Some Homework for Auckland Citizens
As we await the release of the Draft Unitary Plan on March 15 I would like to bring to your attention two items being sort for discussion in the Unitary Plan by Council. They are called “Sharing Land Value Uplift from Rezoning” and “Inclusionary Zoning;” of which both come under “Additional Tools for Enabling Affordable Neighbourhoods” under the Draft Unitary Plan.
Now these two options can be found from Page 67 in the embedded document below (so you might need to scroll if Scribd does not automatically go to that page):
For you homework I would like you to read these two “Additional Tools for Enabling Affordable Neighbourhoods” then post for your feedback here at BR:AKL on them.
Wikipedia also has a nice piece on Inclusionary Zoning which you can see by clicking the respective hyperlinks in red. I noticed Inclusionary Zoning is a tool from the USA while Sharing Land Value Uplift is from the UK.
However, I am currently reading it and from what I interpret so far both tools are additional taxes to middle and upper class citizens in a wealth distributing exercise for the lower and working classes here in Auckland. In effect Auckland Council is going to be coercing either directly or indirectly (through developers having to comply and as a result pass extra costs on) citizens and developers through regulations and plans to at least set aside for “affordable housing” (which is often becomes social housing) rather than do the actual opposite and liberalise our regulations and plans allowing at least developers to act more freely in providing a range of housing without costing the citizenry in Auckland.
So either you get a tax slugged on top of your rates and maybe targeted rates for whatever the Council decides to do with that money, or coerced into providing social housing at the cost of a large bulk of Auckland citizenry who end up carrying the can for this provision (rather than the State undertaking the social housing exercises via Housing NZ).
Time to delved deeper into these two new coercive and taxation regimes lurking in the Unitary Plan draft.
Remembering I stand for a more liberalised planning and provision approach to building neighbourhoods in Auckland.
Talking Southern Auckland 
Hi Ben
It is interesting in itself why some people in public office see the solution to any problem as more Government intervention, not less. In this case, they see themselves as the distributaries’ of wealth from the wealthier to those less well off, as this in itself will solve the problem. By increasing the price for some, they will reduce the price for others; will them being a paid guiding hand in between. Yet they fail to address the real root cause which for want of a better word is ‘waste’. Remove waste costs, which are costs that add no value, like those caused by restrictive and inclusionary zoning and shared land value uplift, most development levy costs etc. and prices would naturally be cheaper, and by default you would not need the type of intervention they are proposing because the need would not be as great. And they fail to see that their very intervention is a further waste, costs and housing process will go up, not down. Their very solution further exasperates the problem, as there is always a line that before the price increase (as it is a non-value cost), that will inevitably follow their solution, there would have been a group of purchasers that now cannot afford to purchase, but will now qualify for the council (developer/end purchaser funded subsidy). Follow this warped logic, the more they charge, the less will be able to afford to buy, but more will qualify for the subsidy, although of course without enough sales, there is no funding for the subsidies. And of course once we all qualify for a subsidy, then we will all be able to own a house. Of course this type of logic will only end in housing unaffordability disaster (as it is heading towards), but the real skill with any parasite is to know how much it can suck from its host without killing it. The other side effect of this type of solution is that it grows council bureaucracy and revenue, which for those involved is securing employment, growing the size of their business, further increasing their salary expectations and self-importance. There is a degree of self interest in this also. These two items within the draft plan highlight a continuation of an ideology that has been responsible for causing the problem that are now attempting to solve. Doing more of the same, will only cause more of the same.
I’ll reply to your comment in such with a new post I am writing on an alternative that Texas has which I have alerted Council to before but obviously they have not considered