Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to BenWilson,
The name on titles is public data? Then why was a leak even needed? Surely it could have been purchased from QV or scraped off a website or something like that?
Sure it is – QV sell access to the LINZ database – $5.95 for the Certificate of Title on any property – which gives you ownership details (names), references and interests (whether there is a registered mortgage against it and with whom).
https://www.qv.co.nz/property-info/property-reports
But the public cannot specify/customize their own query on the database, to my knowledge. So for example, if you wanted a query of say, all title transfers within a specific timeframe for all of the Auckland Council area – I don’t think that type of search option is available to the public directly with LINZ. And then many titles are in the ownership of trusts, giving no indication of country-of-origin of the beneficiaries of the trust. Also, ownership does not necessarily determine purchaser (I could buy anyone I want to a property and have the title registered in their name).
Hence the need for a register/recording of country-of-origin at point of sale (as opposed to point of title transfer) if you want to understand country-of-origin for all foreign direct investment of capital in our residential housing market.
At least that’s my understanding.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to ,
I’d expected the police to have been involved in the data theft.
It would be an interesting case - as I think the data eventually becomes public once the title transfers are registered by LINZ? Not sure what bearing, if any, that has on it - but would be interesting to see how the courts interpret it.
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
If his message goes ‘over their heads’ it’s because it’s irrelevant to their situation, not because of any intellectual shortcomings on their part.
Right, I get what you mean now - good point!!!
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Raybon Khan.
Oh, it’s Kan, actually.
I might be an idiot (i.e., not on your level by your standards along with all those other masses of NZers out there), but am I am on ‘your side’ in terms of the injustice of this free flow of foreign direct capital investment in our residential RE market. Just read my posts of the first page of this thread.
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
So you are part of this group - but you're smarter than most of them? Is that what you mean? Who's Khan?
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to Mike Steinberg,
Agree.
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
I’d say it went right over the heads of the significant and growing proportion of NZers whose names don’t, and probably never will, appear on a property title deed.
Seems like another example of typecasting to me? Just what category do these "significant and growing proportion of NZers " belong to? As it seems to me you have 'profiled' them into some kind of homogeneous grouping that are supposedly less intelligent than you (because the post referred to did not go over your head)?
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to simon g,
(I liked Raybon Kan’s piece, although (because?) it clearly went over lots of heads).
Chris Trotter refers to it in his recent comment;
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/07/15/perilous-whites-labour-china-and-the-liberal-intelligentsia/
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to simon g,
The Herald seems to be churning out columns by the hour. Four or five new ones today?
This is a useful one - although I disagree with the suggestion to only impose the stamp duty to Auckland properties - we really don't want to exacerbate the problem to a nationwide one;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11481287
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Paul Campbell,
Yes, and the problem for Key and co. has been that wages are not inflating to any great degree over the term of their incumbency. So they reduced the top rate, rather than move the brackets.