National - FFS!

[artemis]

If you toughen up the rental property requirements, some landlords will decide that it is not worth providing rental accommodation. Unless you want increased homelessness for those less than perfect tenants, the government has to provide more state or social housing. National has said to will turn back some of the reforms so presumably fewer landlords would then leave the market.

It is not just existing dwellings. Take into account the consents issued for new builds - looking like about a third of all consents are for multi unit dwellings (March 2020). It is clear that some developments are falling over, most will be lack of financing (probably fewer sales off the plan than expected) because Minister Woods is tipping hundreds of millions into those failing projects. Ask yourself who are important buyers of higher density developments and what the impact on the rental market might be if those buyers don't step up. Obviously some are not hence all that taxpayer money.

Next question, if the developments do proceed who will buy them? Perhaps Minister Woods has consulted the Kiwibuild experts, but more likely the deep pockets of Kainga Ora.

[artemis]

Statistics show this but statistics can show whatever you want.
I have recently sold several houses and in each case the new family is bigger than those who had rented it.
I suspect that some rentals have a lot of people in them and this skews the result.

Andrew King, executive officer of the NZ Property Investors' Federation said in 2017 that rented houses in Auckland contain an average of 3.9 people and owner-occupied 2.1 people. Every rental property sold to an owner-occupier effectively displaces on average 1.8 people.

Maybe different in Auckland than other locations but at the very least there are some actual numbers that can be rebutted. Not just opinions.

My last rental sale - 5 renters replaced by 2 owner occupiers.

[artemis]

When that Landlord sells they will either sell to someone who will live in it or rent it.
If they sell to someone to live in it themselves then they won't need to rent - the rental demand just went down.
The houses don't vanish.

Unless they are new builds that aren't built.

[westerly]

I do not know the answer but I do know this - their numbers grow each year and the government will never be able to build enough to meet the needs.

At a recent meeting with a major community housing provider, I was informed that the provider is dealing in a state housing area with many instances of three generations of beneficiaries requiring housing - children, parents and great-grandparents.

Whose fault is it?

Always the fault of previous governments - never the fault of the beneficiaries.

It is definitely not the fault of the children, perhaps you should ask the grandparents why they have been able to house themselves?

westerly

[dobby41]

Andrew King, executive officer of the NZ Property Investors' Federation said in 2017 that rented houses in Auckland contain an average of 3.9 people and owner-occupied 2.1 people. Every rental property sold to an owner-occupier effectively displaces on average 1.8 people.

Maybe different in Auckland than other locations but at the very least there are some actual numbers that can be rebutted. Not just opinions.

My last rental sale - 5 renters replaced by 2 owner occupiers.

That's the stats I was talking about.

Unless they are new builds that aren't built.

That is true, someone else will build instead?
More to the point, though, is the suggestion that some owners will just leave them empty because the capital gain is worth more than the tenants rent.
That is more of a worry in my opinion.

[blackcap]

That is true, someone else will build instead?
More to the point, though, is the suggestion that some owners will just leave them empty because the capital gain is worth more than the tenants rent.
That is more of a worry in my opinion.

That is exactly what we are doing with a holiday home we are about to buy. We discussed it and the holding cost now is negligible as interest rates are near zero. So no incentive to "get a return". Rates are a low $1,200 and a bit of insurance. No need to rent it out and have all the hassle. (its in the South Island so harder to monitor). Although if we find the correct manager we would consider Air Bn B or similar.

[jmsnz]

When that Landlord sells they will either sell to someone who will live in it or rent it.
If they sell to someone to live in it themselves then they won't need to rent - the rental demand just went down.
The houses don't vanish.

That depends completely on who is renting it currently and who buys it. My son flat's in a 'family home' with 5 others so if that was sold to an owner occupier with less than 6 members then demand for rental properties has actually gone up. I agree that the house hasn't vanished but neither have the current tenants who now don't have anywhere to live.

[Bjauck]

Owner occupied dwellings have less occupants than rental dwellings or so I have been reliably informed.

My anecdotal experience concurs with that. In my street, two houses which were previously owner-occupied had 6 occupants in total. Currently as rental housing they have 10 occupants in total.

So imo toughening up rental regulations is ok, provided you also provide more social housing to house the less desirable tenants otherwise accommodation overcrowding - and the associated social and health issues - will grow.

[artemis]

..... So imo toughening up rental regulations is ok, provided you also provide more social housing to house the less desirable tenants otherwise accommodation overcrowding - and the associated social and health issues - will grow.

Well over half of those on the social housing waiting list have no children and almost all of those are singles. They are seldom the overcrowding problem you mention. Not to say they don't have health or social issues though.

Social housing is really really expensive for taxpayers. There are other options, but when the only tool is a hammer ....

[macduffy]

My computer's lost the National - FFS thread!