And What Was Meant to Happen?

So the Housing Accord has been released and people have had time to go have a think about it over the weekend – although not much to think about. I have already made my reaction in regards to the Special Housing Areas was clear if not rather swift. As for everything else about the Housing Accord I now give you Brian Rudman (who I agree with on this point):

Housing plan ‘a weak compromise’

By Brian Rudman

5:30 AM Monday May 13, 2013

Housing Minister Nick Smith‘s boast that his new housing accord with the Auckland Council “is good news for Auckland families wanting access to more affordable houses to buy and rent,” is at best, wishful thinking.

If he really believes what he says, Dr Smith is up there with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who flew back from a meeting with Hitler in 1938 waving a pact declaring he’d achieved “peace for our time”. A year later, the German dictator dismissed that “scrap of paper” and World War II broke out.

As far as affordable housing is concerned, the accord which Dr Smith claims will “urgently increase the supply and affordability of housing in Auckland”, is similarly just a scrap of paper. Council sources reveal Mayor Len Brown and his deputy Penny Hulse pushed hard for quotas for affordable housing to be included in the accord, but the Government refused.

The result is a weak compromise, with the politicians playing up affordability, but the document failing to back up the words.

Like Dr Smith, Mr Brown highlighted the “important role” the accord will have “in tackling issues of housing affordability and supply in Auckland”. He said: “We expect developers to provide decent options for affordable housing and for first-time buyers”. “Expect” is the key word. Instead of no-nonsense “require”, it’s that pleadingly, headmasterly “expect”.

The accord itself starts back-tracking early on.

“The parties … acknowledge that improving the affordability of housing is a complex issue and requires consideration of wider issues, not all of which will be able to be addressed under this accord,” it says.

Issues in the Government’s hands include the cost of building materials, shortage of skilled labour and the like.

The accord is the end result of six weeks of discussions after the recently appointed housing minister’s headline-grabbing threats to use legislation to open up greenfields sites for new housing development if the Auckland Council didn’t jump to his demands.

The Government’s simplistic view is that opening up more rural land and leaving it to the market will solve the shortage of housing. Borrowing from examples such as Vancouver, the Auckland Council’s bottom line was that provision must be made for affordable housing if it were to go along with the Government’s fast-tracking proposals.

What we have is a weak compromise.

“All qualifying developments are … required to give consideration to the provision of affordable housing and/or first home-buyer purchase. Conditions of consent may include requirements for a proportion of the development to include affordable housing and/or provision for first-home buyer purchase.” Phrases like “give consideration to” and “may include” give developers a motorway-sized escape hatch.

The agreed targets for new houses are 9000 for year one, 13,000 in year two and 17,000 in year three. Both parties have agreed “in good faith to achieve the agreed targets”.

So what happens if developers drag their feet and refuse to start building houses unless the council drops whatever affordable housing requirements it puts up?

With a government insisting on action, which will win out: 39,000 new houses in three years no matter how expensive, or 39,000 that includes say, 20 per cent, of “affordable” stock?

There’s no talk of the Government taking a lead in helping solve Auckland’s affordable housing crisis. Prime Minister John Key joined Dr Smith and Mayor Brown for the launch of the accord at Housing New Zealand‘s imaginative public-private partnership at Hobsonville Pt. It was the perfect chance to point to the success of the surrounding Government-led housing development and declared an intention to speed that up, and then duplicate the process elsewhere – consolidate land titles on the fringes or in brownfields sites within the urban limits, design new communities, then bring in private contractors to build and sell.

Perhaps Housing New Zealand could be included in the mix, to provide social housing. But from news reports at the weekend, Dr Smith’s aim is to reduce the state’s involvement in social housing, not increase it.

The accord underlines this, insisting the 39,000 new homes “will need to be achieved mainly by private housing developers”.

While announcing plans for fast-track “special housing areas” it rules out either the Government or Council compulsorily buying up land to create such building sites. It insists that “investment in land development and housing cannot be compelled”.

I’m with Hitler on this one. It’s just “a scrap of paper”.

As I said you can see my swift response to the Special Housing Areas in my “HOUSING ACCORD RELEASED“ post and in the following Facebook thread which I shall post in a moment.

For the rest of what Rudman was saying and again as the Facebook thread will show, I shall rename the Housing Accord to the ‘Much-Ado-About-Nothing’ for which it is.

