If you missed it, Dixon St Apartments sold for a million dollars to local Māori under their Treaty deal – the Treaty deal had a first right of refusal clause.
Now my assumption, clearly incorrect, is you would get first right of refusal based on the idea that something of cultural or historic significance was coming to the market, and as local iwi you wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity.
I didn’t realise this was a commercial free for all, where anything and everything for sale goes to local Māori first.
Further, I had assumed, clearly wrongly as well, that in having a first right of refusal, that meant that long lost treasure, whether historic or cultural, would be returned to said iwi to be honoured and looked after in perpetuity, not flicked off for quick profit.
So obviously nothing like that is remotely part of the Treaty deals. So first question: why not?
Next question is: if it isn't, is it commercially acceptable to have a race-based clause when it comes to real estate?
And even if it is, is it commercially acceptable to sell stuff cheap?
For if you haven't followed the story, five minutes after buying the building, the new owners sold it on for $3 million.
So under a special deal signed for, on our behalf, by our government, we, the taxpayer, lose $2 million on one building.
Next question: how could a Crown agency, i.e. Kainga Ora, think $1 million was a good price for something that was clearly worth $3 million?
And in that is the problem with not involving the free market.
Next question: did anyone involved in the cloistered deal know what they were doing, and if not, given its taxpayers’ dosh, why not?
Another question: was the Treaty process designed so tribes could get into real estate speculation? At what point was a Treaty settlement about putting past wrongs right versus turning tribes into speculators?
This was a bad deal. The original owners of Dixon St, us, got stiffed.
And we got stiffed because of a race-based real estate clause that arguably should never have been part of an historic arrangement in the first place.
Final question: what are we going to do about it? Or more worryingly, is there anything we can do about it?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
I didn’t realise this was a commercial free for all, where anything and everything for sale goes to local Māori first.
Further, I had assumed, clearly wrongly as well, that in having a first right of refusal, that meant that long lost treasure, whether historic or cultural, would be returned to said iwi to be honoured and looked after in perpetuity, not flicked off for quick profit.
So obviously nothing like that is remotely part of the Treaty deals. So first question: why not?
Next question is: if it isn't, is it commercially acceptable to have a race-based clause when it comes to real estate?
And even if it is, is it commercially acceptable to sell stuff cheap?
For if you haven't followed the story, five minutes after buying the building, the new owners sold it on for $3 million.
So under a special deal signed for, on our behalf, by our government, we, the taxpayer, lose $2 million on one building.
Next question: how could a Crown agency, i.e. Kainga Ora, think $1 million was a good price for something that was clearly worth $3 million?
And in that is the problem with not involving the free market.
Next question: did anyone involved in the cloistered deal know what they were doing, and if not, given its taxpayers’ dosh, why not?
Another question: was the Treaty process designed so tribes could get into real estate speculation? At what point was a Treaty settlement about putting past wrongs right versus turning tribes into speculators?
This was a bad deal. The original owners of Dixon St, us, got stiffed.
And we got stiffed because of a race-based real estate clause that arguably should never have been part of an historic arrangement in the first place.
Final question: what are we going to do about it? Or more worryingly, is there anything we can do about it?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
14 comments:
Getting rid of the Treaty Settlement Process entirely would be a good place to start!
Come on mike, maori need all they can get by any means.
Now that brooke van velden is giving away citizenship (passports) to the spawn of australian 'bitsa's'(keisha castle), the tribal coffers may face more 'members' needing support.
13-17% of the population could become........?
Wait until the tribes decide 'others' should be paying rates to 'them' on 'their former land'.
takuta (formerly romaine) and his ilk are likely working on this.
maori ward councillors may suggest to councils after coming elections...............?
The 'right of first refusal' is code for we are making you an offer you will not refuse (or else)................
Let me ask a question that will resolve this debate very easily.
Given the property is not of maori significance. Would a clause EVER be allowed to be written in that any govt land deal that that property HAD to be offered to Europeans first?
Hear hear!
This is at best incompetence and at worst corruption - come on National do something useful, amend the Act to close stupid loopholes like this.
I am puzzled how first option works. It must be very difficult to assess the maximum price the market will bear without some bargaining process. How do you avoid exploiting the expertise of other genuine candidates to determine the price for maori? Very tempting to set low and flick off to maori with minimum involvement.
This is old news from duncan garners podcast. First right of refusal on all private land is a policy of te pati and the greens. So mike if your house is declared to be on maori land you will have to give 1st right of refusal to iwi first. They will tell you an amount they think is fair. Msm has been avoiding this topic for years, making most kiwis totally unaware.
This transaction shows a complete lack of competence of those representing the vendor. It’s one thing to honour a right of first refusal, but it’s quite something else to offer that with a huge discount. Wouldn’t it be prudent, if not mandatory, to establish the market value before offering to sell?? As it stands this transaction reeks of fraud or corruption.
Who was making these calls ?
How do we know that maybe interested people were making the decisions, you know wink wink, nudge nudge ?
Of course in the media it will always be anonymous and nobody in government is ever held to be responsible .
Public test ?
Got a bit of a whiff to it ?
Anyone got a flash new car ?
As this is in Wellington it must come under the Regional Director, Greater Wellington Region, Sarah Wilson. She has cost tax payers $2 million, on top of the salary and perks etc. She needs to resign and, if she doesn't, she needs to be sacked for gross incompetence at best.
PS: it is called "Accountability". If one has Authority, one must also have Responsibility and Accountability. No one can have one but not the other two. It's called "Good Governance". Probably an unheard of phrase in Government and its agencies and departments.
And that's just one deal. Nevermind the 67 school sites that were sold and leased back on a sweet deal to Ngati Toa all around the Wellington region. If they had been put to the market, you would have been crushed in the rush.
The building, owned by Kianga Ora had or has a RV of $18.4 million. Apparently it's market value was about $4.0 million, because of it's age, built in 1944 and was un-occupied. ROR ( right of refusal) was given to the local Iwi, who started their offer at a much lower rate, according to the local KO chief. Having settled on a purchase price of $1.0 million and before the ink was dry they on sold it to a well known Wellington developer for, get this, $4.0 million. Question, did the developer offer to buy the building prior to the Iwi getting involved, but had to front up with the $3.0 million difference to satisfy the TOW clause.
Post a Comment