Speaker: What almost everyone is missing about KiwiBuild
38 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Meanwhile across the Tasman...
-
Moz,
It's worth noting that when the government (or the market) lowers the price of residential property and people do lose money on their properties, the ones who lose most are people who live in the house they own. To an investor the drop in price is a taxable event, so the government/taxpayer is covering a third to a half of the loss (this is another reason the government want to quarantine losses to the property that incurs them). But if you live in the house that's all your money.
And for people like me who earn less than the $100,000/year my house is dropping in price even the current "slow fall" is not good news. I could easily go bankrupt if there's an actual crash. Along with most of that half of Australia who have mortgages.
-
Moz, in reply to
the sale doesn't cover the mortgage?
that's the one. The term is "negative equity" and apparently about 20% of Sydney homeowners are in that position right now. I'm not. Yet.
-
Neil,
Two years wasted and millions poured into the pockets of developers.
And it doesn’t look as though the government has learnt anything from this disaster.
No one forced them, as they are now claiming, to build houses no one wanted to buy. That was a choice.
It was also a choice not to listen to those saying this is not good policy.
Twyford is now finally saying he will early next year direct councils to stop their capricious decisions on height controls in CBDs. That should have been done the day he entered government.
Still no movement on reforming the Unit Titles Act which is desperately needed if apartment buyers are to have any hope in maintaining and governing apartment buildings. The whole intensification project will collapse if this is not dealt with quickly.
Also no curiosity about how the construction industry gets away with outrages prices for buildings that are often substandard - leaky buildings are still being built.
-
Neil,
It’s all been overtaken by other events. Who would have thought that there was no te reo word for allegation that didn’t also imply rumour. Nudge nudge.
I don’t think it’s that surprising that a policy premised on demonising ethic groups winds up pouring money into property developers. If it was a National govt one might think that was all planned.
-
Neil,
I think I might have referred to this issue somewhere up thread:
Widespread defective or missing concrete or reinforcing steel revealed
1100 out of 1200 buildings tested show evidence of compromised construction. The true extent of which may not become known for many years leaving anyone owning an apartment in such a building in a very difficult position.
This plus the continued building of leaky buildings on top of the $47 billion (more likely to be 2 to 5 times that) cost of previously built leaking buildings plus other issues such as passive fire resistance defects will all add up to a huge tsunami of pain and financial hardship for thousands of people.
It will also greatly undermine confidence in intensification as apartment buildings will all be suspect.
One reason this has not got the attention it deserves is so many people don’t want this to be out in the open. They want to sell up before this becomes common knowledge, while they still have a chance to sell to the unsuspecting.
Isn’t it seriously odd how such a major issue got zero attention during the local body elections.
And neither Labour nor National happen to show the slightest inclination to confront this disaster. The more time goes by with nothing done the greater the disaster will be and the greater the number of people who will have their lives destroyed.
-
Neil,
Leaky buildings still being built highlighting the very urgent need for action especially action on laws governing apartment building management.
Currently, f you buy an apartment you’re taking on a very big risk.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
1100 out of 1200 buildings tested show evidence of compromised construction
This has consequences for their end of use demolition as well - if those taking these buildings down are basing their methods on the original submitted plan rather than the actual construction.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Leaky buildings still being built highlighting the very urgent need for action especially action on laws governing apartment building management.
Currently, f you buy an apartment you’re taking on a very big risk.
The Opal Apartments in Sydney also come to mind.
-
Moz, in reply to
Note that those are systematic problems and you're only seeing one headline. In Victoria there's a weird situation where architects can't get professional liability insurance because of the huge liability from all the shitty buildings, so the government has removed that requirement. While also talking about imposing stricter requirements on building professionals...
There are so many dodgy aspects to the industry here that it's hard to know where to start the list (and that affects NZ because we share regulations and many products/companies cross the Tasman. Oh, and the banks...) Even my boss who is a property developer thinks the systems we have are unsatisfactory (but he uses stronger language). What shocks me is that banks here will still lend to people buying, especially apartments. We *know* that the vast majority are not fit for purpose but the banks will still lend against them.
-
Neil, in reply to
Yes it’s a huge problem in Australia as well. It does seem to be finally getting a bit more political traction than here in NZ.
The construction minister Salesa is proposing home owners pay the builder’s insurance. A bit like pedestrians having to pay motorists’ insurance in the event they cause injury driving down footpaths.
And that insurance would only cover 10 years.
It doesn’t suggest any faith in the building industry to do the right thing.
What shocks me is that banks here will still lend to people buying, especially apartments. We *know* that the vast majority are not fit for purpose but the banks will still lend against them.
It’s completely unethical. At some point the banks will pull the plug on apartments because of the losses they face but in the meantime many more people will be unwittingly drawn into this nightmare.
-
And i wonder if NZ is learning anything at all from Vancouver's leaky apartments debacle.
-
Neil,
The lack of government action on corruption in the apartment construction industry has been more than puzzling. The lack of action in reining in dishonest apartment management companies has also been puzzling.
Why has a center left government been so reluctant to act against corrupt business in order to protect home owners? Why the reluctance to make sure apartments are built to standard and are run for the benefit of the home owner and not the management companies?
Mystery solved. One of the major sources of secret New Zealand First funding has been revealed to be Conrad Properties – which just so happens to be an apartment development company:
The largest series of donations occurs from Conrad Properties Ltd or companies and trusts connected to that company. The company donated $27,500 to the foundation in 2017 and 2018, as well as $15,000 in 2019 to date.
Conrad Properties has a single, 100 per cent shareholder in the name of KA Law Nominees Ltd. Five other trusts with the same shareholding as Conrad Properties also made donations.
The consequences of such political corruption has been the destruction a great many peoples’ lives.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.