Facebook explains (and apologies it is a long spiel):

• Congratulations to my colleague Dick Quax in leading he charge to open up land for affordable housing.

  

  Deal brings land opening closer – Business – NZ Herald News

  http://www.nzherald.co.nz

  Auckland Council and the Government have struck a deal to fast-track plans to free up land for residential department.

  
  

  • Angela McLeod We don’t need more land for housing, we need to re-think how we live and how we develop our cities. We need to take a leaf out of Europe’s book, and build cities for people. Build up, not out. We need our land for providing local food.

     
  • Stephen Maire A bit of both yes. Balance in all things.

     
  • Stephen Maire Let NZ set a trend, not copy others.

     
  • David Thornton This meets the principle behind my CLUE for Auckland’s future – expand out NOW, and meanwhile review the drfat Unitary Plan on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis! My plan was sent to Ministers involved,

     
    • Ben Ross Hope it doesn’t come back to bite you on the backside David if the wrong section of land is opened up in the South. I would guarantee quite a few annoyed residents if Karaka West got opened up from this failure of the policy
  • Stephen Maire Have you sent to print media David?

     
  • David Thornton Yes indeed…but they are always slow to pick up, or can’t be bothered to do some work on. May send out comment when I get details of PM/Smith/Adams/Brown agreement.

     
    • Stephen Maire North Shore Times at least. And try Campbell live.
  • Christine Rose Sprawling outwards might suit some, but for those communities on the outskirts of Auckland facing high density development in the absence of infrastructure and jobs, we are not grateful at all. No thanks.

    Luke Christensen more housing yes, affordable I’m not so sure. Development costs very high on the fringe. Major earthworks required, and council has to pay for extensions to stormwater, sewage and water pipes to serve this. Likely to be $500,000 minimum, plus long expensive commute if you work in the old Auckland City boundaries, where most of the jobs are.
  • David Thornton I don’t see high-rise in RUB developments and job opportunities will grow as residential expansion grows.

     
  • Christine Rose The proposals for the west are high density if not high-rise. Think Oteha Valley Road from Westgate to Waimauku. Sorry David I don’t have the same faith in the ‘market will deliver jobs’ myth as you do.
    • Christine Rose And impacts on the sensitive and poorly flushing Upper Waitemata Harbour from sediments and contaminants
  • David Thornton The market is the only creator of jobs apart from the government – including councils. Aren’t the west areas you mention inside the MUL? I will check.

     
    • Christine Rose That’s why there are so few quality jobs. No the areas I mention are not inside the MUL. It currently runs along Westgate though Waitakere successfully pushed it out for warehousing and yet more retail along a bizarre line. But Whenuapai, Riverhead, Kumeu-Huapai are currently not within the MUL. Kumeu has been identified as a discrete growth area in the past but not this huge swathe that is proposed unbroken.
  • Dick Quax Fact just 13 per cent of jobs are in the CBD 87 per cent of the jobs are outside the CBD. This trend away from the CBD has been a feature of most new world cities over the past 40 – 50 years and unlikely to change

     
    • Christine Rose Sure but not many people who live in the West actually work in the west. Look at the work-destination analysis

       
    • Dick Quax The legacy WCC didn’t want jobs in their area expect those acceptable to the politicians – movie studios, marine parks – while on the other hand the legacy MCC has a number of employment centres such as Highbrook, E Tamaki, Wiri, Manurewa and the Airport. In fact E Tamaki business has grown over 60 per cent since 2000. Jobs created by the private sector.

       
    • Luke Christensen not quite correct. That is from the old stats NZ definition of CBD, doesnt inlclude the viaduct even. It goes to 25% once you include Newmarket, Ponsonby, Parnell and Eden Terrace. The next largest areas is the Greenlane – Penrose – Onehunga area. Still in the old Auckland City, and a long way from Pukekohe.

