National keep saying it's a supply issue. I say FUCK THAT, it's a demand issue, Auckland is full, nobody should be let in who isn't a citizen. After 10 years, and lots research and evidence then I'd be happy to reconsider.
It is patently a supply issue and a demand issue. How are you going to keep people out of Auckland? Dawn raids? Internal passports?
This is a world wide problem. Most western world major cities are in the same boat.
There are multiple causes and solutions, and many mentioned here. My favourite solution is a decent social housing program with secure long term tenancy. And regional development (I am *never* going back to Auckland where I grew up, the quality of life is so much better in other parts of the country. Way way better. Off the chart better...)
But a cause that we are forgetting is the crash, throughout the stable section of the western world, of interest rates. Not so much that borrowing is cheap but that there are very few places to put capital for a decent risk adjusted return .
It will be interesting to see how much investment is from non-resident foreigners, we need many data to know and we have close to none (Chinese sounding names is racist cant - shame). That is probably "hot money", volatile. There is a good chance the "hot money" buyers will get spooked, liquidate and leave for any number of reasons.
Then as Paul Campbell pointed out a sudden increase of interest rates would wipe out a lot of investors and banks would be forced to liquidate.
Which ever way you look at it it is reasonable to expect that we will see a crash in the housing market, world wide. No government policy changes can prevent it or protect us (except decent secure social housing - but that is a communist plot apparently).
We are at an economic cross roads. All the old assumptions about wealth are getting turned on their head. Now the most valuable thing is ideas not factories, the value of labour is in free fall. This is a symptom, and expect some very rough weather ahead.
Nice one. Two important things about free speech (thanks Noam):
(1) Free speech is for speech you hate. If it is only for speech you are OK with it is not "free" at all.
(2) The best cure for "bad speech" is "more speech'.
I have read and attempted to reread Rob's post. Let us call it what it is: Racist.
It may well be true that "... ethnically Chinese house buyers tended to purchase flash houses....". So what?
The offensiveness in all of this is thinking that surnames are a valid way to judge residency or that ethnicity (race) matters. IMO Phil Twyford should go. Far far away.
I am a bit tired of "Harm reduction". People do not take drugs because they are harmful. People do not use LSD because it is less harmful than alcohol (it is, according to David Nutt) they take LSD because it has benefits for them.
The same applies to all drug taking. There is some harm from drugs but it does not follow that drugs are harmful.
I can illustrate that with an analogy: Many people have broken the bones of their feet and lower legs by jumping or falling onto concrete. They suffer harm from concrete and car needs to be taken around concrete. But that does not make concrete harmful. Concrete is useful.
This is a human rights ssue. Not a legal issue and not a medical issue. It is as much a human rights issue as sexism, racism, homophobia, class predjudice....
I have a friend who has both. Installed the hot water system first and a year later installed the PV. Says now doing it again he would not have installed the hot water system.
Do the research. Price the PV system. Watts per square metre hot water will be better. Dollar per watt, it may well be PV
Why is cannabis less legal than Chardonnay? That is the question IMO
Good work RB.
I am so tiered of the OTT reaction coming from all sorts of people who should know better.
It is ironic that it is Peter Dunn that is bringing sensible drug laws to NZ. If it does work out (and it is working well so far, despite the OTT BS from many who should know better) even Peter Dunn himself acknowledges that cannabis will go through this process.
Greens and unfortunately many of their utopian policies might just sink the economy before we taste nirvana.
What policies would that be?
Given the Greens are the only one of the three major parties to put online you can go and see which ones those are, and come back and tell me!
As a GP activist I am fed up to the back teeth of people making comments about our policies with out reading them! There is a word for that: Prejudice.
No. The "white people" thing was in response to a comment above, which I quoted. As you say, there were nutters fanning the flames on both sides.
Actually I said more. I said the state was one of the nutters.
No, not at all. Not even a little bit. The Ngati Apa decision did not say that the foreshore had always belonged to Maori. It said that hapu had the right to explore their customary rights through the court. It indicated that the test for something approaching freehold would be high.
But other people, who were in a good position to know, said that the test could be met for a lot of the shore line.
You have to understand that aboriginal rights to the fore shore and the sea bed are not extinguished by the land abutting it being alienated.
This is ancient law that, I think, dates back at least to the Norman conquest.
Worik, I'm not sure if you understand the issue.
I understand very well. I spent a lot of time huiing and listening to both sides during the passage of the Act.
One side was a bunch of rouges. The other was a mixed bag of some very on to it, some not. I know which side moved me. It was not the rouges.
If it was my family's land and had been in consistent use by my family since 1840, I'd be bloody delighted to have the opportunity to test my rights regarding that in court.
That is what was taken! You would have no rights and you could not "test" them, you would have to apply for them. Hardly a right! If your land was customary land that had never been placed in torrens title and got wet when the tide came in - poof! you lost it. No court. Just the chance to apply to the state for some rights that fall far far short of what common law would supply.
The right to engage in customary rights, prescribed by the state. No right to any activity, you have to ask, cap in hand, like Ngāti Porou did. And because Ngāti Porou are very good at negotiating with the state, they got a lot. But it is the largess of the government, not an entitlement recognised in court.
Can you not see the difference? Can you not see how demeaning it is?
On one hand some people can go to court to assert their rights (like you can if I want to build a road in your back yard), on the other hand some people have to apply for their what is no longer a right because it was taken away.