Every Party but ACT is behaving like overwrought socialists on the sale of land

They are all at it, Mr Key, Mr Peters, Mr Craig and Mr Cunliffe. National New Zealand First the Conservatives and the Labour Party telling New Zealand Farmers who they can sell, their land to.

This xenophobic populism simply to get votes risks permanent damage to the property rights of New Zealanders.

ACT values the rights citizens have in their most important asset, their property. Government bossing property owners as to whom they can sell land is trampling on the rights of property owners.

Who anyone sells his or her land to should be of no more concern to the Government than the sale of a beach house.

“The Overseas Investment Office approval process should only apply to significant assets.

ACT calls for the sale of privately owned farmland to be removed from the criteria considered by the Overseas Investment Office process.

Only the ACT Party stands in the farmers and property owner’s corner saying property rights count.

 

Don Nicholson Ph 027 226 6331

Allowing Kiwis to sell their homes to foreigners benefits Kiwis

Winston Peters has apparently convinced David Cunliffe that when foreigners buy New Zealand property they make New Zealanders worse off. Mr Cunliffe has announced his intention to adopt Winston Peters’ policy of banning foreigners from buying homes. Even John Key is now saying he will look into the matter.

There is no need to. Mr Peters and Mr Cunliffe are wrong: allowing New Zealanders to sell their homes to foreigners benefits New Zealanders.

To see why, start with the benefit to New Zealanders that occurs when one Kiwi buys a house from another Kiwi. To make the matter simple, suppose Kiwi John buys a house from Kiwi Jane for $500,000.

John must value the house more than the $500,000 he paid for it, otherwise he would have been unwilling to swap this amount for the house. Suppose the maximum he would have paid is $510,000. Then he benefits $10,000 from the purchase, this being the difference between the $500,000 he lost and the value (to him) of the house he gained.

Similarly, Jane must have valued her house at less than $500,000, otherwise she would not have been willing to swap it for this amount. Suppose she would have sold it for no less than $490,000. Then she benefits $10,000 from the sale, this being the difference between the $500,000 she gained and the value (to her) of the house she sold.

So the total benefit of the transaction to Kiwis is $20,000, split evenly between the buyer and the seller.

Now suppose instead that a Foreigner Fred had out-bid Kiwi John. To do this, he must have paid at least $510,001 since, by hypothesis, John was willing to spend up to $510,000. What is the benefit to New Zealanders in this case?

Well, John is where he started, still with his $500,000 and no house. He gets 0 benefit from the sale of Jane’s house to Fred. But Jane’s benefit has risen from $10,000 to $20,001. In other words, the total benefit to New Zealanders has increased by at least $1. (In reality, the net gain will usually be in the thousands.)

Some will be tempted to say that when Foreigner Fred buys the house Kiwi John is $10,000 worse off because he has lost the $10,000 benefit he would have got if Fred had not bid. Fine. But then you must say that, in the initial case, where Fred does not bid, Jane is $10,001 worse off because she has lost the extra $10,001 she would have got if Fred had bid. So the net result ends up the same, with New Zealanders being better off when Fred bids.

And let’s not forget the benefit to Fred, who must have valued the house at something more than $510,001 to have paid this for it. Fred is not a New Zealander, of course, but he is still a human being and his welfare should still be a matter of concern to civilized people.

As this example should make clear, Mr Peters’ policy simply creates a transfer of wealth from Kiwi house sellers and foreigners to Kiwi house buyers, and one that makes New Zealanders worse off as a group. The cost of this transfer is not worth incurring, if only because, over the long run, house sellers and house buyers are the same people.

Indeed, the policy is so economically ludicrous that I suspect its real motivations lie elsewhere. To mangle Samuel Johnson’s famous saying, xenophobia is the last refuge of the political scoundrel.

Twyford jumps the shark

This morning at a conference hosted by Prefab New Zealand, Phil Twyford said that Labour is considering using the Public Works Act to expropriate private property to build homes.
 
“This is an extraordinary announcement," said ACT Epsom candidate David Seymour.

“It shows how little regard Labour have for private property and how unsettling a Labour-led government could be for the economic recovery. They clearly don’t have any no-go zones.
 
“Housing affordability has been damaged by artificial restrictions on land supply at the city fringe. In fact, Auckland’s Rural Urban Boundary has made land eight times more expensive. An obvious solution would be to relax such restrictions and open up the supply of land. 
 
“Instead Labour are now proposing another layer of government intervention to solve the problems created by the last one.
 
“If there was any remaining doubt that Labour would lead the most radical left-wing government in a generation, Twyford has removed it."

Auckland's Unitary Plan won't make a jot of difference to housing affordability

It doesn't matter whether the Unitary Plan allows for relatively intensified development inside the Rural Urban Boundary, or greenfield developments outside of it, aka subdivisions. 

That is because the problem Auckland has at its core is anti-development legislation - the Resource Management ACT (RMA).

It isn't right when developments in Long Bay, for example, take 18 years to get off the ground and can be held up by people living in the Coromandel.

The RMA came into effect in 1991. 

At that time the ratio of median house price to median income was around 3 to 1. 

That means before the RMA, a median house price was $300,000 and the median household income was $100,000.  That's easily affordable. 

Today it is almost 6 to 1. 

Even if median incomes moved to $150,000 (which they haven't), median house prices have increased to $750,000.  That's quite unaffordable.

It takes too long to build a house in Auckland, and it costs too much.

The RMA has created the situation in Auckland where perfectly responsible developments are opposed and delayed to the extent that, if they ever get off the ground, the extra costs have pushed up the price of the final product.  It has made housing unaffordable, and created a crisis.

It is therefore irrelevant what the Unitary Plan says about where properties can be built, and what land can be developed. 

Unless the RMA is dramatically reformed to create a presumption of development and a restriction on the opposition to developments, the Unitary Plan will mean nothing. 

And that is because people in Coromandel will still be permitted to oppose, and thereby delay, developments in Auckland.

Author of this blog post, Nick Kearney, is the Local Board Member for the Kaipatiki Ward. 

The inner Waitemata Harbour suburbs of Beach Haven, Birkenhead, Chatswood, Birkdale, Northcote Peninsula, Glenfield, Hillcrest and Marlborough make up the Kaipātiki local board area. It is bounded by the Northern Motorway to the east.