sharetrader
  1. #10391
    ****
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    4,481

    Default

    Self correct! You sound like Alan Greenspan in regards market deregulation.
    Unfortunately government has a large role to play, however National won't play its part besides building motorways.
    Sewerage is a major issue in the regions, as is regional roads and this forward thinking government is looking to rip up rail!
    They have created this issue with record immigration and yet have not planned for the consequences which were obvious.

    Without record immigration we would likely have negative growth because they don't have a sustainable economic plan.
    With the revolution in things like electric cars looming the government should be supporting solar and other alternative energy.
    But no, of course not that would be again too obvious and not line the corporate pockets.

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    It won't be the govt. or any 5 point plan that will solve this. NZ is in a transition period which will self correct. There is nothing like people to attract people - hence our largest cities grow at a higher rate; a worldwide trend. However it is simply not possible for half the country to live in a few square kilometres of Auckland. In a short time employers will struggle to attract staff in these locations, and will simply be unable to pay them sufficiently high wages to allow them to house themselves.
    Elsewhere land is quite plentiful and comparatively cheap. Businesses, particularly those with large staff number requirements will head for the regions, and once jobs are available there, would-be employees will follow. Silicon valley style.
    To a large extent this has happened in other countries, and will here - quite soon, There is available labour, comparatively cheap housing, shipping ports and industrial development land. There are many parts of NZ ripe for commercial development.
    Auckland will never be cheap and already can hardly be considered affordable for those on average incomes. Common sense and supply and demand factors will ensure this will happen
    Hopefully you find my posts helpful, but in no way should they be construed as advice. Make your own decision.

  2. #10392
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neopoleII View Post
    "
    so if an old woman "like my mother who is 72" decides to sell her rental in manurewa because of the hassle..... this rule would mean that only an investor could buy the house and not a first home buyer?
    by the way.... her rental is still empty after 10 weeks now after the full interior rebuild from P contamination.
    its empty because rules have been placed on the rental agency as to who can rent the house.
    simple rules as mentioned before in my other post, but lots of potential renters fail.
    Term deposits investments have always been less hassle than rental housing.
    Over 50% of house purchasers in Auckland are now investors, probably more in South Auckland.
    Perhaps a compromise would be for the first year of a tenancy to be an assured tenancy, thereafter the existing situation could apply.

  3. #10393
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    5,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daytr View Post
    Self correct! You sound like Alan Greenspan in regards market deregulation.
    Unfortunately government has a large role to play, however National won't play its part besides building motorways.
    Sewerage is a major issue in the regions, as is regional roads and this forward thinking government is looking to rip up rail!
    They have created this issue with record immigration and yet have not planned for the consequences which were obvious.

    Without record immigration we would likely have negative growth because they don't have a sustainable economic plan.
    With the revolution in things like electric cars looming the government should be supporting solar and other alternative energy.
    But no, of course not that would be again too obvious and not line the corporate pockets.
    Bill on The Standard, has a post about his main topic, Global Warming. http://thestandard.org.nz/the-mother-budget/
    No effort put into this in the budget of course.

    Putting this into context, all existing infrastructure should be simply preserved if possible, if it captures carbon and is still useful. We shouldn't build too much more stuff that will just need more carbon to be extracted somewhere in the world. Yet we have National building more tarsealed highways, accelerating infill housing and the destruction of older state houses, and new car sales are going through the roof from the extra spending power in revalued homes. Oil is still cheaper than it was, not helpful in the medium term.

  4. #10394
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    For a start the government needs to legislate to allow sitting tenants to keep their tenancy when the house is sold - the sale of the house should not be a valid reason to terminate the tenancy. Forced tenancy termination when a property is sold is an extra cost for an otherwise good tenant.
    You must be joking. We had a law like that protecting sitting tenants. It was a complete disaster. They were there for life if they wanted. I think it came in after WW2. I knew a bloke who had put tenants in his house while he took on contract work in another town. He got caught when the law was introduced and never got back into his house. Other tenants moved if offered enough. It's not that long ago that there were still properties around with protected tenants. Rents were fixed and it certainly made for bargains when they came on the market - often when the owner died. No govt. would bring that dog back. The tenants rights are protected only until the end of the lease. That is as it should be.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 26-05-2016 at 11:08 PM.

  5. #10395
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Term deposits investments have always been less hassle than rental housing.
    Over 50% of house purchasers in Auckland are now investors, probably more in South Auckland.
    Perhaps a compromise would be for the first year of a tenancy to be an assured tenancy, thereafter the existing situation could apply.
    Many landlords will accept fixed term tenancies. Indeed many landlords require them. If tenants want security, they can choose or ask for a FTT. Of course, plenty of tenants actually do not want a FTT for any number of reasons. For example, if their circs change and they want to leave before the end of a FTT there is a cost for them, sometimes very significant plus a black mark on their tenancy record if it goes to the Tenancy Tribunal.

  6. #10396
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Many landlords will accept fixed term tenancies. Indeed many landlords require them. If tenants want security, they can choose or ask for a FTT. Of course, plenty of tenants actually do not want a FTT for any number of reasons. For example, if their circs change and they want to leave before the end of a FTT there is a cost for them, sometimes very significant plus a black mark on their tenancy record if it goes to the Tenancy Tribunal.
    Many tenants do not want a fixed term because their employment may not be secure and they may need to move to get work. An assured tenancy for a year would mean that the tenant could still give notice to end the tenancy during that year. It would however mean that provided the tenant was an otherwise good tenant, the LL could not terminate the tenancy for the first year.

  7. #10397
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    You must be joking. We had a law like that protecting sitting tenants. It was a complete disaster. They were there for life if they wanted. I think it came in after WW2. I knew a bloke who had put tenants in his house while he took on contract work in another town. He got caught when the law was introduced and never got back into his house. Other tenants moved if offered enough. It's not that long ago that there were still properties around with protected tenants. Rents were fixed and it certainly made for bargains when they came on the market - often when the owner died. No govt. would bring that dog back. The tenants rights are protected only until the end of the lease. That is as it should be.
    Agreed - a protected tenancy for life is too much. Perhaps an assured tenancy for a year would be a more realistic compromise. More people in Auckland are being priced out of home ownership, and are becoming long-term tenants. In the absence of the availability of a long-term lease or if the tenant is unable to commit to a fixed-term lease, an assured tenancy tenancy for a year would provide a measure of stability for more and more families increasingly priced out of home ownership. If they are otherwise bad tenants then the LL would still have other recourses to end the tenancy.

  8. #10398
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Agreed - a protected tenancy for life is too much. Perhaps an assured tenancy for a year would be a more realistic compromise. More people in Auckland are being priced out of home ownership, and are becoming long-term tenants. In the absence of the availability of a long-term lease or if the tenant is unable to commit to a fixed-term lease, an assured tenancy tenancy for a year would provide a measure of stability for more and more families increasingly priced out of home ownership. If they are otherwise bad tenants then the LL would still have other recourses to end the tenancy.
    It doesn't need any legislation. Tenants should take a fixed term lease if that is what they want. If they are not prepared to commit to that, why the hell should the landlord be locked in ! If they take a fixed term and wish to vacate earlier all they need do is find a new tenant acceptable to the landlord or come to an arrangement with the landlord over re-letting costs. Yes, it might cost them some money. That's too bad. It costs the landlord to replace a tenant too. After all taking a fixed term lease has probably earned them a discount. Many landlords charge a premium for short term leases precisely to cover re-letting costs.

  9. #10399
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    It doesn't need any legislation. Tenants should take a fixed term lease if that is what they want. If they are not prepared to commit to that, why the hell should the landlord be locked in ! If they take a fixed term and wish to vacate earlier all they need do is find a new tenant acceptable to the landlord or come to an arrangement with the landlord over re-letting costs. Yes, it might cost them some money. That's too bad. It costs the landlord to replace a tenant too. After all taking a fixed term lease has probably earned them a discount. Many landlords charge a premium for short term leases precisely to cover re-letting costs.
    Many tenants may not be able to commit to a fixed term lease because of the nature of the employment market. Why shouldn't a landlord be obliged to provide his investment property, which is the tenant's home, to an otherwise good tenant for at least a year? Maybe one of the reasons for NZ residential houses being amongst amongst the most unaffordable in the World is because residential tenancy investments, despite the hassles, provide a very good "tax efficient" return to investors in a tenancy environment favourable to landlords.

  10. #10400
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Many tenants may not be able to commit to a fixed term lease because of the nature of the employment market. Why shouldn't a landlord be obliged to provide his investment property, which is the tenant's home, to an otherwise good tenant for at least a year? Maybe one of the reasons for NZ residential houses being amongst amongst the most unaffordable in the World is because residential tenancy investments, despite the hassles, provide a very good "tax efficient" return to investors in a tenancy environment favourable to landlords.
    The landlord is not running a motel business. Surety of income is essential for the low margins in residential market. If landlord agrees to a short term - then that is what it is. The tenant can't have it both ways, that is not committing to a term and having the landlord not able to control his investment or plan his next move. Nothing fair about that. Residential rentals are not among the most unaffordable in the world. Outside of Auckland they are not really expensive. Even Auckland is pretty much in line with the largest cities in most countries. The return to investors is no more 'tax efficient' as you put it than any other investment in spite of persistent claims from many quarters.

    If I were a tenant wanting a lease but not sure about length of tenancy I would negotiate a short term lease with a right, or rights of renewal. Such a lease could be structured at an initial high rental with renewals at a lower rent. That would compensate the landlord if the tenant did not exercise any ROR.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 27-05-2016 at 01:14 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •