Property costs in NZ - the heart of evil

[R-Soul]

Does anybody else here think that property costs are what is bringing NZ down and making it unlivable?

Hear me out: Tax favours property ownerhsip instead of ownership in shares/bonds/business ventures etc. So speculators buy property and make money from it, to buy more property. Everybody who can invest anything does it. Nobody invests in industry, so no jobs get created. Demand for property is kept high by the speculative buying so property prices inflate. As they inflate, more people buy property for the capital gains, inflating it further. In the meantime, rents also start going up because the poor cant afford to buy and demand increases for rentals. In fact, nobody can afford to buy except those who started off rich or who owned a house before they got too expensive.

Also, nobody develops new housing when tehy can just buy existing housing without risk for immediate profits and capaital gains. Only home owners build their own houses, because they want what they want and are prepared to wait for it. So eventually there is not enough housing for an expanding population, making house prices and rent more expensive.

Now nobody can afford to buy or rent, and they bugger off to Australia because they cant afford to get by on the low wages (because there is not much productive industry going on from lack of new buisiness development) and cannot afford to live here. In the meantime the few in established busnesses with monopolies (like Countdown) are making lots of money because there is not much competition, and they can pay low wages because there is not much competition, and not enough disposable income in anybody's pockets to drive new startup busineses.

This causes the separation of the classes out into extremes of the rich and the poor. Except that the rich are screwing themselves because the costs of living (especially rent or mortgages) are so high that even theoretically middle class salaries are struggling to get by. Even the middle classes start looking to leave, leaving even fewer entrepreneurs to start new businesses. Soon the whole country will be living in OZ, or looking to live in Oz and whoever is left wont be able to afford to live, or wont provide a market big enough for new busineses, or to compete with old businesses.

Instead, if the government took away all the incentives to invest in property, and made shitloads of land available for development (and maybe incentivinsing development - not ownership- of land), this would happen:
Property prices would fall a lot
Speculative property owners would sell their properties fast - and maybe invest in housing development (i.e. business) ventures instead, to make housing even more affordable for all
the cost of housing would fall
the costs of rent would fall
People would have more disposable income, thereby allowing newly formed busness ventures to have a better chance of succeeding
Reduced commercial rent would also give new businesses more chance of turning a profit.
Liquidity from sale of houses would be invested in new businesses that provide competition to the current single or double players, and make the costs of living and renting (commercial stores too) even cheaper.
Lifestyles in NZ would be btter because we would be able to own our own houses, and have decent sized houses and land for reasonable prices - sop less people would leave because they would not get the same lifestyles in Oz.


FFS the one thing that we do have shitloads of in NZ is space, and yet we pay the most for land (at least as a ration of our salaries)- even worse than in NEW FUCKING YORK?

High property prices and speculative property ownership are obviously the root of all the problems here right now,but nobody in government has the balls to piss off the property owners, probably because they own a good few properties themselves...

I will vote for the next party who promises to drive property prices down. If I am still here...
*Rant over*

[p.dath]

Yes.......

[unstuck]

I would rather focus my energy on getting more money. I love money:devil2:

[merv]

No. ..... and the cost of housing in Oz aint exactly cheap. This shitload of land you talk about being freed up for development sounds like a lot more urban sprawl to me and I don't want to see that.

[HenryDorsetCase]

You've never done any property development have you? Or owned a house, I'd wager.

[JATZ]

Yes.......

:yes: what he said...

I think we need a capital gains tax :dodge:

[Genestho]

OH!!

So, you want those of us that had to move to a hick town, or live in a POS just to be able to get into that first home, spending weekends doing it up instead of going out partying like all ya mates because you couldn't afford to - paying way higher interest rates than what's available now on lower wages, to accept a cut in house prices so you don't have to go through the same Rite of Passage, huh? :)

(But I do see your point, apart from the Australia reference because it really is not a heck of a lot different in costs, to NZ)

[smmudd83_1999]

The rising cost of property is hardly unique to this fair country.
Although I agree about the lack of core manufacturing industry and the knock on economic factors. Also, the national average salary is correspondingly low due to a poor secondary industry sector. Yet the cost of living is just ridiculous - food, cars, BIKES, beer, clothes... and don't give me the whole "Because everything's imported and we pay GST" bull. Most countries have a form of duty/tax on all purchased goods and services, plus most other countries import quite a lot of goods and can do so a damn sight cheaper than we can! Inexplicable.
I think that some parts of NZ are priced quite competitavely property-wise, but if you live in Welly/Auckland/Chch it's a different story. I think the average salary is $38k, in Welly it's $44k but the average property in Welly is $445k... most finance organisations consider 5x salary a good guideline for upper lending limits...

On the upside, the national minimum wage has gone over the $15/hour mark - which is actually pretty darn good (Compare).

And the whole Oz thing will eventually blow over. It's set to continue for a few years - but watch out, it's like the new age gold rush! And you say salaries are way higher in Oz... but so are property prices, beer, eating out, cars, BIKES.... so it's swings and roundabouts. You can make your fortune in Oz with a high salary job if you live in student digs or way way way out of any major city centre and reap the difference in income, but like for like the lifestyle isn't any better in Oz.
I've lived in the UK and stuff there is CHEAP (if you stay away from London and the south of England generally). I bought a house there for £130k ($260k or so at today's rates) for a house brilliantly engineered, using permanent materials... and it was WARM!! Even in -10*C cold snaps. And I didn't have to do dumb stuff like replace guttering, seal windows, paint the roof or weatherboards...it was built in 1926 and it hadn't needed any major building work (other than the addtion of REAL central heating - Pomes will know what I mean). Take that crap NZ houses!

[Coldrider]

I like high property prices, it means I don't have retards living either side of me. :msn-wink:

[unstuck]

I like high property prices, it means I don't have retards living either side of me. :msn-wink:

Ha ha, bet thats what my neighbors thought before I bought this place.:devil2::Punk:

[Jantar]

Property costs in New Zealand are not high. http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-370419906.htm
What is high is the unrealistic demand that people are only prepared to live in one area, and often will only consider cities. They claim that is where the work is, but statistics from around the country show there is a higher proportion of unemployed in cities than in the regions.

High demand for city living and of course the price goes up. Live in smaller towns and the housing costs drop dramatically.

[rainman]

I love money:devil2:

Some might say that is the root of all evil...

[unstuck]

Some might say that is the root of all evil...

Some can say whatever they like:bleh: I love the stuff, life is so much better with it. I think A lack of money is the root of all evil:devil2: That, and evil roots.:shifty:

[Andy67]

Property costs in New Zealand are not high. http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-370419906.htm
What is high is the unrealistic demand that people are only prepared to live in one area, and often will only consider cities. They claim that is where the work is, but statistics from around the country show tere is a higher proportion of unemployed in cities than in the regions.

High demand for city living and of course the price goes up. Live i smaller towns and the housing costs drop dramatically.

Agree 100 percent, all the young things want to live in Ponsonby yet not prepared to buy the unit in Otahuhu to start off, like my parents did in the Wellington equivalent.....with no furniture.....iPads I pods, home theatre, nice cars , OEs all seem to take priority, just saying

[Coldrider]

Does anybody else here think that property costs are what is bringing NZ down and making it unlivable?

Hear me out: Tax favours property ownerhsip instead of ownership in shares/bonds/business ventures etc. So speculators buy property and make money from it, to buy ..........
*Rant over*
That is exactly the media beat up bubblegum news that has been fed to the minnions for the past 12 years.
If you built a spec house or two or a subdivision over the last 12 years you would know exactly where the money is being sucked out, and why buyers are prepared to pay such prices.

[SPman]

And you say salaries are way higher in Oz...but so are property prices yes - in the cities, beer, hell yes - particularly NZ boutique beers, eating out, yes - anything involving employing local labour - can't have higher wages without higher labour costs, cars, BIKES not new they aren't. Reckon on 30% higher wages and 30% lower purchase price - in Aus. dollars! GSXR600 for $13,999. VW Polo 77Tsi - $22k on road, for example, and lots of cheap 4wds
Properties outside the major cities are cheaper - we couldn't replace what we have, 100k outside Perth, in NZ, even with selling up and the better exchange rate. Property prices in places like Perth are high, and there is a serious lack of rental accomodation

[carbonhed]

Yes. My brother just bought a place in the States, New Jersey about an hour out of New York, and he got twice the house he'd have got over here for the same coin. Ridiculous.

[mashman]

OP :violin:... our subdivision cost the developer 5 mill supposedly. Land is currently selling for 230k+. they are expecting 1500 houses. We got our land for 145 as someone wanted a quick sale. Take 145k as the average and multiply that by 1500. Reckon they made much money. Of course they have to put in amenities and do some form of land prep, but I highly doubt the whole thing came to any more than 10 - 15 mill. There's no money in it though. the best thing is that these guys go on to develop more land for people to buy cheaply :blink:. Go talk to the bank, I'm sure they'll give you a great rate for letting your start a business, or you could go on Dragons den with your idea and borrow money off them. Granted they'll all want a share of your idea, but why shouldn't they if they've lent you money? Dropping house prices will have no affect on anyone, other than those who will be stuck with a house that they can't sell because the house value will no longer cover the mortgage and they'll be paying well over the odds for the rest of their lives.



I've lived in the UK and stuff there is CHEAP (if you stay away from London and the south of England generally). I bought a house there for £130k ($260k or so at today's rates) for a house brilliantly engineered, using permanent materials... and it was WARM!! Even in -10*C cold snaps. And I didn't have to do dumb stuff like replace guttering, seal windows, paint the roof or weatherboards...it was built in 1926 and it hadn't needed any major building work (other than the addtion of REAL central heating - Pomes will know what I mean). Take that crap NZ houses!

Stuff is cheap in the UK? Where? I've yet to see it? unless you're talking about poundstretcher and primark you're having a larf. The houses have PVC windows and that is the main difference between UK houses and here for warmth and I lived in the frozen norf for kickin on 20 years, but yeah, I miss my central heating, ohhhhhhhhh yeah.

[Brian d marge]

I have just come back from New Zealand and I can say that Japan is slightly cheaper sort of

you get a NEW house 3 bed rooms roughly 10m x 6 ( no Im not getting off my arse to measure it )

a small front garden ( 6 x 3 ) and all the mod-cons inside ( a nice lady tells you the bath is ready and the water is cleaned a recirculated and kept warm until you tell her to stop, ( no it aint the wife )

that lot cost me 15 million yen but over 40 years and well under the 30 % morgage stress mark

Your food ! eating out ..HOLY CRAP expensive ( that was using Japanese money ) there were a few other expensive thing as well .....

Now Im NZ wages spent in NZ and Jap wages spent in Japan ... ie a beer is X % of my weekly $

I reckoned that to have a similar lifestyle as I have here, the house would have to cost around 100 to 150 000 Nz

waimate? anyone ? and the work is?

NZ really does need to invest in the future new business ( which it is kind of doing ) ,,,and move away from agriculture

Stephen

[Flip]

Big diddums OP.

