Posts by Andrew C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No-one seems to have any accurate data on just how many houses are sold to, or owned by, overseas interests
Thanks to a post from Whale Oil (or should that be blubberhole Damien ;) ) I can see that Tony Alexander from BNZ does - for a couple of months anyway:
http://tonyalexander.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BNZ-REINZ-Survey-May-2013.pdf
http://tonyalexander.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/BNZ-REINZ-Survey-June-2013.pdfLooks like around 8% of buyers were from overseas. Of these, about half were planning to live here, leaving 4%.
The majority of the buyers are from UK, Australia, and China, so removing Australia from being included will cut back the effects of this policy.
It also looks like quite a few of the vendors were overseas too, i.e. some of the overseas buying was from overseas sellers so there will be no net change.
This probably means a policy like this wont have much affect. Although some might argue that a few is all it takes – when small numbers of UK buyers started buying up costal properties in spain for 10x what they used to sell for, suddenly ALL the properties became priced at 10x what they used to sell for…
As an aside, why did Shearer specifically mention the policy was dealing with Asian buyers? Why didn’t he just say overseas buyers (with Oz excluded)? Especially seeing as UK buyers are just as guilty as China according to the figures. All I can see is a gift of the racist card to his opponents, Whale Oil is already calling it a “chan ban”.
As China promotes mercantilism they would almost certainly strike back against a policy like this. Some suggest via the FTA, but I would predict more like the unashamed muscle flexing we saw recently with NZ’s meat exports being held up. -
OnPoint: Quickfisk: Youth Unemployment, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
Look at unemployment rates by age and gender
I exported the employment rate on the link you posted:
Employment rate, Aged 15-24, All persons
Q2-2010 50%
Q3-2010 50%
Q4-2010 50%
Q1-2011 50%
Q2-2011 50%
Q3-2011 50%
Q4-2011 49%
Q1-2012 50%
Q2-2012 51%
Q3-2012 50%
Q4-2012 47%
Q1-2013 50% -
@Keith: I am probably an idiot here - but why is the unemployment data rate in your chart not look like 100% - <the employment_rate from figure 2.1A>?
-
Hard News: A plea for sanity on the…, in reply to Sudhvir Singh,
Disappointing to see so much misinformation about the Plan
I agree, but dont just blame the punters for this.
I went to one of the meeting where Len and his officers came to try and explain some of the details around the Unitary Plan.
They talked constantly about 2 story height neighbourhoods. Then the guy from 2040 stood up and said it could be 3. The officers just KEPT REPEATING THE 2 STORY LINE, until he forced them to admit it could be 3.
That is simply hopeless. Talk about throwing petrol on a fire.
And for the record I have no real concerns or interest in this height thing, I was there to learn about a different item (significant ecological areas), I am just reporting what I saw. I don't think the council is trying to be tricksy at all, but I do think that they need to take some of the repsonsibilty for the misinformation/fear that is out there.
-
Homophobia is probably a factor
Why?
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Russell Brown,
I think the council is explaining this poorly, but I don’t think there has been intent to deceive.
Perhaps. But maybe you had to be there. When someone stands up and says 3 stories are possible and are told, no its 2, that's a bit worse than mumbling your words or cocking up your marketing of an idea...
I was there for other reasons though, Significant Ecological Areas (sea's) was the topic that interested me, so I am only going by what I saw with my eyes half closed.
BTW if anyone has an SEA across your property, and you can check here, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get up to speed with what it will mean to you.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
The manipulative dishonesty of it's opponents and the disingenuous outrage
Not sure its all been one way in that regard Tom. I went to a meeting about the Unitary Plan in Beachhaven about a week ago, and the officers there still, despite being repeatedly told by members of the public present that 3 stories was possible, tried really really hard to stick to the line it was only 2.
Maybe my definition of "genuinely consult" is different to yours...
-
Hard News: The Waterview Bore, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Those are quite serious hurdles.
Not to mention the fact that I can often count on one finger the number of off-peak passengers traveling with me on the ferry to Birkenhead.
-
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to duke,
“Ministry chief executive Brendan Boyle says private company Dimension Data was hired to test the security of the kiosks prior to Mr Ng’s experience and reported no problems.” RadNZ
There was a little more to his statement than just this. He also said that he had yet to verify exactly what they had tasked Dimension Data to check.
-
Speaker: The Voyage: Dutch Disease –…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
A bad idea for several reasons:
At least part of the idea of a Financial Transaction tax is to STOP the speculation from happening in the first place (slims margins). So the fact it moves away etc and doesn't generate lots of tax doesn't mean it hasn't done its job, in fact quite the opposite.