Showing posts with label John Palino. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Palino. Show all posts

Thursday, 17 March 2016

Mayoral candidate says housing should grow ‘out’

 

Great to see an Auckland mayoral candidate recognising that if house-price inflation be tackled, then the city has to be ready to grow out.

Auckland mayoral candidate John Palino is calling for the removal of the urban-rural boundary to improve housing affordability.
    The boundary, known as the metropolitan urban limit, was restricting land supply in Auckland and driving up house prices for ideological reasons, Mr Palino said today.

And he’s right, you know, it does, and is:

  • Land just inside this “urban fence” costs around ten times land just outside. For virtually identical land. Nothing else so demonstrably highlights the effect of regulation, nor gives some idea of what might be achieved by relieving it.
  • And the reason for the “urban fence” is completely ideological – both “new urbanists” and te apostles of “sustainability” preach higher densities for their own separate reasons, but mostly for reasons of control.

My own position is that to promote affordability the city needs to grow both out and up – which recognises home-buyers have the right to choose, and land-owners have the right to build.

‘Out and Up’ should be the mantra.

But at least one mayoral candidate is loudly saying ‘out.’

[Hat tip Stephen Berry from Affordable Auckland, the only mayoral candidate saying ‘Out and Up.’]

RELATED POSTS:

  • “So Auckland can’t grow out, because Auckland’s ‘planners’ and public-transport advocates say so.
        “And it can’t grow up, because councillors voted last night that they say so: Auckland Council voting 13-8 to pull new 'denser' maps from the Unitary Plan process.
        “So what are would-be home-owners to do who are trying to afford their own home in a seriously unaffordable city?
        “And what are property-owners to do who wish to build and sell to those desperate to get on the property ladder?”
    Up or out? From both sides council says NEITHER! – NOT PC
  • “It is not primarily the fault of land developers that the American suburbs are thought to be dysfunctional and mundane. The blame belongs largely to the influence of boiler-plate zoning regulations combined with design consultants who seek the most minimum criteria allowed by city regulations.
        “Yet for all its problems, decade after decade 80% of new home purchases are not urban, but suburban. Some (architects, planners, and university professors) suggest we should emulate the dense growth of other nations not blessed with the vast area of raw land within our country, yet most of those countries as they prosper strive to emulate our American suburbs.
        “The planning of our cities is about design. Yet, for the past quarter century a highly organized group consisting mostly of architects (acting as planners) have pushed a New Urbanist agenda that is as much about social engineering as it is design.”
    Designing suburbs: Beyond 'New Urbanism' – Rick Harrison, NEW GEOGRAPHY
  • “Auckland Mayor Len Brown’s fear of Auckland sprawling “like Los Angeles” is unfounded, pictures of the city’s growth over the past 30 years suggest.
        “A timelapse image of Auckland produced by Google shows New Zealand’s biggest city barely grew out at all between 1984 and 2012 (see pictures), despite its population increasing from 850,000 to more than 1.3 million during that time.
        “This is in stark contrast to many cities elsewhere, including the US where the likes of Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and Atlanta have expanded rapidly.
        And critics say this footage undermines mayor Brown’s claim that Auckland is a sprawling city that needs to be contained.”
    Google busts Len Brown’s Auckland ‘sprawl’ claims – Niko Kloeten, NBR [via Whale Oil], 2013
  • “What’s missing here is choice.  In talking about about development on either “greenfield” or “brownfield” sites, both advocates insist that folk do things their way. They completely ignore the fact that people have the right to choose where and how they live, particularly if they own the place on which they choose to settle down.
        “Let people live where they wish to, as long as they bear the costs. And let those choices themselves—choices based on people’s own values for which they are prepared to pay the cost—organically reflect the way the city develops.
        “Ironically, it’s the very promoters of intensification, the planners themselves, who have done the most to make decent intensification more difficult.  Here's just some examples of a few urban housing types that are enormously popular overseas, but could barely be even contemplated here…...”
    “Sprawl” versus “intensification” – NOT PC, 2012
  • “Sprawl is good. Sprawl is choice. The opponents of sprawl are not just against sprawl, they're against choice -- the proof of this is that if people wanted to live in the way the enemies of choice wanted, they wouldn't need to be forced into it, they'd be doing it anyway.
        “The enemies of sprawl are the enemies of choice -- they simply use the power of government and the powers that the Resource Management Act gives local government to force people to live in the way that they prefer, rather than the way the people themselves wish to live. They're just another brand of interfering busybody who want to force their own predilections upon others.
        “The result in New Zealand is severe restrictions on building and development, and the result of that is some of the most unaffordable housing in the world.”
    Envy is making houses unaffordable – NOT PC, 2007
  • “But my point here is that not everyone wants to live that way, and forcing people who would rather live otherwise into the planners' favourite cookie-cutter solutions removes any possibility of their planning their own future the way that they would like to; it removes their ability to make their own decisions based upon long-term considerations; and it's causing something no-one could really celebrate. And that's really the whole point, isn't it?
        “When it comes to housing, let's all be Pro-Choice.”
    More sprawling arguments – NOT PC, 2007
  • “Most of the planners in New Zealand's major cities have imposed what's called a Metropolitan Urban Limit around the cities. This is sometimes called an 'urban fence,' inside which development proceeds (in theory) according to the planners' whims …
        “Outside the urban fence, development only proceeds to the extent that land-owners outside the fence can dodge the planners' desire to make a rural museum of the area surrounding the cities, and to the extent that developers who have built up land banks around the city can encourage their chums on council to relax the zoning, or to release the urban fence just a little. You might call this a sort of 'informal' public-private partnership…
        “The sameness and the sprawl that many people object to in our present-day suburbia are in large part due to these regulatory measures that the anti-sprawlists themselves favour. Specifically, the "carpet sprawl" that would have few explicit defenders is created by the very 'Smart Growth' policies considered so progressive by so many planners. Owen McShane explained the process … ”
    Message to planners: "Don't fence me in!"- NOT PC, 2007

