Chaos and the risk of endlessly declining property values – Daniel Newman
The Government has finally woken up to the chilling reality that Plan Change 120, a calamitous plan to require “housing capacity equivalency” of two million dwellings over 30 years, is a hated target.
It is not hated by new urbanists and smart growth planners who envisage an endless supply of hen-coop townhouses and tiny apartments in your street and mine. It is not hated by some of my colleagues, who adhere to the theory that swamping Auckland’s housing market will make it affordable for low-income families.
No, the truth is the dwellings target, with the Government-directed plan to enable it, is hated by voters, men and women who will decide the careers of every Auckland Member of Parliament and the Government of New Zealand.
I suspect Chris Bishop’s announcement at the Committee for Auckland (an audience that doesn’t look like most Aucklanders!) was poll-driven. Indeed, if the Freshwater poll was to be replicated on election day, in truth, stacks of Auckland seats would fall to the Opposition.
Make no mistake, wealthy inner-city neighbourhoods should not sit in splendid isolation as single-house zones where no growth will occur. But for some reason, the National Party within the coalition pulled hardest for maximum “housing capacity equivalency”. This in turn has required almost every postcode across the Auckland region to give up every planning protection, as well as be denied the opportunity to submit on the relative merits of adverse effects of subdivisions affecting them.
Soothing words from politicians who say “this is about enabling capacity in 30 years” offer no relief. Aucklanders are being told to give up their planning protections today, because Bishop appears determined to drive down the price of our homes, and, until now, the Prime Minister has appeared unwilling or incapable of overruling him.
For many Aucklanders, that our biggest capital assets are worth less now than three years ago is symbiotic of a sense that we are poorer and much less financially secure than we used to be. Further, some people appear to have concluded – fairly or unfairly – that the Prime Minister projects like the guy who would fire you.
A housing crisis is not when the price of housing goes up. A housing crisis is when the price of housing goes down, and stressed mortgage holders face the prospect of dwindling capital gain or even the prospect of negative equity.
For the life of me, I cannot understand the apparent war on Aucklanders who own their own home. In voting for Plan Change 120 to go out for consultation, I am not surprised that more than 10,000 submissions have been received because that plan – resplendent with a blue rosette – has become a lightning rod for strident opposition. Good on every Aucklander who took the opportunity to make a submission.
National got off to a great start in Auckland. A new Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, the introduction of Roads of National Significance, the repeal of the Regional Fuel Tax and reforms to disband Auckland Transport represents meaningful and constructive progress. In the transport space, I give the Government nine out of 10.
By contrast, housing and urban development has been an assault on the rights of Aucklanders. That assault only serves the interests of a narrow group of sectional players, probably property developers as well as bureaucrats in Kāinga Ora, who will no doubt bide their time for a change of government before resuming the fast-track of poor- quality public housing projects.
Important policy work such as the rethink of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development has been overlooked. The reintroduction of parking minimums has been overlooked. And now, with a general election campaign only months away, ludicrous targets are being mandated then hurriedly updated.
While I strongly support reducing the “housing capacity equivalency” from two million to 1.6 million, the minister is dreaming if he thinks Cabinet can paper over the reputational damage with a scrambled latter-day recasting of planning controls and zone maps. How do I know this? I door-knock in streets in Manurewa, Takanini and Papakura, where the number of cars parked on berms and footpaths far exceeds the capacity in the street – and residents are telling me they feel betrayed.
In truth, if the Government slides in Auckland, it won’t be driven by a repudiation in the leafy suburbs only. Outer suburban Aucklanders feel incensed by years of mistreatment, where Kāinga Ora has mismanaged tenancies in our streets and where train services get cancelled at short notice.
Migrant families come to New Zealand to start a new life, only to discover that they get targeted as the cause of declining living standards. When a Sikh parade was confronted by goons from Destiny Church holding racist signs in Manurewa, sadly, the only elected official who publicly called Brian Tamaki’s worshippers out was me. In truth, principled leadership is at risk of being supplanted by beige, poll-driven governance, and Aucklanders would be the poorer for it.
I am increasingly of the view that the general election on November 7 will change the landscape of the Auckland region, and voters will determine if that is a good thing. What I do know is Aucklanders have served up warning after warning, and leaders within both central and local government should take heed.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.