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.
No comments:
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.