.

Monday, 29 February 2016

More to rates than just the rate, Mr Palino

 

Guest post by Affordable Auckland mayoral candidate Stephen Berry

Following John Palino’s official announcement that he intends to run again for the Auckland mayoralty, I would describePalino’s pledge to cut rates by 10% over three years as “refreshing.”

The three media favourites have tried to get by on policy-free platitudes about waste cutting and fat trimming. Now a proper contest of ideas can begin.

I myself recognise a two-pronged approach to controlling rates is necessary, and suggest that Palino’s plan will only be successful if he looks beyond the percentage charged on a property’s value.

In January, my Affordable Auckland team announced its policy to freeze rates at their current level for three years. Costing approximately $35 million a year in lost revenue, this is a credible step towards arresting rates growth; it is not however the only step that must be taken.

Under the Local Government Rating Act, councils are required to raise rates revenue by charging property owners a percentage of their property value. It also states that the maximum amount that a council can raise through targeted rates or a uniform annual general charge is 30% of total rates income. This means that even if Palino is successful in his pledge to cut rates, rapidly increasing house values could still see the amount ratepayers are paying increase. Therefore any mayoral candidate wanting to fix the rates issue also needs a plan to fix the housing affordability issue.

The fault for an over-valued housing market can be laid squarely at the feet of those central planners and NIMBYs who strangle housing supply and drive up compliance costs. The Council bans residential development outside of the rural-urban boundary which creates an artificial land shortage and drives up land costs. NIMBY groups like Auckland 2040 organise revolts over heritage, character and intensification, whether the actions of an owner violate somebody else’s property rights or not. In Titirangi, even tree removal work that has been authorised by the Council can face costly delays as property owners are subjected to bullying and harassment by their neighbours.

The process property owners go through to obtain resource consent needs to be streamlined by Council as much as possible within the parameters of the Resource Management Act. Zoning rules must become more flexible, allowing for a greater range of development in the inner city as well as the edge of Auckland. A respect for private property rights should be the overarching concern in decisions about issuing consent for development and alterations. The rule should be: Do what you wish on your property as long as your actions do not violate my right to enjoy my own.

Unless the artificially over-valued state of Auckland’s housing market can be dealt with by increasing supply, making zoning more flexible and respecting private property rights, rates increases resulting from value inflation will trump any other steps taken to control them.


Thursday, 18 July 2013

Auckland is stuffed.

AUCKLAND IS STUFFED—if her mayoral candidates for the coming elections are any guide.

