11:56am, 2 May