       
    • Dick Quax So based on your stats 75 per cent work outside of your self defined CBD

       
    • Luke Christensen this map gives good insight http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Regional-Employment.jpg CBD has more jobs than North Shore and West Auckland combined.
  • Millie Liang From my experience Dick I totally agree with you Dick. Look what happened once zoning was changed in Manukau Rd or a lessor extent Archers Rd on the Shore

     
  • Millie Liang What people are finding is that just because you may have 1,000 -1,500 people past your shop every hr doesn’t relate to increase in sales for the $/m2, and more and more people are looking at Newmarket, Takapuna, Manukau etc. You just have to think why are more and more shops getting chopped up smaller and smaller in the cbd and their going to be more

     
  • Derekandjocelyn Holland this is madness

     
  • Samantha Munnings Just craziness too many poorly planned policies as mentioned by Christine Rose, no infrastructure for travel, increased debt by the bank system and little relief from the council and their expensive planning and consent processes. As we have seen with the leaky home debacle more homes doesn’t help the economy or the cities we live in.

     
  • Stephen Maire And still they are building leaky homes today???

     
  • Dick Quax But surely homes do help people and the problem for Auckland is that there is a shortage of houses. About 30,000 short. Every year there needs to be 13,000 house built and every year just 3000 – 4000 are built. If this continues in another 5 years there will be a shortage of 80,000 houses. That will only increase our social p[roblems

     
    • Stephen Maire Your figures incorrect Dick.

       
    • Stephen Maire we need 13,333 houses a year once the UP is in operation..

       
    • Stephen Maire 400,000 houses over 30 years if we grow by 1,000,000 .

       
    • Stephen Maire Is that actually achievable?

       
    • Dick Quax Auckland has a housing shortage of 30,000 houses. To keep pace with population growth and the natural replacement of the housing stock there is a requirement of 13,000 houses a year. There are just 3000 – 4000 houses being built per year. Hope this helps

       
    • Shirley Dobbyn Where are all the people coming from who will be needing the housing – love to know?

       
    • Dick Quax There is a present shortage of 30,000 dwellings.
  • Luke Christensen how will freeing up more land help this. There is lots of land within the MUL, but it is not being built on. Need a much wider think about why. The government should be doing lots more upskilling of people, as this is a major factor. Much more important than more land.

     
  • Dick Quax Currently there are 1250 construction ready sections within the MUL. Given the fact that 13000 houses pa are required. Len Brown was happy to promote 15,000 sections available for construction “right now” until he was proven wrong – again!

     
    • Luke Christensen any govt announcement won’t fix this at all. It requires council to invest upfront in servicing. Nothing to do with MUL/RUB.
  • Millie Liang Affordability is the problem… Most normal working class Kiwi families simply can’t afford what is considered a normal home. Buidling material, land, consent costs need to be seriously looked at. Needs to be a system devised that isn’t so costly to ha…See More

    

    Affordable home aimed to ease crisis – Business – NZ Herald News

    www.nzherald.co.nz

    A $224,000 prototype house, aimed at Aucklanders who want an affordable place, has been built at Papakura.

     
  • Millie Liang If it was up to me I’d seriously look at setting up the Ministry of Works again for land developement. Developers and whoever needs to make a handsome profit otherwise the gamble is just to big and pushes up the section prices for a start. House Plan approvals are centralised cutting out all the consultants/engineers/councils doing the same old same old and clipping the ticket each time. Go back to how it used to be where you need 1 consent and not resource & building consent where on 3 developments I was involved in at the time the council fees doubled over night because we were running late to get them into council before the change over…. sure rates might only begoing up 2-3% in the mayors pr spin but they hiking everything else up via the back door.

     
  • Stephen Maire As still all these elected officials refuse to back the call for Brown to release the list of Quakeprone and at risk buildings in Auckland Millie. How many ratepayer lives are they willing to lose???

     
  • Millie Liang arrrh yes… wait till it all comes out… this going to rock Auckland (even without a shake) just as to how much cost there going to be…. Wellington Council been running seminars etc etc and they up front… Already on QV/Prop Guru council has got demo orders on some… and others are at only 6-8%… The sharks are already out and about, terrorizing owners and trying to talk them into selling up before the either real or perceived stampede starts.. If you looking at buying commercial without an IEP seismic report you are an idiot… sorry about the language but you are… And id you are a tenant you better make sure your lawyer makes sure you can get out of your lease if part of your street is closed of because some building close by is suspect and you can’t enter the area but nothing wrong with your rented premises.