For many years, in election after Auckland mayoral election, it was a sure guarantee of victory to come out with no policy platform at all beyond the single plank: “Vote for me, I’m not the other bastard.”

It’s worked for years: Les Mills was elected on the basis of little more than not being Catherine Tizard. Christine Fletcher was elected on the single platform of not being Les Mills. Following which John Banks was elected on the basis of not being Christine Fletcher, Dick Hubbard was elected solely for not being John Banks—before Mother Hubbard was replaced by a “transmogrified” Banks, solely because he wasn’t the Bran Flake the electorate had inadvertently installed in the mayoral chambers.

And then last time, in the wider Auckland electorate—reeling in horror at the prospect of Emperor Banks presiding over the newer, larger bureaucracy imposed on us by Rodney Hide—elected Len Brown on little more than the single policy position, being: “I’m not John Banks.”

So who’s taking the anti-mayoral baton this time? On the basis of a series in the Herald this morning, no-one. There are five mayoral candidates with actual policies, all of them ranging from foolish to bizarre, and none of the five seem to want to distance themselves from Brown’s mantle—least of all Brown himself.

Penny Bright. Photo / Natalie Slade The endearingly daffy Penny Bright still thinks Auckland is run by the New Zealand Property Council and now as well“the hugely powerful private lobby group the Committee for Auckland.” She is “opposed to user charges for water services,” opposed to “corporate control” of Auckland, and wants “to take back public ownership, operation and control of Auckland passenger transport, and water services. She is, bless her, also opposed to road tolls, or higher rates and fuel taxes, to pay for "improving Auckland's transport system. But she’s not against higher rates for other reasons.

John Minto. Photo / Natalie SladeJohn Minto wants Auckland to be free. Buses will be free; trains will be free; with lashings of free wifi for Timmy everyone. Paid for, of course, by higher rates on rich pricks—who will not be free. These free buses and free trains, along with the free wifi, will be rolled out by Minto at a rate even faster than Brown or even the Auckland Transport Blog thinks possible, “delivering gridlock-free travel in less than 12 months.” That’s one hell of a magic wand. And it’s not free.

Len Brown. Photo / Sarah IveyLen Brown himself is really like a combination of the two above: a sort of Minto-Bright Lite. He promises more of the same, only less so—and with some significant sleight of hand about where the money comes to pay for it. Brown’s position still amounts to “Let Them Eat Monuments,” all based around Len’s Loop, while buying us all off (he hopes, strangely) with free swimming pools.  He doesn’t plan to lower rates.

Uesifili Unasa. Photo / Dean Purcell. It looks like Uesifili Unasa has only one problem with Len Brown. He has no argument with Loopy Len’s monuments, only where they’re being built. He looks like a good old-fashioned pork barrel politician who wants to bring the pork home to South Auckland.Not sure how the rest of Auckland’s ratepayers might feel about that one. But it doesn’t sound like a bargain.

John Palino. Photo / Natalie Slade Which leaves the little-known John Palino (well, little known to me, anyway), who is running on a platform of … um … something or other. Yes, I have it here. John is going “to build a new, modern city in Manukau” (with his own hands?); he’s going to investigate Auckland's $59 billion integrated transport programme; he’s going to protect the environment, economy, people, diversity, blah,blah, blah.
He  doesn’t “want to change the city,” “just to fix those aspects we know are frustrating Aucklanders - issues such as congestion, public transport access, rates increases, housing affordability and council inefficiencies.” How’s he going to fix them? By building satellite cities “paid for from the future rates revenue stream new businesses and residents provide.” Well, at least he’s said how he plans to pay for them.
But he doesn’t plan to lower rates.

So there you go. About as much real choice as their is for home-owners under Loopy Len’s Unitary Plan.

Frankly, it seems s real tribute to Brown’s ability to hoodwink most of the people virtually all of the time that no-one is running on a “I’m Not Len Brown” ticket—because with policies almost indistinguishable from Brown’s in their generality, and just as batty in their loopiness, none of his four opponents seem to want anything very much different to the quo that Brown has so successfully made status. 

And no-one at all is running on getting down the ballooning rates and spending bill.

For that, you’ll have to vote for Affordable Auckland candidates in your local wards.