Nothing for our Major City
I can understand this article entirely (Average family: ‘You get quite despondent even reading Budgets’) given Finance Minister did not exactly announce anything new or of worth to alleviate the current pressures Auckland faces. But I am going to take this one step further and look at what a Policy for Auckland could be to help relieve pressures, not break the bank, and actually give a true tax cut.
I am going run some numbers through this post followed by stitching it up at the end.
The numbers with Auckland
Growth and Housing Projections under the Auckland and Unitary Plans
- 780 new residents a week X 52 weeks = ~40,560 new residents a year to Auckland
- Unitary Plan has capacity for 422,000 dwellings over 30 years or 14,066 dwelling to be built a year if on a linear path
Housing Needs to nominal population growth mentioned above
- 40,560 new residents a year
- Working on assumption of average three people to a dwelling
- 40,560 / 3 = 13,520 homes a year (so just under Unitary Plan annual theoretical capacity)
- The above does not factor in the 40,000 dwelling deficit already in place in Auckland. So to get them up first requires a 2.85 year dwelling build at the 14,066/year build I have set using the Unitary Plan numbers
Southern Auckland Future Urban Zone and Transform Manukau Yields
- Transform Manukau has forecast an extra 20,000 new residents meaning 6,667 new dwellings required
- Southern Future Urban Zone has capacity for ~55,000 new residents and 35,000 new jobs (this does not include expansion of the Wiri or Airport industrial complexes)
- 55,000 new residents = 18,333 new homes
- Not including other developments in Brownfield areas in Southern Auckland that means 75,000 new residents and 25,000 new homes at minimum
- 40,000 new homes needed to get on top of current deficit
- 25,000 new homes for new residents above and beyond the deficit
- 65,000 new homes taking around five years if building to full Unitary Plan capacity yields
Your policy is around the 65,000 new homes over five years (with 25,000 new builds in Southern Auckland), laying down the foundation for industry and commerce to build and provide subsequently 35,000 jobs and then stitching it up with a transport system. The numbers I have given are the bare minimum in keeping Auckland afloat in terms of providing housing, land for employment growth and a transport system linking the two up. Budget 2017 did nothing to execute such a policy above, the policy being Growing Auckland.
As for transport to stitch up Southern Auckland to the rest of Auckland? Pukekohe Electrification and an interim busway from Manukau to the Airport certainly would not go amiss.
Cost to execute the policy? $4.25b conservative, figure will be higher if the Government increases the percentage of it building the 65,000 new homes over the private sector.
The cost to ignore the policy? The Treasury Benches post September 23.