     
  • Samantha Munnings Property Developers are going to make a killing

     
    • Christine Rose And you can bet they’ll resist providing infrastructure – privatise the profits and socialise the costs as usual

       
    • Shirley Dobbyn rubbing their hands together I’d say – smiling faces at the prospect. Just think, the MP from Nelson is telling Ak what to do wouldn’t it be better discussing the issues with an AK area MP who understands first hand our challenges?

       
    • Stephen Maire Did you see Nick Smith on The Nation this am?? The worst liar in Govt. The UP is a blind. It means nothing.

       
    • Shirley Dobbyn No but I will follow with interest
  • George Wood Here is the full document which really indicates that green fields will be the first “cab off the rank” in the development for Auckland’s much needed affordable housing.

    
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/140671591/Auckland-Housing-Accord

    

    Auckland Housing Accord

    www.scribd.com

    Agreement proposed between the Government and Auckland Council to expedite the development of housing in the Auckland Council area.

     
  • Derekandjocelyn Holland why does bron back them it is the peoples choice

     
  • Derekandjocelyn Holland why is browne backing this

     
  • Derekandjocelyn Holland the people of newzealand should be putting this lot out as we have the say

     
  • Ben Ross George care to point out which areas within the RUB are going to open to Greenfield development before the Unitary Plan and RUB are in operation?

    As for you and Dick – I think this might apply http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCwLirQS2-o
    That is both of you getting slapped by the bigger trout from Auckland backlashing against you both. Then again I did call you out here Dick https://voakl.net/2013/05/10/housing-accord-released/ – care to explain to the Karaka and Weymouth residents what happens of Karaka West is opened up triggering the Weymouth-Karaka Bridge?

    

    Monty Python- Fish Slapping Dance!

    www.youtube.com

    Monty Python’s Michael Palin and John Cleese in the hilarous fish slapping dance!

     
  • Ben Ross Quite amusing this is. Open up more land when the Council has no money for infrastructure, NZTA is dragging the chain with Southern Motorway upgrades, no job centres marked out nor can be marked out with this housing accord, triggering off bridges no one wants on the South, house prices for a 3-4 bedroom house in these Special Housing Areas will still be over $450,000, roughshodding over the Rural Urban Boundary process which sits all in National Blue Seats (ooops), and no guarantee that the developers will develop – more likely to land-bank until the UP comes into effect.
    
    So tell me Dick and George – how was this Accord meant to bring in affordable housing? 
    
    Answer – it does not and roughshodds the democratic processes underway with the UP and RUB

     
  • George Wood Ben Ross, go over to Pukekohe and look at the Belmont subdivision project. There are about 750 sections identified (seven individual landowners) there with a cost of around $220k each on average. You really have to look around and you will find pockets of land that have potential for early commencement. Hobsonville Point where the Auckland Council is developing Yard 37 for the marine sector would take 600 residential sections in the 20 hectare site. You really need to look around and we would find a number of available sites.

     
  • Ben Ross Then my earlier comment on Friday stating “Much-Ado-About-Nothing” then applies as that land was already set in motion prior to the Super City and UP processes (basically the accord being a waste of pixels on a screen). Meaning the work was underway under the old MUL framework. So not truly Greenfield and not within the RUB area – but projects already on the road. Sounds like something the Mayor might go and pull.

    
    $220k average in Pukekohe and a 75minute commute into the CBD – don’t quite think affordable sits in mind there. Average new house and land in Pukekohe goes for over $450k any how – so still out of range
    
    So are we quite finished short circuiting the RUB consultation underway and Southern Auckland can turn its attention back to it – rather than being spooked by Central Government follies?

     
  • George Wood You are being a little negative here Ben. Getting things moving is a good start and the old principle of a little bit often will get things on the move. Belmont subdivision at Pukekohe needs to be tweaked over storm water and this Accord process will expedite things. Pukekohe has good infrastructure like schools and other community facilities. Fresh water also from the Tuakau treatment plant.

     
    • Ben Ross Forgive my negative sentiment – something that Southern Auckland might also share at this moment as well with the Accord (Much-Ado-About-Nothing Accord). Pukekohe has good community links within itself but is poorly connected to the main city until State Highways 1 and 22 are upgraded, and electrification heads down to Pukekohe.

