A few years ago Labour and National worked out a truce on planning laws that radically deregulated the building of townhouses. Now Christopher Luxon says they got it wrong.
Did anyone ask Luxon how financially stretched councils who are looking to cut library hours to avoid big rate hikes are going to fund the infrastructure required for more greenfield developments?
Or how much will it cost the govt to build roads to these new developments and how does that reconcile with his demand to stop govt spending?
Really good explanation Henry, many thanks. One little thing: 'Christopher Luxon told a meeting in Birkenhead last night that National “got the MDRS wrong”.' Last night? Lunchtime meeting, mate, and when I say lunchtime, I don't mean people nipping out from work during their lunchbreak.
Imagine if the policy was developed in consultation with communities in the first place, rather than dropped on them as a fait accompli?
Planners despaired when they saw the blunt instrument, and now the rubber’s meeting the road the politicians can finally see it too. NIMBYism aside, MDRS enables housing where no more houses should go - e.g. parts of Chch where there’s no more wastewater connections available. (And no ability to build more, thanks to the earthquake displacing land etc.).
TLDR: they wouldn’t have needed to walk it back if both parties thought about it more at the start.
Your article assumes the apartment high rises will be affordable. They won’t. Private developers must maximise profit. They will push up price. The liveability of our cities comes from our green residential suburbs. The place to put the apartments is in the commercial areas or semi industrial/retail but your plan changes target residential. I live in an apartment and I’m not a NIMBY.
Christopher Luxon has sold what is left of his soul. He is the hatchet man for all those who think that they have a god given right to keep themselves rich and their fellow men poor.
Great article, very well thought out. I'd just add the last ending paragraph was a bit much tho. Coming from the UK, brought up in a council house, living next door to a Labour MP with wife who also lived (and still lives) in a council house in his 70's. I know plenty of people who own and don't own their houses in the UK and it's not a hard fast rule that splits them apart - renters = left wing and house owners = right wing. I'd love to see some data to back the below theory.
'The best way to breed new right-wing voters it to give them a mortgage. Renters are more likely to vote left while homeowners are more likely to vote right. That’s why Thatcher selling so many people their state homes was so important. This is probably as much correlation as causation - renters are generally younger - but homeownership is a crucial part of the wider conservative policy prognosis for a reason.'
Excellent Henry. Many thanks for writing this. I’ll highlight in my email today. Cheers.
Did anyone ask Luxon how financially stretched councils who are looking to cut library hours to avoid big rate hikes are going to fund the infrastructure required for more greenfield developments?
Or how much will it cost the govt to build roads to these new developments and how does that reconcile with his demand to stop govt spending?
As usual, he's very thin on details.
Really good explanation Henry, many thanks. One little thing: 'Christopher Luxon told a meeting in Birkenhead last night that National “got the MDRS wrong”.' Last night? Lunchtime meeting, mate, and when I say lunchtime, I don't mean people nipping out from work during their lunchbreak.
> The best way to breed new right-wing voters it to give them a mortgage.
*chefs kiss*
Imagine if the policy was developed in consultation with communities in the first place, rather than dropped on them as a fait accompli?
Planners despaired when they saw the blunt instrument, and now the rubber’s meeting the road the politicians can finally see it too. NIMBYism aside, MDRS enables housing where no more houses should go - e.g. parts of Chch where there’s no more wastewater connections available. (And no ability to build more, thanks to the earthquake displacing land etc.).
TLDR: they wouldn’t have needed to walk it back if both parties thought about it more at the start.
Luxon aligning with the NZInitiative/Business Roundtable advocacy again.
Luxon not concerned about climate impacts again.
Your article assumes the apartment high rises will be affordable. They won’t. Private developers must maximise profit. They will push up price. The liveability of our cities comes from our green residential suburbs. The place to put the apartments is in the commercial areas or semi industrial/retail but your plan changes target residential. I live in an apartment and I’m not a NIMBY.
Christopher Luxon has sold what is left of his soul. He is the hatchet man for all those who think that they have a god given right to keep themselves rich and their fellow men poor.
Great article, very well thought out. I'd just add the last ending paragraph was a bit much tho. Coming from the UK, brought up in a council house, living next door to a Labour MP with wife who also lived (and still lives) in a council house in his 70's. I know plenty of people who own and don't own their houses in the UK and it's not a hard fast rule that splits them apart - renters = left wing and house owners = right wing. I'd love to see some data to back the below theory.
'The best way to breed new right-wing voters it to give them a mortgage. Renters are more likely to vote left while homeowners are more likely to vote right. That’s why Thatcher selling so many people their state homes was so important. This is probably as much correlation as causation - renters are generally younger - but homeownership is a crucial part of the wider conservative policy prognosis for a reason.'
Yes again, a very insightful article Henry. The question I have is what this ploy by Luxon is doing to his relationship with his deputy?
You have always been able to write authoritatively and clearly on many subjects, this is another superb example.