A guest post by a reader on Kiwiblog:
The Prime Minister wants a culture of ‘yes.’ A New Zealand that builds. An RMA replacement premised on the enjoyment of property rights. He has said so many times, in many rooms, and with great conviction.
Good on him. It is what would-be homeowners need, too.
But Auckland’s actual homeowners got upset about apartments. Then the Prime Minister discovered the word ‘impose.’
Here is what happened. Housing Minister Chris Bishop directed Auckland Council to plan for two million homes. Residents in leafy National strongholds like Remuera, Mt Eden and Botany were furious.
David Seymour, the man who spent a decade fighting for property rights and against the RMA’s culture of ‘no,’ became one of the most prominent opponents of intensification in his own electorate. Not in my backyard, Minister.
The PM heard the feedback. He slashed the target to 1.6 million and told the Herald that suburban intensification ‘should go away.’ So far, so political. Governments listen, governments adjust. Nothing new.
But then Luxon revealed what he really thinks about property rights and zoning. He did not want, he explained, to ‘impose intensification’ on people.
Read that again.
Intensification is not something imposed on people. It is something property owners do with their own land. When your neighbour builds a townhouse, that is not the state imposing anything on you. That is your neighbour exercising the very property right the Government’s RMA replacement is supposed to protect.
By framing building as imposition, the Prime Minister has, apparently inadvertently, articulated a principle that demolishes the foundation of his own reform. If a landowner simply building on their own land counts as imposing on the neighbourhood as a whole, then the neighbourhood has grounds to object. It is exactly how the RMA works now. It is exactly what the replacement was supposed to fix.
Seymour said, ‘Not in my backyard (electorate).’ Luxon replied, ‘Understood, we will remove your constituents’ right to build.’ The property rights champion and the property rights Prime Minister, dancing a perfect tango to undermine the property rights reform.The old RMA gave everyone a veto over everyone else’s land. The new one promised to end all that. Instead, the Prime Minister has just explained why it should continue. He is simply too pleased with his own reasonableness to realise it.
David Seymour, the man who spent a decade fighting for property rights and against the RMA’s culture of ‘no,’ became one of the most prominent opponents of intensification in his own electorate. Not in my backyard, Minister.
The PM heard the feedback. He slashed the target to 1.6 million and told the Herald that suburban intensification ‘should go away.’ So far, so political. Governments listen, governments adjust. Nothing new.
But then Luxon revealed what he really thinks about property rights and zoning. He did not want, he explained, to ‘impose intensification’ on people.
Read that again.
Intensification is not something imposed on people. It is something property owners do with their own land. When your neighbour builds a townhouse, that is not the state imposing anything on you. That is your neighbour exercising the very property right the Government’s RMA replacement is supposed to protect.
By framing building as imposition, the Prime Minister has, apparently inadvertently, articulated a principle that demolishes the foundation of his own reform. If a landowner simply building on their own land counts as imposing on the neighbourhood as a whole, then the neighbourhood has grounds to object. It is exactly how the RMA works now. It is exactly what the replacement was supposed to fix.
Seymour said, ‘Not in my backyard (electorate).’ Luxon replied, ‘Understood, we will remove your constituents’ right to build.’ The property rights champion and the property rights Prime Minister, dancing a perfect tango to undermine the property rights reform.The old RMA gave everyone a veto over everyone else’s land. The new one promised to end all that. Instead, the Prime Minister has just explained why it should continue. He is simply too pleased with his own reasonableness to realise it.
7 comments:
Another nail in Luxon's coffin.
It's fashionable to go on about NIMBYs but what is wrong with wanting to live the ordinary kiwi lifestyle? What is wrong with living in a healthy environment? But according to the unholy coalition of National, Labour & the Greens those are things that should be taken away so they can flood the country with millions of uber drivers, service station workers, beneficiaries and "professionals" with bought qualifications from the third world. Everyone needs to have 12 story social housing blocks next door. Seymour is the only one standing up for the rights of ordinary NZers.
Seymour is being consistent. The primary core belief of libertarianism is that individuals have absolute rights over their own lives, bodies, and property, provided they do not violate the rights of others.
As Anon 7.33 says: "..... housing blocks next door..... as in industrial Russian and Chinese cities."
Read the Green Party additional tax proposals ( wealth, trusts,inheritance) - one would be lucky to be able to afford a hovel!
Anon 7.33 yearns for the ordinary Kiwi lifestyle. The days of the half-gallon, quarter acre, pavlova lifestyle. When men were men, women stayed in the kitchen and Maoris knew their place. Sorry Anon 7.33, things have changed quite a bit.
Would this "change" as approached by the NZ PM, be in line with his intent to "bring" multi monied people into NZ, as long as they have $5 mill, that they spend on buying a house.
Now I can recall, many Multi $$$ people who came to NZ and brought a house, that became a 'get away' accommodation, that they do the International FIFO, when they needed 'space' to chill out.
One Lass, of importance, did that and then decided that NZ was no longer "chill" so sold up and moved on.
A large $ amount tied to the house sale, and its location guaranteed a sale.
Plus the "tag - we brought so & so's house".
So the change to "housing", will this ensure that said $5 mill-er's, once purchased will FIFO, till they sell the house - which begs the question Mr. Luxon, who will buy?
To The Jones - boy, yup we now have housing that when you have a BBQ, you have the neighbor's line up at the fence to be fed., and you pass the brews back & forth.
Lawns, who needs a lawn mower.
I'm not sure what most home buyers are after, but if I was in the market to buy a property, then having a "tacked-on granny flat" would NOT be on my "list of WANTS".
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.