      
      As I said – Belmont was already happening from the legacy Councils – so the Accord is not doing much there for it. If stormwater was the issue then that will be a suggestion on Auckland Council being slow in itself
      
      Still both you and Dick have not answered the question with regards to what happens if the wrong Greenfield area gets opened up in the South. And why are you short circuiting the RUB process as well. I would highly recommend coming down to Karaka tonight and listen to the Karaka Collective give their presentation on Karaka West and THAT Bridge which has upset over 10,000 people on both sides of the inlet. This is what the Accord has now the very high potential to do – allow Karaka West to be opened up bypassing the RUB UP processes.
      
      Speaking of which; Christine you coming down to Karaka tonight?

       
    • Christine Fletcher Yes I will be at the Karaka Hall meeting this evening.

       
    • Ben Ross Will see you there then

       
    • David Thornton I believe the Accord is a better way forward ahead of current wholesale rezoning within MUL – and which would lead to piecemeal uncordinated brownfield development and a splattering of high/medium rise across the city/region. We will have to expand at some stage, up to 40% of growth according to the UP – lets do it first instead of last, and get a much-need housing prgramme under way. And RUB development processes must be seen to be soundly based and processed.

       
    • Ben Ross “And RUB development processes must be seen to be soundly based and processed.” And there is your Oxymoron right there David which will come back and hurt

      
      The Accord and the SHA’s short circuit the RUB process while it is still in its very infant stage of development and consultations with the communities involved.
      
      The UP and RUB which allows up to 40% Greenfield will happen once the RUB is finalised and the UP is operative – to which both are not. The SHA’s again short circuit that.
      
      So the question I asked George and Dick is if the SHA happens and Karaka West is picked – care to explain to Karaka and Weymouth about the Karaka-Weymouth Bridge that will be triggered as a result. A result that happened without the consultation process complete, a result that happened maybe 30 years to early
      
      It is quite simple, the Accord is a waste and should be utterly ignored. Allow those within the RUB decide what is best for them when deciding the RUB and then we take the Greenfield development from there.
      
      Simple case of can not have it both ways…
  • Stephen Maire It would be nice to see Councillor’s answering such timely questions with regard to these ‘sudden’ developments openly and frankly. Something the Mayor could take a lesson from. Transparency in all things.

     David, George and Dick I bring your attention to here in the Much-Ado-About-Nothing Accord: “Qualifying Developments which must be predominately residential”
    Okay so where are the employment centres existing and new going to be either expanded or built to employ the new residents?
    
    Answer: no where until after the UP is operative (some 3 years later?) and we already are short on industrial land as it is…
  • David Thornton I would think Albany in the north and Manukau in the south would be centres to develop employment opportunities.

     
    • Ben Ross They can not until the Unitary Plan is in operation to allow the further densification and development of their commercial and industrial land. So everything I have mentioned before stands.

      
      So short circuiting the UP and RUB for one small aspect of it while forgetting the rest? Not a smart move

       
    • Ben Ross Hence the Unitary Plan must be brought into operation before any Greenfield development within the RUBs is to occur

       
    • Stephen Maire Dr. Smith really has no idea, or there is a private political agenda at work here…….

      Like · 17 minutes ago

The heavy questioning will continue until all the straight answers are given about the Much-Ado-About-Nothing Accord and those Special Housing Areas that are satisfactory to the city – something we are not getting at the moment if the Facebook comments are anything to go by. I wonder if that is because there is no satisfactory answer to a process that is:

• Anti-Democratic
• Anti-Auckland
• Rough-shodding the Unitary Plan Process
• Short circuiting the Rural Urban Boundary process still under consideration and consultation (and being treated separate to the full Unitary Plan)
• Does not answer about provision of employment centres that can not be expanded nor built until the Unitary Plan is in operation anyhow (so three years?)
• Relate back to infrastructure provisions that Council can not provide for (more broke than the girls from 2 Broke Girls) not has a decent plan on (the Auckland Transport Integrated Transport Plan failure)
• And how does this make things affordable when there are four major prongs to housing affordability:
  • Land
  • Construction Costs
  • Council Fees and Contributions
  • Financing and wages

Ah dear – some people should honestly not meddle in things beyond their comprehension (Dr Nick Smith and might as well be the entire Government at this rate). As for the Councillors backing the Much-Ado-About-Nothing-Accord I invite you to Karaka tonight and listen in on what could very well happen in a Special Housing Area and how that has upset residents from all sides of the divide…

In conclusion? More Monty Python Fish Slapping still to come

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND