ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[moka]

ACT's housing policy promises to scrap consent process again.

ACTS’s housing policy is definitely a backward step in my opinion. Allowing builders to opt out of building consents will do nothing to improve the quality of housing.

Builders would be able to opt out of council building consents too, which Seymour said would increase affordability and innovation. Innovation - yeah right! Cost cutting and lowering standards.

Seymour’s comment that “most of the time, people are trying to build houses in an old horse paddock where there is no biodiversity," ignores the fact that most protests are in established housing areas when there is redevelopment and intensification. As this headline in Stuff says 'Future slums' coming to your neighbourhood, residents' petition warns.’

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/300817211/future-slums-coming-to-your-neighbourhood-residents-petition-warns

The ACT Party says it will allow builders to opt out of council building consents to improve the supply, quality and cost of housing.
Party leader David Seymour announced the housing policy today, which would also include scrapping the reformed Resource Management Act and using building insurance as an alternative to building consent authorities.

"Housing is still in crisis and Labour and National are equally responsible, it's time to stop demand-side policies that aren't working and set a target for supply," he said.

ACT calculated the country needed to build 51,000 homes annually for the next five years to meet demand, he said.
What we need is an overhaul of resource management law in New Zealand based on the assumption that you can do what you like on your property, so long as you are not harming your neighbours," Seymour said.

"We say if you can get it privately insured, you can build it. If you can't, maybe someone's trying to tell you something, but having the government trying to zone various parts of the country in or out and then making itself the de facto insurer is less efficient and counter-productive for everybody," Seymour said.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...-process-again

[fungus pudding]

ACT's housing policy promises to scrap consent process again.

ACTS’s housing policy is definitely a backward step in my opinion. Allowing builders to opt out of building consents will do nothing to improve the quality of housing.

Builders would be able to opt out of council building consents too, which Seymour said would increase affordability and innovation. Innovation - yeah right! Cost cutting and lowering standards.

Seymour’s comment that “most of the time, people are trying to build houses in an old horse paddock where there is no biodiversity," ignores the fact that most protests are in established housing areas when there is redevelopment and intensification. As this headline in Stuff says 'Future slums' coming to your neighbourhood, residents' petition warns.’

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/300817211/future-slums-coming-to-your-neighbourhood-residents-petition-warns

The ACT Party says it will allow builders to opt out of council building consents to improve the supply, quality and cost of housing.
Party leader David Seymour announced the housing policy today, which would also include scrapping the reformed Resource Management Act and using building insurance as an alternative to building consent authorities.

"Housing is still in crisis and Labour and National are equally responsible, it's time to stop demand-side policies that aren't working and set a target for supply," he said.

ACT calculated the country needed to build 51,000 homes annually for the next five years to meet demand, he said.
What we need is an overhaul of resource management law in New Zealand based on the assumption that you can do what you like on your property, so long as you are not harming your neighbours," Seymour said.

"We say if you can get it privately insured, you can build it. If you can't, maybe someone's trying to tell you something, but having the government trying to zone various parts of the country in or out and then making itself the de facto insurer is less efficient and counter-productive for everybody," Seymour said.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...-process-again

I can't see anything against the insurance scheme. It gives developers an option, and a better option IMO. If they don't like it they can still run to the council, but I doubt many would.


"We say if you can get it privately insured, you can build it. If you can't, maybe someone's trying to tell you something"

[thegreatestben]

ACT housing policy not my favourite, my concern here would low quality social outcomes because developers bear no responsibility here (incl. Kainga Ora).
Also what's going to stop insurers from ending up taking the same position as Councils and refusing to insure for "innovative design and materials"?

[fungus pudding]

ACT housing policy not my favourite, my concern here would low quality social outcomes because developers bear no responsibility here (incl. Kainga Ora).
Also what's going to stop insurers from ending up taking the same position as Councils and refusing to insure for "innovative design and materials"?

Then you could try the council - as now. If they both reject it - it was probably for a good reason.

[Panda-NZ-]

Seymour floats a Confidence only partnership with no supply.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-...ship-no-supply

Which means a minority government and brings with it a risk of govt collapse during each budget.

Luckily we don't have a debt ceiling eh?

[moka]

I can't see anything against the insurance scheme. It gives developers an option, and a better option IMO. If they don't like it they can still run to the council, but I doubt many would.


"We say if you can get it privately insured, you can build it. If you can't, maybe someone's trying to tell you something"

I wouldn’t be surprised if private insurance was more expensive. Insuring against the risk of something like leaky homes. Cost cutting is common practice.

Leaky-home bill estimated at $6.3b in 2010. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/leaky-home-bill-estimated-at-63b/HQNWIDY7SI6ZNPOB4RV6EO4RHY/

2014 - The systemic failure by cost-cutting apartment developers to build fire-safe apartment blocks in New Zealand's major city is being kept under wraps by secret legal settlements. Lawyers for leaky building claimants say around one in five claims for defective and shoddily-constructed apartment blocks also involve claims to fix faulty and sub-standard fire systems.

Leaky building litigator Paul Grimshaw says the problems with apartment buildings would be better described as construction defects rather than weathertightness issues.
"Leaking doesn't really cover it . . . There are fire issues, there are structural issues, there are cladding issues."
He says builders and developers have cut corners by not correctly fire rating buildings.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...e-safety-deals

[moka]

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/early-edition/audio/ashley-church-property-commentator-says-acts-housing-policy-sounds-good-in-theory-but-a-step-too-far-in-reality/

A view ACT's new housing policy sounds good in theory - but is a step too far in reality.
The party's unveiled its housing policy - which would see builders able to use insurance companies as an alternative authority for consenting - to speed up the process.
It aims to cut local councils out of the consenting process.

Property commentator Ashley Church told Kate Hawkesby he believes in getting rid of bureaucracy - but this policy is all over the place.
“I think there’s a risk with this that you’ll end up with shoddy housing – you'll end up with some equivalent of what happened with leaky homes back in the late 90s and we’ll be right back in that space again.”

[thegreatestben]

Then you could try the council - as now. If they both reject it - it was probably for a good reason.

You're missing my point, which is that it potentially just moves the same problem to a different place. Lack of innovation (there's a big area between today's building material choices and dodgy materials/methods) could still be a problem if the insurers are equally as unwilling to move away from fletchers range of products.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Seymour floats a Confidence only partnership with no supply.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-...ship-no-supply

Which means a minority government and brings with it a risk of govt collapse during each budget.

Luckily we don't have a debt ceiling eh?

Sounds ok to me, infinitely better than the LABGREETEPATI monster with the weak-kneed Chipkins making all sorts of horrible concessions up front so he can present his seething pack of radicals as ‘stable government’.

[nztx]

Sounds ok to me, infinitely better than the LABGREETEPATI monster with the weak-kneed Chipkins making all sorts of horrible concessions up front so he can present his seething pack of radicals as ‘stable government’.

Did someone say Labour are crashing .. or was that about to be washed out in the mother of large avalanches ?