Why would any new landlord want to tie up half a million dollars in an asset that has no capital gain, that he has to place in the hands of others, that needs constant maintenance, that can be wrecked and all he can get back is 4 weeks rent, that he can not loss adjust against other income (which every other business can do), just to keep you in the luxury you think you are entitled to?

In the 80's landlords were gods, you could not get a flat for love nor money. The govt did not have the funds to keep up with the requirements for state housing sothey made the losses landlords had tax deductable, which attracted a lot of ma and par investing, the nett result was good properties became available for rent and rents were low.

Why would anybody want to tie up their funds in a low return high maintenance investement that pays them less than the current morgage rate? I would suggest you are going to see rentals going up another 10-25% in price over the next few years and the avalibility really going down.

[BoristheBiter]

Ha ha, bet thats what my neighbors thought before I bought this place.:devil2::Punk:

That's why I live in the country.

[merv]

I have just come back from New Zealand and I can say that Japan is slightly cheaper sort of

you get a NEW house 3 bed rooms roughly 10m x 6 ( no Im not getting off my arse to measure it )

Stephen

A comment was made further back about expectations. 30 - 40 years ago in NZ you did start off buying the 3 bedroom 100m2 box, broke in the section, laid the paths etc and as your finances improved you could move up to better luxury. The yoof of today wouldn't be interested in a box let alone one only 60m2 like you have in Tokyo unless they are into apartments. They expect about 200m2 plus, and its got to have all the bells and whistles and they want it all pre-landscaped - no manual work thanks, so the price is comparatively high compared to figures of yesteryear.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Big diddums OP.

Why would any new landlord want to tie up half a million dollars in an asset that has no capital gain, that he has to place in the hands of others, that needs constant maintenance, that can be wrecked and all he can get back is 4 weeks rent, that he can not loss adjust against other income (which every other business can do), just to keep you in the luxury you think you are entitled to?

In the 80's landlords were gods, you could not get a flat for love nor money. The govt did not have the funds to keep up with the requirements for state housing sothey made the losses landlords had tax deductable, which attracted a lot of ma and par investing, the nett result was good properties became available for rent and rents were low.

Why would anybody want to tie up their funds in a low return high maintenance investement that pays them less than the current morgage rate? I would suggest you are going to see rentals going up another 10-25% in price over the next few years and the avalibility really going down.

its happened in Chur chur over the last few months. Will get worse

[Brett]

OP :violin:... our subdivision cost the developer 5 mill supposedly. Land is currently selling for 230k+. they are expecting 1500 houses. We got our land for 145 as someone wanted a quick sale. Take 145k as the average and multiply that by 1500. Reckon they made much money. Of course they have to put in amenities and do some form of land prep, but I highly doubt the whole thing came to any more than 10 - 15 mill. There's no money in it though. the best thing is that these guys go on to develop more land for people to buy cheaply :blink:. Go talk to the bank, I'm sure they'll give you a great rate for letting your start a business, or you could go on Dragons den with your idea and borrow money off them. Granted they'll all want a share of your idea, but why shouldn't they if they've lent you money? Dropping house prices will have no affect on anyone, other than those who will be stuck with a house that they can't sell because the house value will no longer cover the mortgage and they'll be paying well over the odds for the rest of their lives.



Stuff is cheap in the UK? Where? I've yet to see it? unless you're talking about poundstretcher and primark you're having a larf. The houses have PVC windows and that is the main difference between UK houses and here for warmth and I lived in the frozen norf for kickin on 20 years, but yeah, I miss my central heating, ohhhhhhhhh yeah.

Running with your numbers:

Purchase: $5,000,000 (Land purchase = Zero rated, no GST claim back). (Purchase price sounds cheap though...)
Development of 1500 sites @ $60k per site = $90,000,000
Total Sales at $145k per site = $217,000,000
PAY GST on sales of $217m = $28,304,000
CLAIM GST on development costs = $11,740,000

Gross Profit:
$105,436,000.
(Holding costs (finance etc.) need to be deducted from this as well as other business operation costs. Finance for a development like this is likely to be 11 or 12%, say it took them 3 years to do development and sell all sites, finance costs would be $34m.)
These are very very rough numbers, but yes....reasonably profitable.

[Flip]

its happened in Chur chur over the last few months. Will get worse

Pull 10,000 houses from the market and see what happens. It's not the only place, I own a couple of houses in Wellington. I had a call from the blue last week from some one offering me a lot more rent for one if I boot the tennant who has been there for the last 5 years.

My Dad has just sold off 4 houses in Riccarton with a total of 17 bedrooms, the big one with 8 bedrooms will probably be used as a bording house, the other 3 have gone back into private hands. He can't be fucked anymore with the grief for no return. The tennants get the bad news this week. If I follow the other side of the OP's logic I could claim that there is a whole bunch of students and 3 families looking for a new place to live in a very tight rental market because the BRT and their lacky mates in the National goverment decided that the LAQC status meant that ma and pa investers were not investing in their "solid as I recon" finance industries.

[Winston001]

Does anybody else here think that property costs are what is bringing NZ down and making it unlivable?

Hear me out: Tax favours property ownerhsip instead of ownership in shares/bonds/business ventures etc....

Wrong.

The government removed the tax deductions for rental housing two years ago. Plus losses are now ringfenced and unable to be spread across your other income. As a result many mum and dad owners of a rental house have faced negative equity and been selling which is why the property market is depressed.

Nevertheless your main points are well made. Our housing is expensive in places where the bulk of the population live. The longterm average house price is 3.5x average income but for the last decade it's been 6x and stays there despite the global meltdown. It defies economic logic.

Building is expensive here because of tight regulation among other reasons. Earthquakes. Back in 1991 the government tried to free up the regs and what happened...leaky homes. Shoddy building. Ordinary people ended up facing the loss of their homes and financial ruin which continues to this day.

So removing building controls is a non-starter.

[lakedaemonian]

You can get a 10-15 year old waterfront 3-4 bedroom house with a big garage, large section, and possibly inground semi/indoor pool in Florida, USA for $150-200K......which is approx $250K NZ.

But some poor unlucky bastard probably paid $500-750K US for it 5-7 years ago.

The same reasons why property is so cheap in the US, but used to be so incredibly expensive(real estate price collapse of up to 75-80% in places in Florida, Nevada, California) is the massive over cheap credit bubble and credit collapse.

In many places in the US(differs state by state) there is no personal guarantee on the owner with the property....you can do what's called "jingle mail", mail the keys to the bank holding the mortgage and walk away if you're mortgage is much higher than the current value of your property.

NZ has been protected a bit by this because our lending didn't get AS silly(like 125% of overinflated home value and falsified income requirements) and every mortgage holder in NZ has a personal guarantee on the mortgage.

So we're still quite inflated property wise.

Still far better than China though......in some places in China a home(which is really just a poorly made shitbox apartment on long term LEASE) is going for 20-30 times the average annual wage for a professional.

China's got a big property bubble...a real BIG one that could make the US/UK property bubble that popped in recent years look like an appetizer waiting for the main course.

If/when China pops(and signs are showing of stress although China's command economy can try to stem it far faster than the US/UK) it's going to hurt down here....and even the lucky country will take a fair whack.

[The Pastor]

op :violin:... Our subdivision cost the developer 5 mill supposedly. Land is currently selling for 230k+. They are expecting 1500 houses. We got our land for 145 as someone wanted a quick sale. Take 145k as the average and multiply that by 1500. Reckon they made much money. Of course they have to put in amenities and do some form of land prep, but i highly doubt the whole thing came to any more than 10 - 15 mill. There's no money in it though. The best thing is that these guys go on to develop more land for people to buy cheaply :blink:. Go talk to the bank, i'm sure they'll give you a great rate for letting your start a business, or you could go on dragons den with your idea and borrow money off them. Granted they'll all want a share of your idea, but why shouldn't they if they've lent you money? Dropping house prices will have no affect on anyone, other than those who will be stuck with a house that they can't sell because the house value will no longer cover the mortgage and they'll be paying well over the odds for the rest of their lives.



Stuff is cheap in the uk? Where? I've yet to see it? Unless you're talking about poundstretcher and primark you're having a larf. The houses have pvc windows and that is the main difference between uk houses and here for warmth and i lived in the frozen norf for kickin on 20 years, but yeah, i miss my central heating, ohhhhhhhhh yeah.

dunno hoe good you are at maths, but 145000*1500 = 217.5 million.

Minus the 5 mill cost (i think it will be more like 50 -100mill) and there is a stack load of profit

1500 lot subdivision, where is that? Its massive

[Brett]

dunno hoe good you are at maths, but 145000*1500 = 217.5 million.

Minus the 5 mill cost (i think it will be more like 50 -100mill) and there is a stack load of profit

1500 lot subdivision, where is that? Its massive

There are quite a few costs that need to be taken into account. My numbers above assumed 3 years to sell all sections...probably far too optimistic...could take up to 10 years! At 10,11,12% interest rates, doesn't take long for profit to significantly reduce. 1500 houses are a lot to sell, I agree.

[Smifffy]

IMO what keeps most NZ investors out of the shares/bonds markets is that the directors and executives of the issuers are either incompetent or crooked, or both. When people invest their money in what is laughably called 'the productive sector', the executives and directors, rather than using that money to continue to improve their productivity, turn around and give themselves large pay rises and assorted other perks for doing such a sterling job of raising funds, and therefore company value via the securities markets.

What do they do with this new found wealth? Most often it would appear that they 'invest' it in beachfront property, large houses in leafy suburbs, or in times past have started to dabble in property development of their own. What is not funneled through to themselves via payrises is used to lease exotic company cars, international "business" travel to attend bullshit conferences and trade shows for the next tier of management, to give them the illusion of being employed by a successful business, whose future is assured.

Fuck them.

I'll use my money to fund my own capital investment projects thank you very much. If I wanted to fund the purchase of a waterfront property it might as well be my property as some corporate fat cat's. The returns offered by the NZ markets is pitiful compared to the risk that investors are exposed to.

[Brian d marge]

Wrong.

The government removed the tax deductions for rental housing two years ago. Plus losses are now ringfenced and unable to be spread across your other income. As a result many mum and dad owners of a rental house have faced negative equity and been selling which is why the property market is depressed.

Nevertheless your main points are well made. Our housing is expensive in places where the bulk of the population live. The longterm average house price is 3.5x average income but for the last decade it's been 6x and stays there despite the global meltdown. It defies economic logic.

Building is expensive here because of tight regulation among other reasons. Earthquakes. Back in 1991 the government tried to free up the regs and what happened...leaky homes. Shoddy building. Ordinary people ended up facing the loss of their homes and financial ruin which continues to this day.

So removing building controls is a non-starter.

My house is a "kit house " , first let me explain "land " in tokyo is err expersive , the house is a minor inconvieniece . So there are one or two companys that make houses , in a factory , all lazer cut pre built in many different configurations and styles , you can choose what cladding , roof ...etc
but its all production line ,,, and essentially PRE PERMITED .ie me old man had to pay 6 or 800 dollars just to have the man sign of the drain connection from his toilet ,,,,thanks chch council ( I said to him it would have been cheaper NOT to get the permit and IF he ever sells the house , then dig up a small section and get a permit .... that IF he ever sells

Me , if I could find a way of making a reasonable living , in Wamate on a 1/4 acre more or less freehold ( bare section , no electricity no water ...cheap as chip land ) I would be there in a shot

Why no water no electricity you ask ....haahahaha I have a plan says I

anyway , a house is a home not an investment a home for families to live for generations .......just a thought

Stephen

[R-Soul]

Agree 100 percent, all the young things want to live in Ponsonby yet not prepared to buy the unit in Otahuhu to start off, like my parents did in the Wellington equivalent.....with no furniture.....iPads I pods, home theatre, nice cars , OEs all seem to take priority, just saying

In Oz , teh homes are actuually not that expensive if you are prepared to travel a bit further to work. the homes on the outside of cities are not badly priced - about $450k for a 4/5 bedroom house - brand new! Here, its $450 k minimum for a 4/5 bedroom house in the crappest areas, that are a do up, and will cost you another $100k all up after working on it for another 2 years while your toddler kids get crap education in rubbish schools in the neighbourhood. Any new house of any size is $6-800k minimum!

But even the CRAPPEST areas in Auckland, and even the ones waaaaaay far away in PHUCKING OREWA and HELENSVILLE are still bloody expensive compared to the wages in a Auckland! I cannot really leave and work in the countryside. I am a patent attorney and can only really work where there is big indusry, so that pretty much leaves Auckland.

And the reason why the cost of living is so high is because there is no money to start up businesses to provide competition for the fatcat monopolistic providers of everyday goods, so EVERYTHING becomes high cost - at least 60% more than what it should be.

Even the cost of money was bloody high, until the government started Kiwibank - it was teh best thing they ever did for this country.

They should do something similar for other major industries, or they should regulate them heavily.

I normally am a big "free market" supporter, and regard givernment run parastatals as fatcat players in themselves, but in light of the current issues around competition that are faced everyday here, I am not so sure that selling off state assets is a good thing, because teh free market players become even worse in a tiny market. That free market model seems to work when there is a big enough market to encourage comnpetition, but maye not so well here.

[mashman]

Running with your numbers:

Purchase: $5,000,000 (Land purchase = Zero rated, no GST claim back). (Purchase price sounds cheap though...)
Development of 1500 sites @ $60k per site = $90,000,000
Total Sales at $145k per site = $217,000,000
PAY GST on sales of $217m = $28,304,000
CLAIM GST on development costs = $11,740,000

Gross Profit:
$105,436,000.
(Holding costs (finance etc.) need to be deducted from this as well as other business operation costs. Finance for a development like this is likely to be 11 or 12%, say it took them 3 years to do development and sell all sites, finance costs would be $34m.)
These are very very rough numbers, but yes....reasonably profitable.


dunno hoe good you are at maths, but 145000*1500 = 217.5 million.

Minus the 5 mill cost (i think it will be more like 50 -100mill) and there is a stack load of profit

1500 lot subdivision, where is that? Its massive

My bad, the last block brought the total up to $6.54 million for 246 hectares or so says the media.

[R-Soul]

One other thing that the government may not have considered in allowing the price of homes to become so inflated:

We are becoming a nation of tenants. There have been a few newspaper stories on this already.
Typically when people retire, they have paid offf their houses, and can live relatively rent free, or with minimal payemnts to be mde on their house. What happnes when the current nation of tenants retire? Their annuation costs will be enormous in light of the current rental costs!! The government is going to end up having to support retired pensioners in state houses because private housing just wont be possible! Can they afford to put an entire generaton of pensioners in state houses? Or does the taxpayer have to pay for that too?

[Andy67]

In Oz , teh homes are actuually not that expensive if you are prepared to travel a bit further to work. the homes on the outside of cities are not badly priced - about $450k for a 4/5 bedroom house - brand new! Here, its $450 k minimum for a 4/5 bedroom house in the crappest areas, that are a do up, and will cost you another $100k all up after working on it for another 2 years while your toddler kids get crap education in rubbish schools in the neighbourhood. Any new house of any size is $6-800k minimum!

But even the CRAPPEST areas in Auckland, and even the ones waaaaaay far away in PHUCKING OREWA and HELENSVILLE are still bloody expensive compared to the wages in a Auckland! I cannot really leave and work in the countryside. I am a patent attorney and can only really work where there is big indusry, so that pretty much leaves Auckland.

And the reason why the cost of living is so high is because there is no money to start up businesses to provide competition for the fatcat monopolistic providers of everyday goods, so EVERYTHING becomes high cost - at least 60% more than what it should be.

Even the cost of money was bloody high, until the government started Kiwibank - it was teh best thing they ever did for this country.

They should do something similar for other major industries, or they should regulate them heavily.

I normally am a big "free market" supporter, and regard givernment run parastatals as fatcat players in themselves, but in light of the current issues around competition that are faced everyday here, I am not so sure that selling off state assets is a good thing, because teh free market players become even worse in a tiny market. That free market model seems to work when there is a big enough market to encourage comnpetition, but maye not so well here.

You should hang out at interest rate .co, lots of like minded folk over there.

There you go mate, solved 13k from CBD....


http://www.realestate.co.nz/1771489

[Tigadee]

They expect about 200m2 plus, and its got to have all the bells and whistles and they want it all pre-landscaped - no manual work thanks, so the price is comparatively high compared to figures of yesteryear.

So the big money in the future is charging exorbitant amounts of labour costs for services for a generation that has grown up with no manual skills... :blip:

[merv]

So the big money in the future is charging exorbitant amounts of labour costs for services for a generation that has grown up with no manual skills... :blip:

I reckon, no surprises there, just like those other countries where its not in their DNA.

I suppose I shouldn't laugh too much, I've been paying Jim (well my Jim is a Stuart) to mow my lawns for 10 years now and I sold my motormower.

[R-Soul]

IMO what keeps most NZ investors out of the shares/bonds markets is that the directors and executives of the issuers are either incompetent or crooked, or both. When people invest their money in what is laughably called 'the productive sector', the executives and directors, rather than using that money to continue to improve their productivity, turn around and give themselves large pay rises and assorted other perks for doing such a sterling job of raising funds, and therefore company value via the securities markets.

What do they do with this new found wealth? Most often it would appear that they 'invest' it in beachfront property, large houses in leafy suburbs, or in times past have started to dabble in property development of their own. What is not funneled through to themselves via payrises is used to lease exotic company cars, international "business" travel to attend bullshit conferences and trade shows for the next tier of management, to give them the illusion of being employed by a successful business, whose future is assured.

Fuck them.

I'll use my money to fund my own capital investment projects thank you very much. If I wanted to fund the purchase of a waterfront property it might as well be my property as some corporate fat cat's. The returns offered by the NZ markets is pitiful compared to the risk that investors are exposed to.

Thats exact;y what I am talking about - if you had some money to fund your own projects, you could start your own business in competition with the fatcats that pay themsleves hefty salries and overcharge the consumers. If they are fatcats, they are ripe fo rteh picking, but there are no market forces allowing competition to happen - its all tied up in illiquid property.

[Tigadee]

And the reason why the cost of living is so high is because there is no money to start up businesses to provide competition for the fatcat monopolistic providers of everyday goods, so EVERYTHING becomes high cost - at least 60% more than what it should be.

I normally am a big "free market" supporter, and regard givernment run parastatals as fatcat players in themselves, but in light of the current issues around competition that are faced everyday here, I am not so sure that selling off state assets is a good thing, because teh free market players become even worse in a tiny market. That free market model seems to work when there is a big enough market to encourage comnpetition, but maye not so well here.

Agreed. This has happened in so many areas in NZ, from houses to goods to groceries to motorcycle helmets and bikes. Sometimes, a Command economy is not a bad thing, especially for a small country but you do need competent people running the show, not the unqualified politicans who don't know anything about science, economics, engineering, etc...

[R-Soul]

Wrong.

The government removed the tax deductions for rental housing two years ago. Plus losses are now ringfenced and unable to be spread across your other income. As a result many mum and dad owners of a rental house have faced negative equity and been selling which is why the property market is depressed.

Nevertheless your main points are well made. Our housing is expensive in places where the bulk of the population live. The longterm average house price is 3.5x average income but for the last decade it's been 6x and stays there despite the global meltdown. It defies economic logic.

Building is expensive here because of tight regulation among other reasons. Earthquakes. Back in 1991 the government tried to free up the regs and what happened...leaky homes. Shoddy building. Ordinary people ended up facing the loss of their homes and financial ruin which continues to this day.

So removing building controls is a non-starter.

Yes, the government has EVENTUALLY moved to try and free up some of the cash - they are moving slowly towards this to try and hint at ma and pa investors to get the hell out of the property market NOW to prevent massive losses overnight. The writing is on the wall that it can and WILL happen. Eventually. They are popping the bubble slowly. But trying to deflate decades of bad policy cannot happen overnight. In the meantime we all leave for Oz, and our standards of living and wages drop.

Yes deregulation was a fuck up in the past- that does not mean that it is wrong - just that the deregulation was not handled properly. How come other countries manage to put up lots of houses without fuckups? Just do what they do dammit! In areas north of Perth, they have put up like 50,000 brand new houses in a few years. Why can we not do this? Because our government are freaking landlords and dont want this to happen to their investment or to their ma and pa voters! The whole thing is so endemic that is a self-fulfilling fuck up.

Perhaps the house insurers should have inspectors to check that building codes have been followed to ensure that it is done properly before they will insure it. Or maybe the government must just pull their finger out.

[HenryDorsetCase]

the key difference in australia vs here is material cost. the reason for that is the cost of materials in NZ is controlled by a duopoly (like groceries). My brother can (and has) imported container loads of mdf and that formica faced MDF way cheaper than he could have bought it here, even with his buy price. (which is very good). How else do you get a house in Straya for way less than it costs here when the trades are getting paid way more? two reasons: land is cheaper, and materials are cheaper.

Don't get me started on subdivisions.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Yes, the government has EVENTUALLY moved to try and free up some of the cash - they are moving slowly towards this to try and hint at ma and pa investors to get the hell out of the property market NOW to prevent massive losses overnight. The writing is on the wall that it can and WILL happen. Eventually. They are popping the bubble slowly. But trying to deflate decades of bad policy cannot happen overnight. In the meantime we all leave for Oz, and our standards of living and wages drop.

Yes deregulation was a fuck up in the past- that does not mean that it is wrong - just that the deregulation was not handled properly. How come other countries manage to put up lots of houses without fuckups? Just do what they do dammit! In areas north of Perth, they have put up like 50,000 brand new houses in a few years. Why can we not do this? Because our government are freaking landlords and dont want this to happen to their investment or to their ma and pa voters! The whole thing is so endemic that is a self-fulfilling fuck up.

Perhaps the house insurers should have inspectors to check that building codes have been followed to ensure that it is done properly before they will insure it. Or maybe the government must just pull their finger out.

You obviously know very little about the history of changes to the Building Act, the reasons behind the "leaky homes" "Crisis" or the drivers of house price inflation. Or indeed what insurance companies do and dont do, and how one gets from a bare patch of dirt to the 1/4 acre paradise. (actually these days 1/6th acre but whatever).

[Brett]

My bad, the last block brought the total up to $6.54 million for 246 hectares or so says the media.

246 hectares for $6.54 million closeish to town is a good buy.

[Brett]

You obviously know very little about the history of changes to the Building Act, the reasons behind the "leaky homes" "Crisis" or the drivers of house price inflation. Or indeed what insurance companies do and dont do, and how one gets from a bare patch of dirt to the 1/4 acre paradise. (actually these days 1/6th acre but whatever).

The governments approach to managing the leaky homes/buildings issue was a joke in itself. The resulting changes to the Building Act and processes around it are off the mark. I don't think that the government should have nearly as much involvement as they do....they seem incapable of responding sensibly to any major drama and respond with the good ol' knee jerk reaction that according to the legislation fixes the problem, but in reality does little to actually address the root causes of the issue. Hence, in the case of leaky building...they are still being built, albeit on a much smaller scale. Buy a plaster house at your own peril! The government answer to a problem 9/10 is to regulate. regulate, regulate regulate. If we regulate against it, it wont happen. *TUI*

[HenryDorsetCase]

The governments approach to managing the leaky homes/buildings issue was a joke in itself. The resulting changes to the Building Act and processes around it are off the mark. I don't think that the government should have nearly as much involvement as they do....they seem incapable of responding sensibly to any major drama and respond with the good ol' knee jerk reaction that according to the legislation fixes the problem, but in reality does little to actually address the root causes of the issue. Hence, in the case of leaky building...they are still being built, albeit on a much smaller scale. Buy a plaster house at your own peril! The government answer to a problem 9/10 is to regulate. regulate, regulate regulate. If we regulate against it, it wont happen. *TUI*

I kind of agree. the big thing is industry training. A couple of my clients are builders in their 50's: they started as apprentices and they did everything. started digging trenches for services, site setout, built the foundations and carried on from there. I am not that sure that the LBP regime will help that to be honest. Ze Chermans, when not invading other bits of Yrp, or propping up their economies*, sure know how to do trades training though.


*kind of the same effect, if not the same thing.

[HenryDorsetCase]

246 hectares for $6.54 million closeish to town is a good buy.

so divide that by 750 is 3280 potential home sites. Say 2500 by the time you allow for roads and parks and kiosks and streetlights and stuff.

Bargain: each site has an input cost of $2600. Say $70k/site for costs, another $20k/site for council, andother $25k/site for hold and interest costs, bit of the old GST, cost of sale, and hows your father: I reckon we could get them out the door at cost for $150k. If we want to make money (and if you've punted $6.5M we want to make some money, we want to make at LEAST $50k/site, but say we achieve $40k/site: BONZA! $100M profit.

Where do i sign? (I am Hugh Fletcher by the way, I can do this out of pocket lint and sofa change)

[flyingcrocodile46]

The governments approach to managing the leaky homes/buildings issue was a joke initself. The resulting changes to the Building Act and processes around it are off the mark. I don't think that the government should have nearly as much involvement as they do....they seem incapable of responding sensibly to any major drama and respond with the good ol' knee jerk reaction that according to the legislation fixes the problem, but in reality does little to actually address the root causes of the issue. Hence, in the case of leaky building...they are still being built, albeit on a much smaller scale. Buy a plaster house at your own peril! The government answer to a problem 9/10 is to regulate. regulate, regulate regulate. If we regulate against it, it wont happen. *TUI*

Actually it was more of a crime than a joke. The govt (standards Association NZ) removed the requirement for timber treatment to 90% of timber in houses. That factor alone (NZBC B2 compliance failure via decay damage) exacerbated the problem and repair cost by about 500%. Then the dirty fuckers wrote & passed the WHRS Act to allow the creatation and funding of a new litigation pathway so everyone could sue each other (instead of them) and at the same time dissolved the BIA (the govt dept that was then equivalent of todays DBH) and legislated to make it all but impossible to sue BRANZ (Govt dept that appraised all these failed cladding systems as ok) and SANZ. If that isn't the most gutless cunt act of the NZ govt ever, I don't know what is.

The money spent on lawyers and experts by all of the parties involved in the claims is estimated at totaling between 3 to 4 times the claim settlement value. So aside from being inherently unfair (hanging the wrong people) but the system is so fucked that is crippling the economy fourfold to fix it.

The leaky building debacle will cost the country more than the chch earthquakes. The resulting devaluation of our housing stock has helped considerably to drive down our country's international credit rating, so on top of everything else we have to pay extra for the money we borrow to fix it.

This is what happens when you have MMP and tinpot greeny parties that get to play kingmakers in exchange for environmentally friendly laws which allow removal of nasty timber preservatives.

Laws and regulations were unnecessarily and inappropriately changed purely because of politically driven decisions (trade offs).

We can thank the greenies for this horrific disaster. Fucking PC crap is gonna send us all bankrupt.

The Building Act, Regulations and Building Code are horrendously over complicated and are properly understood by approx less than 1% of people in the industry. You need a fucking degree just to understand how the rules are applied before you can even think about studying the rules themselves.

We need to re write our country's rules and regulations, not with new text, but by deleting 66% of it, so we have a half a chance of understanding them. Same goes with tricky dicky artistic wet dream house designs. Keep them simple and outlaw the use of 90% of the materials currently on the market. Go back to basics until we understand them. If you want unrestricted freedom of design perversion and forbidden list material use then build them without any reliance on compliance with the building code or compensation from anyone when it all turns to shit. Fair or unfair it would be a sight better than where we have gone and our flailing attempts to strive for perfection.

That would help drive both compliance and material costs down.

My 2 cents

[flyingcrocodile46]

The governments approach to managing the leaky homes/buildings issue was a joke in itself. The resulting changes to the Building Act and processes around it are off the mark. I don't think that the government should have nearly as much involvement as they do....they seem incapable of responding sensibly to any major drama and respond with the good ol' knee jerk reaction that according to the legislation fixes the problem, but in reality does little to actually address the root causes of the issue. Hence, in the case of leaky building...they are still being built, albeit on a much smaller scale. Buy a plaster house at your own peril! The government answer to a problem 9/10 is to regulate. regulate, regulate regulate. If we regulate against it, it wont happen. *TUI*


I kind of agree. the big thing is industry training. A couple of my clients are builders in their 50's: they started as apprentices and they did everything. started digging trenches for services, site setout, built the foundations and carried on from there. I am not that sure that the LBP regime will help that to be honest. Ze Chermans, when not invading other bits of Yrp, or propping up their economies*, sure know how to do trades training though.


*kind of the same effect, if not the same thing.

The LBP system will pay dividends eventually but expect 5 years to pass before the industry really takes it on board and starts to run with it. Another 5 years before really measureable results in service quality/delivery will be evident. Another 10 to 15 before the objective (including more effective self training and ITO tools/methodology) could be regarded as both achieved and self sustaining.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Here's some cheap sections:

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=471346940


where the hell is Mura Para anyway? Nice place to live?

[Smifffy]

Maybe then they will realise that living like a rockstar on a hairdresser's or barista's wage while paying rent their whole working life wasn't such a great idea.


One other thing that the government may not have considered in allowing the price of homes to become so inflated:

We are becoming a nation of tenants. There have been a few newspaper stories on this already.
Typically when people retire, they have paid offf their houses, and can live relatively rent free, or with minimal payemnts to be mde on their house. What happnes when the current nation of tenants retire? Their annuation costs will be enormous in light of the current rental costs!! The government is going to end up having to support retired pensioners in state houses because private housing just wont be possible! Can they afford to put an entire generaton of pensioners in state houses? Or does the taxpayer have to pay for that too?

[avgas]

You can get a 10-15 year old waterfront 3-4 bedroom house with a big garage, large section, and possibly inground semi/indoor pool in Florida, USA for $150-200K......which is approx $250K NZ.

But some poor unlucky bastard probably paid $500-750K US for it 5-7 years ago.

The same reasons why property is so cheap in the US, but used to be so incredibly expensive(real estate price collapse of up to 75-80% in places in Florida, Nevada, California) is the massive over cheap credit bubble and credit collapse.

In many places in the US(differs state by state) there is no personal guarantee on the owner with the property....you can do what's called "jingle mail", mail the keys to the bank holding the mortgage and walk away if you're mortgage is much higher than the current value of your property.

NZ has been protected a bit by this because our lending didn't get AS silly(like 125% of overinflated home value and falsified income requirements) and every mortgage holder in NZ has a personal guarantee on the mortgage.

So we're still quite inflated property wise.

Still far better than China though......in some places in China a home(which is really just a poorly made shitbox apartment on long term LEASE) is going for 20-30 times the average annual wage for a professional.

China's got a big property bubble...a real BIG one that could make the US/UK property bubble that popped in recent years look like an appetizer waiting for the main course.

If/when China pops(and signs are showing of stress although China's command economy can try to stem it far faster than the US/UK) it's going to hurt down here....and even the lucky country will take a fair whack.
Friend whom I am going to visit lost big on her holiday home in Florida. But she don't really care too much as the smoking industry paid for it anyway - easy come easy go. Also she didn't have a mortgage to recover on it - so she keeps the holiday home, but its lost value.
I think it went from US$770 down to US$450.

As for the China thing. I currently have access to more property there than here. Apparently this just came into the family after they (govt) took an apartment off us in CBD. Looking forward to go over and get it all fitted out.
Not the prettiest design, but way bigger than what I can afford here.
263713263714

[R-Soul]

You obviously know very little about the history of changes to the Building Act, the reasons behind the "leaky homes" "Crisis" or the drivers of house price inflation. Or indeed what insurance companies do and dont do, and how one gets from a bare patch of dirt to the 1/4 acre paradise. (actually these days 1/6th acre but whatever).

No, I know nothing about it - except that you now treat any non-weatherboard houses with suspicion.
I was not criticising it - I was making the point that other markets have managed to get houses made cheaply and efficiently to reduce demand and hence cheapen house prices. We should be able to as well.

[R-Soul]

You obviously know very little about the history of changes to the Building Act, the reasons behind the "leaky homes" "Crisis" or the drivers of house price inflation. Or indeed what insurance companies do and dont do, and how one gets from a bare patch of dirt to the 1/4 acre paradise. (actually these days 1/6th acre but whatever).

And as to what drives house price inflation - why, demand of course! Same old, same old rules of economics of course. Too many people want already built housesdue to reasona already mentioned (immigration, speculation, tax incentives etc), too difficult/expensive/whatever to develop new ones. Land not released for building therefor not available.

Net result is nobody building new ones, and everybdy buying old ones, with prices for crappy, shitholes with no trimming being 5 x wages.

[R-Soul]

the key difference in australia vs here is material cost. the reason for that is the cost of materials in NZ is controlled by a duopoly (like groceries). My brother can (and has) imported container loads of mdf and that formica faced MDF way cheaper than he could have bought it here, even with his buy price. (which is very good). How else do you get a house in Straya for way less than it costs here when the trades are getting paid way more? two reasons: land is cheaper, and materials are cheaper.

Don't get me started on subdivisions.

I agree- almost every bloody market has a duopoly beause teh market size cant really support much more than that, unless there are a lot of smaller, efficiently run operations competing with them. However, with no cash in hand, and no way to get it from investors -who are all illiquid and up the hilt in property - it will always stay like this unless government regulates pretty much fucking everyything - something I would not typically like to see.

[Andy67]

And as to what drives house price inflation - why, demand of course! Same old, same old rules of economics of course. Too many people want already built housesdue to reasona already mentioned (immigration, speculation, tax incentives etc), too difficult/expensive/whatever to develop new ones. Land not released for building therefor not available.

Net result is nobody building new ones, and everybdy buying old ones, with prices for crappy, shitholes with no trimming being 5 x wages.

I realise this is a rant and you are not alone. A lot of what you are saying s right and a lot is tenuous at best.

The world is in deep trouble, NZ is a good place to be. You have 2 choices. First is to accept that kiwis will always do what kiwis do in the face of slim investment options and hop on board if you ever want to get into your aspirational house, second is don't. Your call cause no one gives a shit f you do or don't. Awesome aye.

[R-Soul]

Maybe then they will realise that living like a rockstar on a hairdresser's or barista's wage while paying rent their whole working life wasn't such a great idea.

Spoken like someone who bought a cheap house way back when. After arriving here in 2006, with money that was worth toilet paper, my wife I have been trying hard to save a deposit for a house, with not much luck. Granted its a on a single salary, but then its a decent salary. No rock star living here. And the thing is that even if we did manage to save 20% on a $500k house ($100,000- yeah right with these rent prices!?) , I am not sure I actually would want to fork over that kind of money for that kind of craphole.

[R-Soul]

I realise this is a rant and you are not alone. A lot of what you are saying s right and a lot is tenuous at best.

The world is in deep trouble, NZ is a good place to be. You have 2 choices. First is to accept that kiwis will always do what kiwis do in the face of slim investment options and hop on board if you ever want to get into your aspirational house, second is don't. Your call cause no one gives a shit f you do or don't. Awesome aye.


My point is that I want to, but CANT. Damn few young and even middle aged people can right now - especially starting from scratch, orwithout a loan from daddy.

Sure, I get your point. Do or die cause nobody cares. I am saying that someone should start caring because pretty soon there will be signs at the airport saying "Please will the last person leaving switch off the lights".

[Andy67]

My point is that I want to, but CANT. Damn few young and even middle aged people can right now - especially starting from scratch, orwithout a loan from daddy.

Sure, I get your point. Do or die cause nobody cares. I am saying that someone should start caring because pretty soon there will be signs at the airport saying "Please will the last person leaving switch off the lights".

No one cares mate, you sound like youre in the same spot I was, cant wait till one of my kids says, why didn't you buy 6 of them dad when they were only a million each.....my first house was 280k I had 40k deposit, 5 years hard saving ... I shat bricks, was on little more than my deposit. Difference was I had no kids and a partner who earnt slightly less. In hind sight I should've bought as much property as I possibly could've over the next 10 years. Would've should've didn't. Mate what I can see is property flat lining for a bit. Don't worry about media hype and all those talking their book. If you want to get in, just do it even If it means living in Titirangi .... Up down now later......all relative.

[BMWST?]

Big diddums OP.

Why would any new landlord want to tie up half a million dollars in an asset that has no capital gain, that he has to place in the hands of others, that needs constant maintenance, that can be wrecked and all he can get back is 4 weeks rent, that he can not loss adjust against other income (which every other business can do), just to keep you in the luxury you think you are entitled to?

In the 80's landlords were gods, you could not get a flat for love nor money. The govt did not have the funds to keep up with the requirements for state housing sothey made the losses landlords had tax deductable, which attracted a lot of ma and par investing, the nett result was good properties became available for rent and rents were low.

Why would anybody want to tie up their funds in a low return high maintenance investement that pays them less than the current morgage rate? I would suggest you are going to see rentals going up another 10-25% in price over the next few years and the avalibility really going down.

there is one BIG difference though.The underlying asset actually appreciates...rare indeed

[Smifffy]

Spoken like someone who bought a cheap house way back when. After arriving here in 2006, with money that was worth toilet paper, my wife I have been trying hard to save a deposit for a house, with not much luck. Granted its a on a single salary, but then its a decent salary. No rock star living here. And the thing is that even if we did manage to save 20% on a $500k house ($100,000- yeah right with these rent prices!?) , I am not sure I actually would want to fork over that kind of money for that kind of craphole.

There was a never a cheap house way back when. I bought my first house in '95 and it was 4-5 x wages then, it was a crap hole, and I spent at least another year's worth of wages doing things to it that needed doing. It was about the cheapest house on the market back then. It was vacant possession when I bought it. When the land agent showed it to me she said "I know it looks like crap now that it's empty, but it will look a lot different with your furniture in it. I replied "Actually no it won't" I thought I was going to be sitting on beer crates, my 'furniture consisted of an entertainment unit a tv and a stereo in my bedroom. Luckily neighbours of my parents were throwing out two armchairs so I got them, and a dining table and chairs for $125 from the 2nd hand dealer. I replaced the dining table and chairs about 2 years ago. Most of the rest of the stuff was replaced well before then.

Maybe it would have helped if you had researched the house prices and living costs when you made your choice in 2006?

[BMWST?]

There are quite a few costs that need to be taken into account. My numbers above assumed 3 years to sell all sections...probably far too optimistic...could take up to 10 years! At 10,11,12% interest rates, doesn't take long for profit to significantly reduce. 1500 houses are a lot to sell, I agree.

the development of the subdivision is staged,you dont fully develop 1500 site,you do a couple of streets at a time

[Smifffy]

This is exactly right, and also, as rent increases with inflation, effectively mortgage payments reduce at the same rate, providing interest rates are stable.


No one cares mate, you sound like youre in the same spot I was, cant wait till one of my kids says, why didn't you buy 6 of them dad when they were only a million each.....my first house was 280k I had 40k deposit, 5 years hard saving ... I shat bricks, was on little more than my deposit. Difference was I had no kids and a partner who earnt slightly less. In hind sight I should've bought as much property as I possibly could've over the next 10 years. Would've should've didn't. Mate what I can see is property flat lining for a bit. Don't worry about media hype and all those talking their book. If you want to get in, just do it even If it means living in Titirangi .... Up down now later......all relative.

[Andy67]

the development of the subdivision is staged,you dont fully develop 1500 site,you do a couple of streets at a time

And good luck getting any finance for that sort of project these days.

Shame really. Have a look at the haircut BOS are taking.......

[Andy67]

This is exactly right, and also, as rent increases with inflation, effectively mortgage payments reduce at the same rate, providing interest rates are stable.

All debts must eventually be repaid for sure. Repayments get less over time. I actually sold my house at the top of the last bubble. Went renting and put my equity into the bank because interest rates were so damn atractive , could've been a fuck up but it worked out really well. Interest rates dropped hugely, so the sums changed and I bought another house. Horses for courses really.

[BMWST?]

the key difference in australia vs here is material cost. the reason for that is the cost of materials in NZ is controlled by a duopoly (like groceries). My brother can (and has) imported container loads of mdf and that formica faced MDF way cheaper than he could have bought it here, even with his buy price. (which is very good). How else do you get a house in Straya for way less than it costs here when the trades are getting paid way more? two reasons: land is cheaper, and materials are cheaper.

Don't get me started on subdivisions.

and some of the timber and boards in aussie come from???

[Andy67]

and some of the timber and boards in aussie come from???

As soon as you build from new you are pissing 15 percent up against the wall compared to an an exting dwelling of similar standard. Sux. Market values don't account for construction cost or gst.

[Winston001]

Yes deregulation was a fuck up in the past- that does not mean that it is wrong - just that the deregulation was not handled properly. How come other countries manage to put up lots of houses without fuckups?

They don't. Check out Vancouver. The tragedy is they built leaky buildings before we did so our BIA should have known what to prohibit here.

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/condo/


the key difference in australia vs here is material cost. the reason for that is the cost of materials in NZ is controlled by a duopoly (like groceries). My brother can (and has) imported container loads of mdf and that formica faced MDF way cheaper...


True that.

Also Oz houses are simply constructed. I know local builders who have worked over there and been stunned at the lack of bracing and reinforcement. Houses are cheap and quick to build. No earthquakes, no freezing gales and horizontal rain, not much tough weather at all. Their houses are perfectly fine without being strong.

[BMWST?]

No, I know nothing about it - except that you now treat any non-weatherboard houses with suspicion.
I was not criticising it - I was making the point that other markets have managed to get houses made cheaply and efficiently to reduce demand and hence cheapen house prices. We should be able to as well.

no they didnt.Canada had exactly the same problem as we did.The sad thing is wed idnt learn from them about how not to have leaky homes in the first place(untreated timber doesnt rot if it doesnt get wet) and we didnt learn from them about how to fix the problem either.Some of the problems we have with "leaky" houses is directly related to our wet windy weather.
There are new "details" being developed all the time,new flashing methods for windows and doors are just coming into use.
I work in the building industry and i am sad to say there are many people i deal with that do not instil me with confidence

[Winston001]

The Productivity Commission has just released its report on our housing problems: http://www.productivity.govt.nz/draft-report-engagement/967

As well, here is a nicely dry and balanced commentary from the Reserve Bank which makes some sound points: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monpol/about/2989594.html

Finally, the Reserve Bank is moving to tighten up bank lending criteria by requiring mortgages to be a maximum 80% of a house value. That means a 20% deposit which many people cannot afford. It also means that if you want to sell your house, you are going to have to lower your price because the buyers won't have enough dough.

[Andy67]

The Productivity Commission has just released its report on our housing problems: http://www.productivity.govt.nz/draft-report-engagement/967

As well, here is a nicely dry and balanced commentary from the Reserve Bank which makes some sound points: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monpol/about/2989594.html

Finally, the Reserve Bank is moving to tighten up bank lending criteria by requiring mortgages to be a maximum 80% of a house value. That means a 20% deposit which many people cannot afford. It also means that if you want to sell your house, you are going to have to lower your price because the buyers won't have enough dough.

The reserve bank is more interested in capital adequacy. It's a global trend following the recent "troubles" . Liquidity cost will increase and has done so recently as will the appetite for certain types of lending. Thing is the reserve is like a bloke with a 2 burner BBQ. They can talk and implement policy, it's government that will need to execute that initiative. Can't see it myself.

[avgas]

The reserve bank is more interested in capital adequacy. It's a global trend following the recent "troubles" . Liquidity cost will increase and has done so recently as will the appetite for certain types of lending. Thing is the reserve is like a bloke with a 2 burner BBQ. They can talk and implement policy, it's government that will need to execute that initiative. Can't see it myself.
Wot he said.
For YEARS now some of us have been bleeting at bollard that the OCR is promoting a (second) debt crisis. Stating that we may as well prepare to live in 1990's Japan type economics.
Dumb bastard has done nothing. Now he is threatening that he will have to double it next year.........um why couldn't you put it up 25 points a quarter and soften the blow rather than overreacting all the time.

History repeats and Bollard ties the rope for us this time. Can't believe it myself.
But 2.5%? How long was that seriously going to last - I hope he made some money off it.

[Spearfish]

Its interesting what's considered a "first" house today compared with 30 years ago.

Fuck I hate saying this...."Back in my day" a starter house was a 1000 square foot rectangle clad in wide hardly plank stuck in the middle of 500 to 600 square meters with the option of either the 1600 long stainless steel bench in the kitchen next to the free-standing stove or the deluxe double sink 1800 long. The floor was either polyurethane or left to be carpeted the gib stopping was one cote rough as guts for wallpaper. the wall paper, paths, drives, decks, fences, carport (if you were a rich bastard) a garage had to be done by the owners, even the bloody letterbox.
But whole street were left the same with roughly the same style of houses so streets usually had concrete parties doing drives and paths costing just materials, beer, the weekend and more beer.
Kegs were a fuckin disaster to a concrete finish....especially if it was a garage floor and the last truck with the measure rolled up after the keg was tapped.

None if this brick veneer, internal access garage with heat pumps, en suites and dishwashers wrapped in landscaped gardens that gets labeled a "Starter house" to "nest or invest" so "move quickly or risk being disappointed" by missing a "wopper-fucken-tunity".

Hard to start climbing a ladder if you refuse to use the bottom rungs first.

[Coldrider]

Wot he said.
For YEARS now some of us have been bleeting at bollard that the OCR is promoting a (second) debt crisis. Stating that we may as well prepare to live in 1990's Japan type economics.
Dumb bastard has done nothing. Now he is threatening that he will have to double it next year.........um why couldn't you put it up 25 points a quarter and soften the blow rather than overreacting all the time.

History repeats and Bollard ties the rope for us this time. Can't believe it myself.
But 2.5%? How long was that seriously going to last - I hope he made some money off it.I built my first spec at 20% IR during the wage freeze years in my early twenties, did it then and is a shit load easier now.

[Brett]

The LBP system will pay dividends eventually but expect 5 years to pass before the industry really takes it on board and starts to run with it. Another 5 years before really measureable results in service quality/delivery will be evident. Another 10 to 15 before the objective (including more effective self training and ITO tools/methodology) could be regarded as both achieved and self sustaining.

The registration process is still a bit of a joke...more of a focus on compliance (Eg building act etc.) and understanding where responsibility lies than on improving technical abilities (or at least confirming a basic level...) Then there is the fee...at the moment, my business focus does not require me to be a LBP, however for the few projects I undertake each year as a construction manager, I need to be licenced. (In the process of sorting out Site 3 LBP)...paying $700 odd per year to remain licenced is a bit steep to maintain a licence!
Due to the INSANE levels of red tape, I have nearly had it with construction. I have a set of plans for example that is currently going through building consent stage for a BASIC 230m2 2 story house. The plans are well done, and specify everything that they could want to know...and yet this week the certifier sent me a request for the following:

- Wind zone. The house is situated in what is deemed a "split windzone", all relevant documentation states seasonal variation between low/medium. So I instruct the architects to design house for High windzone, just so that there are no issues. Certifier comes back saying, please provide explanation for choice of high windzone. (Since when did the council/certifiers care about OVER engineering something??)

- Bricks - because the geoteck engineer made reference to a need to ensure protection of "brittle claddings" in the geotech report (something a geotech engineer has absolutely no business commenting on in the first place) the certifier has asked us to detail vertical control joints in the bricks! They argue that the expansive soils (good old auckland clay!) could result in the slab moving and the cladding cracking, but in the main section of the geotech report, they specify the type of foundation footings necessary to ensure complete slab stability...which again we over engineered to ensure that the slab never moves or cracks....Who in the hell puts control joints in brickwork on such a standard, simple to design and build house...retarded.

These are just 2 of some really dumb calls the certifiers are making. They have gone into arse covering mode and actually making the project a pain..cost overruns are already at $1500 for consultants fees to deal with their petty issues. This sort of thing is making the costs of building even worse. My costs unrelated to the physical construction (consent fees, design fees, development contributions, building consent procssing etc. ) are already topping $70k for a total build cost of $530k. (building related only, this particular site was bought developed and serviced already).
Add this to the changes in property GST laws (Land transactions now zero rated...) and it is actually really hard to make money out of building houses anymore. No wonder we're in a housing shortage!

A bit off course, but somewhat relevant to the topic at hand...

[Brett]

Here's some cheap sections:

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=471346940


where the hell is Mura Para anyway? Nice place to live?

Bay of plenty, between Tauranga and Whakatane. Pretty damn rough little town. Shit hole too.

[Brett]

I agree- almost every bloody market has a duopoly beause teh market size cant really support much more than that, unless there are a lot of smaller, efficiently run operations competing with them. However, with no cash in hand, and no way to get it from investors -who are all illiquid and up the hilt in property - it will always stay like this unless government regulates pretty much fucking everyything - something I would not typically like to see.

Very true comments re: the size of our markets. Fricken hard work trying to build a new business to compete with the incumbent with only 4 million kiwi folk.

[Brett]

the development of the subdivision is staged,you dont fully develop 1500 site,you do a couple of streets at a time

I am aware of that, however muddies the numbers :)

[BMWST?]

- Wind zone. The house is situated in what is deemed a "split windzone", all relevant documentation states seasonal variation between low/medium. So I instruct the architects to design house for High windzone, just so that there are no issues. Certifier comes back saying, please provide explanation for choice of high windzone. (Since when did the council/certifiers care about OVER engineering something??)


low to med.....hahahaha just about everything we do is very high...job today EXTRA HIGH 2.7(2.57 actually) stud,windows at 2.2 lower floor 3 trim studs at each side of just about every lower floor opening and studs at 300 crs.:shit:

[Brett]

low to med.....hahahaha just about everything we do is very high...job today EXTRA HIGH 2.7(2.57 actually) stud,windows at 2.2 lower floor 3 trim studs at each side of just about every lower floor opening and studs at 300 crs.:shit:

You're in welly though, that would be expected! My current home was specific design...however this house is pretty sheltered.

[flyingcrocodile46]

The registration process is still a bit of a joke...more of a focus on compliance (Eg building act etc.) and understanding where responsibility lies than on improving technical abilities (or at least confirming a basic level...) Then there is the fee...at the moment, my business focus does not require me to be a LBP, however for the few projects I undertake each year as a construction manager, I need to be licenced. (In the process of sorting out Site 3 LBP)...paying $700 odd per year to remain licenced is a bit steep to maintain a licence!

The funny thing is that Site licences aren't actually a requirement. There is no place in the Act that requires them to sign or certify anything. Design, carpentry, roofing, specialist claddings, waterproofing & P&D are pretty the only LBP's that have to sign anything or have the registration recorded. They really have missed the bus on getting it right. Save youself the $700 and hassle of CPD compliance. Site licenses are a dead end unless the Act is changed to make them accountable or even necessary




Due to the INSANE levels of red tape, I have nearly had it with construction. I have a set of plans for example that is currently going through building consent stage for a BASIC 230m2 2 story house. The plans are well done, and specify everything that they could want to know...and yet this week the certifier sent me a request for the following:

- Wind zone. The house is situated in what is deemed a "split windzone", all relevant documentation states seasonal variation between low/medium. So I instruct the architects to design house for High windzone, just so that there are no issues. Certifier comes back saying, please provide explanation for choice of high windzone. (Since when did the council/certifiers care about OVER engineering something??)

I am a weathertightness expert/ professional witness and a minor shareholder in a private BCA (obviously not the one you are dealing with, which I assume to be either Compass or Professionals). They are obviously quite wrong as it is wind speed which you design for, not the wind zone. BCA/Council GIS files only have generalised information on wind speeds (not zones). The actual wind zones are given in NZS3604 and are only one factor in calculating the project specific wind speeds. NZBC B1 & NZS3604 require that wind speed is calculated specific to the immediate topography (incl trees and ever changing shelter from adjacent housing developments etc). This should not need to be explained to either of the above parties, but it appears that you need to take them to task by doing so and threaten them with a damages claim (the threat does have weight even if it is hollow). Obviously you are dealing with someone who doesn't really know what's what and if your lucky he will recognise that, accept the lesson and back down.



- Bricks - because the geoteck engineer made reference to a need to ensure protection of "brittle claddings" in the geotech report (something a geotech engineer has absolutely no business commenting on in the first place) the certifier has asked us to detail vertical control joints in the bricks! They argue that the expansive soils (good old auckland clay!) could result in the slab moving and the cladding cracking, but in the main section of the geotech report, they specify the type of foundation footings necessary to ensure complete slab stability...which again we over engineered to ensure that the slab never moves or cracks....Who in the hell puts control joints in brickwork on such a standard, simple to design and build house...retarded.

Again, a similar story. I have read many Geotech reports containing this recommendation. It is valid more so for strip foundation designs or combinations of strip and raft (for differential movement or if the build platform partially encroaches an area of differing soil types Like part good ground and part certified class H fill). It is generally understood (and sometimes spelt out in the geotech report) that specific design cantilever edge beam raft slabs are designed to compensate for the identified issues in this respect. A simple letter from your engineer telling them so should see them accept the design consideration confirmation. They aren't qualified engineers and would have to have the council engineer carry out a design review to identify omission of a required design consideration before they could legally justify such silliness. Again, threats of seeking a determination and damages compensation in this respect do work. Big penalties for the BCA if they are shown to have abused the process and caused it to take more than the prescribed 20 days. They have to refund the consent application fee.




These are just 2 of some really dumb calls the certifiers are making. They have gone into arse covering mode and actually making the project a pain..cost overruns are already at $1500 for consultants fees to deal with their petty issues. This sort of thing is making the costs of building even worse. My costs unrelated to the physical construction (consent fees, design fees, development contributions, building consent procssing etc. ) are already topping $70k for a total build cost of $530k. (building related only, this particular site was bought developed and serviced already).
Add this to the changes in property GST laws (Land transactions now zero rated...) and it is actually really hard to make money out of building houses anymore. No wonder we're in a housing shortage!

A bit off course, but somewhat relevant to the topic at hand...

Yes it is relative because it goes to demonstrate a lack of time benefit to either process or product has resulted from all of the added compliance costs. Just more cost increase through delays.

[flyingcrocodile46]

low to med.....hahahaha just about everything we do is very high...job today EXTRA HIGH 2.7(2.57 actually) stud,windows at 2.2 lower floor 3 trim studs at each side of just about every lower floor opening and studs at 300 crs.:shit:

If you're in wellington it maybe (depending on claddings) that earthquake is the higher loading (for bracing) anyway.

[Brian d marge]

bored

800 years old , can be painted , no government certifications ,,,all ok




next

[Flip]

Its interesting what's considered a "first" house today compared with 30 years ago.

Fuck I hate saying this...."Back in my day" a starter house was a 1000 square foot rectangle clad in wide hardly plank stuck in the middle of 500 to 600 square meters with the option of either the 1600 long stainless steel bench in the kitchen next to the free-standing stove or the deluxe double sink 1800 long. The floor was either polyurethane or left to be carpeted the gib stopping was one cote rough as guts for wallpaper. the wall paper, paths, drives, decks, fences, carport (if you were a rich bastard) a garage had to be done by the owners, even the bloody letterbox.
But whole street were left the same with roughly the same style of houses so streets usually had concrete parties doing drives and paths costing just materials, beer, the weekend and more beer.
Kegs were a fuckin disaster to a concrete finish....especially if it was a garage floor and the last truck with the measure rolled up after the keg was tapped.

None if this brick veneer, internal access garage with heat pumps, en suites and dishwashers wrapped in landscaped gardens that gets labeled a "Starter house" to "nest or invest" so "move quickly or risk being disappointed" by missing a "wopper-fucken-tunity".

Hard to start climbing a ladder if you refuse to use the bottom rungs first.

Exfuckingzacly right.

Buy the worst house in the best street you can afford. Stop paying rent to others and get a toe in the door of the property market.

10 Years latter you have paid off half of it and the propery value has doubled. So you own 3/4 of a $500k house that you brought with a $25k deposit. Or do you buy a $25k second hand WRX and keep renting, ten years latter you are still paying rent to me and own a 10 year old WRX pos jalopy.

[Winston001]

The reserve bank is more interested in capital adequacy. It's a global trend following the recent "troubles" . Liquidity cost will increase and has done so recently as will the appetite for certain types of lending. Thing is the reserve is like a bloke with a 2 burner BBQ. They can talk and implement policy, it's government that will need to execute that initiative. Can't see it myself.

True. I admit I'm not up on the exact enforcement of current banking rules.

30 years ago there was the Reserve Ratio which Robert Muldoon used weekly to control NZs internal money flow. For some reason this is now out of favour.

In its place we have the Basel II Accord which specifies Tier I and Tier II Capital Adequacy ratios for banks, the idea being that all banks hold at least 8% of funds deposited in liquifiable assets. So if there is a run on the bank or a financial crisis, there is an 8% cushion.

If a central bank raises the ratio to 9% that means banks have to hold back more money and lend less. Somewhere in this mix is the ability of the central bank to restrict mortgage lending to 80% - which looks like happening. Good idea.

[Andy67]

True. I admit I'm not up on the exact enforcement of current banking rules.

30 years ago there was the Reserve Ratio which Robert Muldoon used weekly to control NZs internal money flow. For some reason this is now out of favour.

In its place we have the Basel II Accord which specifies Tier I and Tier II Capital Adequacy ratios for banks, the idea being that all banks hold at least 8% of funds deposited in liquifiable assets. So if there is a run on the bank or a financial crisis, there is an 8% cushion.

If a central bank raises the ratio to 9% that means banks have to hold back more money and lend less. Somewhere in this mix is the ability of the central bank to restrict mortgage lending to 80% - which looks like happening. Good idea.

All moving to Basel III now mate....the market is a peculiar thing, hard to pick what will be and what will not be considered adequate criteria to lend including LVR ... Loan to equity...very hard to see a return to 2.75 times income policy as well. If you want to cap something that's the way. Some ingenious sod will always find a way to substitute valuation for equity.....I think Government will leave all those decisions to the private sector and concentrate on systemic stability which is far more important. Anyway what would I know?

[Jantar]

Spoken like someone who bought a cheap house way back when. After arriving here in 2006, with money that was worth toilet paper, my wife I have been trying hard to save a deposit for a house, with not much luck. Granted its a on a single salary, but then its a decent salary. No rock star living here. And the thing is that even if we did manage to save 20% on a $500k house ($100,000- yeah right with these rent prices!?) , I am not sure I actually would want to fork over that kind of money for that kind of craphole.

So save $15000 deposit on a $75000 house. The mortgage on that is a fraction of what you now pay in rent and in 2 years you will have saved enough for a deposit on a $200,000 house. It doesn't take long to get up to what you want to achieve. It just means living somewhere less desirable for a while.

[Andy67]

Before you say to Jantar that there are no houses available in Auckland for 75k consider you don't have to buy in Auckland and you certainly don't have to live in it.

[flyingcrocodile46]

So save $15000 deposit on a $75000 house. The mortgage on that is a fraction of what you now pay in rent and in 2 years you will have saved enough for a deposit on a $200,000 house. It doesn't take long to get up to what you want to achieve. It just means living somewhere less desirable for a while.

That's fine if there is employment in that less desireable location and assuming it pays enough to allow savings. Where/what pray tell, is this wonderful housing and employment opportunity?

[flyingcrocodile46]

Before you say to Jantar that there are no houses available in Auckland for 75k consider you don't have to buy in Auckland and you certainly don't have to live in it.

Mate! you couldn't even buy a section in Akld with twice that money. Most areas where sections are available they are selling for closer to five times that value. Hell, even Warkworth is pushing toward $200K now.

[Smifffy]

Sure. That's the attitude to take you places in life.


That's fine if there is employment in that less desireable location and assuming it pays enough to allow savings. Where/what pray tell, is this wonderful housing and employment opportunity?

[Andy67]

Mate! you couldn't even buy a section in Akld with twice that money. Most areas where sections are available they are selling for closer to five times that value. Hell, even Warkworth is pushing toward $200K now.

I know mate, it one bed apartment territory and the shitest of the shit. Even then the body corp also has a part to play.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So save $15000 deposit on a $75000 house. The mortgage on that is a fraction of what you now pay in rent and in 2 years you will have saved enough for a deposit on a $200,000 house. It doesn't take long to get up to what you want to achieve. It just means living somewhere less desirable for a while.
You've left a zero off each of your figures. Apart from that, good going. Shirley there is nowhere in this country you could buy a house for $75k

[flyingcrocodile46]

Sure. That's the attitude to take you places in life.

Great bit of wisdom there. :weird: You and the bank that provides a mortgage would have to be fools to buy into a relocation somewhere just to get an affordable house when there is no income to service the mortgage.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I know mate, it one bed apartment territory and the shitest of the shit. Even then the body corp also has a part to play.

You'd want to be vigilant about a body corporate. UTA 2010 and that.

[flyingcrocodile46]

You've left a zero off each of your figures. Apart from that, good going. Shirley there is nowhere in this country you could buy a mortgageable house for $75k

Fixed

I rather imagine Chch will have a few opportunities for cash buyers.:laugh:

[flyingcrocodile46]

You'd want to be vigilant about a body corporate. UTA 2010 and that.


That and declining returns on urban fungi crops down at Turners and Growers means it's a bit risky

[Smifffy]

Nah, I got off my arse and looked, instead of whingeing on the internet in the hopes that someone would offer it to me on a plate out of the blue.


Great bit of wisdom there. :weird: You and the bank that provides a mortgage would have to be fools to buy into a relocation somewhere just to get an affordable house when there is no income to service the mortgage.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Nah, I got off my arse and looked, instead of whingeing on the internet in the hopes that someone would offer it to me on a plate out of the blue.

Well good for you. However that doesn't make rash advice into good advice does it? Did you buy before you investigated employment opportunities near your new home location or were you simply lucky rather than smart?

[flyingcrocodile46]

You'd want to be vigilant about a body corporate. UTA 2010 and that.

Actually having properly considered the implication of UTA2010 I can see that it is going to fast track a lot of rash homeowners and investors out the back door.

I can just imagine old slumlord smiffy (or whoever) sitting on a dozen units with 30 to 50% equity in run down or rotting developments, happily collecting rents and chipping away at the mortgages. What a shock they will get when they are forced to either cough up the cost shortfall for half their neighbours (to pay for rebuild/maintenance) or forced to sell for ten cents on the dollar to a developer who is prepared to fund the whole thing. Imagine owing 50% to 70% on a dozen properties worth 10 to 30% of their bargain basement $75K purchase prices. That ain't a back door, it's a trap door over the pit of despair.

Banks must be thinking pretty hard about their exposure on unit title properties now. That will likely make it very difficult to get loans on them.

Look out for cheap units in the near future eh!:laugh:

[Jantar]

You've left a zero off each of your figures. Apart from that, good going. Shirley there is nowhere in this country you could buy a house for $75k

Try Murapara http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-408836140.htm
Ohura http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-414991392.htm
Mataura http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-462280179.htm
Ohai http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-443845894.htm

Others I know of in Tuatapere, Kaitangata, Authers Pass, etc.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Try Murapara http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-408836140.htm
Ohura http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-414991392.htm
Mataura http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-462280179.htm
Ohai http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-443845894.htm

Others I know of in Tuatapere, Kaitangata, Authers Pass, etc.

Excellent value IF you happen to be a sheep shearer or milking hand and can find employment nearby

search results for Trade Me Jobs


Keywords: 'Ohura' No search results for Trade Me Jobs

Keywords: 'Ohai' No search results for Trade Me Jobs ( I like that one but no work, no pay back loan and eat)

Keywords: 'Murupara' 1 listing, showing 1 to 1 STOCK CONTROL POSITION - Murupara (http://www.trademe.co.nz/jobs/agriculture-fishing-forestry/forestry/listing-468120033.htm)


Keywords: 'Gore' 29 listings (there is genuine hope of employment with this one but a truckload of money and sweat to invest in the very near future to maintain any amenity value and avoid an empty section and negative equity.)
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/CategoryAttributeSearchResults.aspx?mcat=5000-&sidebar=0&140=&selected155=&154=&144=-1&144=-1&142=&153=Gore&searchString=Gore&generalSearch_keypresses=0&generalSearch_suggested=0

Not a bad result all in all :niceone:

[Smifffy]

Since you really do seem to want it all on a plate:

I checked out the kind of work I wanted to do, and where that work was available
I did what I needed to do to make myself a suitable (the best) applicant
I applied for the job while still working my old job, which was on rolling 6 week contracts. (It only rolled if I was lucky)
I got the job and moved to the new location, renting.
Rented for a couple of months then bought.

Luck wasn't with me all the way, I bought while the local market was in a real bubble. Still I could put my place on the market for considerably less than it's market valuation and still make money on it if it sold.

I also managed to keep that other place I mentioned earlier that I was going to furnish with beer crates.


Yeah, it's fucking good to be lucky sometimes eh? I wonder how much better I could have done if I was smart?

I cry into my beer every night that I can't get to live in Auckland. (That's for the Tui billboard).



Well good for you. However that doesn't make rash advice into good advice does it? Did you buy before you investigated employment opportunities near your new home location or were you simply lucky rather than smart?

[merv]

Jantar, places like Ohura are a ghost town now and you'd have to be careful you weren't getting into a negative capital situation you can't get out of.

[Road kill]

You've left a zero off each of your figures. Apart from that, good going. Shirley there is nowhere in this country you could buy a house for $75k

Sure you can,,in Te Teko,Murapara,Ohura,Mangakino and a few others.'
In fact you can pick up a nice 1960's ex NZFP home in Mangakino for around $50,000.
Hell,I bought my own house in Tokoroa for $89,000 which is a bit over the budget but it's gone up almost $30,000 in the 8 years since I bought it,,so it's all good an you never know,,one day I might even be able to find work there and actually live in the place myself.

What your going to do with "your" flash new place in Mango' is of course,,another story.<_<:msn-wink:

[flyingcrocodile46]

Since you really do seem to want it all on a plate:

I checked out the kind of work I wanted to do, and where that work was available
I did what I needed to do to make myself a suitable (the best) applicant
I applied for the job while still working my old job, which was on rolling 6 week contracts. (It only rolled if I was lucky)
I got the job and moved to the new location, renting.
Rented for a couple of months then bought.

Luck wasn't with me all the way, I bought while the local market was in a real bubble. Still I could put my place on the market for considerably less than it's market valuation and still make money on it if it sold.

I also managed to keep that other place I mentioned earlier that I was going to furnish with beer crates.


Yeah, it's fucking good to be lucky sometimes eh? I wonder how much better I could have done if I was smart?

I cry into my beer every night that I can't get to live in Auckland. (That's for the Tui billboard).

Cheers! Very good of you an all. That means that my observation that the opportunity to purchase needs to be qualified by a bit of research into employment opportunities rather than left to chance/"luck"....

That's fine if there is employment in that less desireable location and assuming it pays enough to allow savings. Where/what pray tell, is this wonderful housing and employment opportunity?
didn't really warant the comment...

Sure. That's the attitude to take you places in life.
when in point of fact, you acknowledge that you didn't jump in boots and all leaving it to luck, but rather researched and even sampled the local employment options before you purchased.

Yeah I see exactly where the Tui's are :msn-wink:

[98tls]

Sure you can,,in Te Teko,Murapara,Ohura,Mangakino and a few others.'
In fact you can pick up a nice 1960's ex NZFP home in Mangakino for around $50,000.
Hell,I bought my own house in Tokoroa for $89,000 which is a bit over the budget but it's gone up almost $30,000 in the 8 years since I bought it,,so it's all good an you never know,,one day I might even be able to find work there and actually live in the place myself.

What your going to do with "your" flash new place in Mango' is of course,,another story.<_<:msn-wink:

Fwiw bought my place down south for $73,000 seven years ago,spent $30,000 on it and GV is currently $200,000.Will admit though its an inflalted GV made to suit our councils neverending quest to raise money.

[Road kill]

Fwiw bought my place down south for $73,000 seven years ago,spent $30,000 on it and GV is currently $200,000.Will admit though its an inflalted GV made to suit our councils neverending quest to raise money.

GV on our place currently $134,000,,,but market value no more than $110,000 if we could sell.
I hear you on the rates thing,,doubled in 8 years,but the town is not improving for it.
Plan on retiring there free hold in 10 years so it's not all doom an gloom.
Really feel for younger people trying to get into a home today.

[98tls]

GV on our place currently $134,000,,,but market value no more than $110,000 if we could sell.
I hear you on the rates thing,,doubled in 8 years,but the town is not improving for it.
Plan on retiring there free hold in 10 years so it's not all doom an gloom.
Really feel for younger people trying to get into a home today.

Agreed on that,sure is tough for them no matter how hard they try.Sounds like you have a good plan,enjoy.After 8 years in the Nth isle i left to come back down South,never intended on staying in little ole Oamaru but did and glad of it,a house for $73k and all thats good re rural living ie fishing,fishing and not to mention the fishing and the great motorcycle roads close by just a bonus.Whenever i have to go to the big smoke i just cringe and cant wait to get outta there.:laugh:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Actually having properly considered the implication of UTA2010 I can see that it is going to fast track a lot of rash homeowners and investors out the back door.

I can just imagine old slumlord smiffy (or whoever) sitting on a dozen units with 30 to 50% equity in run down or rotting developments, happily collecting rents and chipping away at the mortgages. What a shock they will get when they are forced to either cough up the cost shortfall for half their neighbours (to pay for rebuild/maintenance) or forced to sell for ten cents on the dollar to a developer who is prepared to fund the whole thing. Imagine owing 50% to 70% on a dozen properties worth 10 to 30% of their bargain basement $75K purchase prices. That ain't a back door, it's a trap door over the pit of despair.

Banks must be thinking pretty hard about their exposure on unit title properties now. That will likely make it very difficult to get loans on them.

Look out for cheap units in the near future eh!:laugh:

You've missed your calling, you're a poet really.

UTA2010 has the potential to be really good: where it falls down is the myriad small developments with low cap values: I have two files on my desk (well, on the floor near my desk) relating to unit titles and the stupid earthquakes. One was a prestigious, professionally managed high cap value block of apartments: there, the insurers have coughed, everybody is going to get paid, and well paid, and they all move on with their lives (this one had a $2M demolition cost). The other is a small 8 unit retirement type complex. The owners will get railroaded into Option 1 becuase the insurers have said "Nah mate, thats a repair" (its redzone: it cannot be repaired) and the thing is the BC (owners) have neither the means nor the will to take the insurer on. They know it, I know it, even the owners know it.

Tale of two cities.

There are many two to four unit BC developments where (in spite of the UTA 75 and UTA 2010) there are separate insurance policies for each unit. thats freakin' hilarious.

the new regime will be good. I think if you have a new, 5 unit plus, professionally managed one, you're golden.

[Andy67]

GV on our place currently $134,000,,,but market value no more than $110,000 if we could sell.
I hear you on the rates thing,,doubled in 8 years,but the town is not improving for it.
Plan on retiring there free hold in 10 years so it's not all doom an gloom.
Really feel for younger people trying to get into a home today.

Me too mate and I guess that's the OPs point with all the pseudo science stripped out, fucking tough all round but....make it work to the best you can afford, think about what you want and how to get there in small steps. Amazing how quickly 10 years flies past. Interestingmthat many people in the world never seek home ownership at all, it's all about choice and what you can do with your hard earned money. Real estate is not necessarily the be all and end all but as economist will say it has a lot of "utility" meaning it serves more than one purpose......Europe and much of Asia sine the late 90s has seen negative equity in property as the norm, in fact that's what kicked off the Asian crisis, late 90s....that my friends was a gentle breeze compared to what we have now. Be thankful food is not a discretionary spend and that's what we do well.

[Coldrider]

Try Murapara http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-408836140.htm
Ohura http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-414991392.htm
Mataura http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-462280179.htm
Ohai http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-443845894.htm

Others I know of in Tuatapere, Kaitangata, Authers Pass, etc.Crikey, I am gonna get myself a South Island batch, er sorry, crib. When I am in the SI I don't want to go anywhere near work.

[Winston001]

Fwiw bought my place down south for $73,000 seven years ago,spent $30,000 on it and GV is currently $200,000.Will admit though its an inflalted GV made to suit our councils neverending quest to raise money.

Good on ya Mike. Oamaru is a very pretty town, a harbour and Cape Wanbrow, close to Dunedin, not far from Chch and with interesting high country in back. I had a few misspent years at Waitaki Boys. :D

[Winston001]

Shirley there is nowhere in this country you could buy a house for $75k

DON'T call me Shirley.:bash::bash::bash::bash:

[Winston001]

Try Murapara http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-408836140.htm
Ohura http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-414991392.htm
Mataura http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-462280179.htm
Ohai http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential/for-sale/auction-443845894.htm

Others I know of in Tuatapere, Kaitangata, Authers Pass, etc.

Good man, and there are plenty others in Southland, North Canterbury, Wast Coast, and Central North Island.


Cheers! Very good of you an all. That means that my observation that the opportunity to purchase needs to be qualified by a bit of research into employment opportunities rather than left to chance/"luck"....



Despite my agreement with Jantar, you are right. Not much chop buying a house and having no job. Still, its worth knowing that it is possible to buy a home - yours, no landlord, your own peg in the dirt - on a benefit or a low wage. There is a strong psychological value in terms of personal security.

I can also say that there is work in some of these areas but the farmers/locals don't bother with TM. Its word of mouth and good employees keep the job. My brother-in-law struggles to get a reliable farm hand - they just don't turn up or are dumb as a bag of hammers. Jobs do exist in these out of the way places.

Furthermore lets think laterally: the internet changes things. The OP is a patent attorney. It is possible to provide intellectual advice and knowledge these days from anywhere in the world. Granted its no use to a truckie or an electrician but computer literate people can work living where they want to.

Personally I prefer face to face but I've had clients I've never met (including in Australia) through the internet. The telephone and email plus a bit of post does the job. So living in an expensive large city is not as essential as it once was.

[Smifffy]

Yes, and my point was that the research wasn't that difficult, but it does actually involve a little more than simply asking "where pray tell are all of the opportunities?"

Still, I guess it must be a lot easier sitting around waiting for either divine inspiration, an answer on a platter or a waaaaaaaambulance.


Apparently good quality housing in sought after and affluent parts of the country is in high demand and can command high prices. Affordable housing only exists in areas that are less desireable or sought after, and hence lifestyle and employment options maybe be limited.

No wonder the country and economy are fucked. No doubt 150k would buy a lovely hilltop home in Malibu or perhaps a 3 brm with all the mod cons in a leafy suburb of London. How much do you reckon a decent house would cost that is within an hour's commute of central Melbourne?

I know for a fact that 150k would get me a very nice place in 'rural' north Mississippi, and what do you suppose the job prospects are like there? Of course, compared to Oz or the USA, NZ has vast tracts of unused land that could be opened up for low cost housing, subsidised by the people that have chosen to live within their means. What are prices like in Otahuhu these days? That's where I lived when I first left home and headed to the big smoke to make my way in the world. I was boarding with a young professional couple who had just bought their first house and took in a boarder to help with the mortgage. They were always destined for Remmers or Mission Bay, and no doubt they got there, or wherever they ultimately aimed their sights. It was good enough for the mad butcher.

I never once advocated jumping in,leaving anything to chance or luck. What I am saying is that people tend to do better if they decide exactly what they want and then go about achieving it. Putting forward all of the reasons why something can't/won't happen is not generally the best way to reach one's objectives. Really buying a house is not much different to buying a motorcycle, it just takes a bit more commitment. Oh but the price of a new Diavel is so high, somebody should do something about it..

Good luck with whatever you decide to do, just decide and then do. Live your dream.




Cheers! Very good of you an all. That means that my observation that the opportunity to purchase needs to be qualified by a bit of research into employment opportunities rather than left to chance/"luck"....

didn't really warant the comment...

when in point of fact, you acknowledge that you didn't jump in boots and all leaving it to luck, but rather researched and even sampled the local employment options before you purchased.

Yeah I see exactly where the Tui's are :msn-wink:

[merv]

If you say you can or you say you can't - you are right. If you have every reason why you can't buy a house then you never will buy one. Those that buy them decide they can and go about achieving that.

As per this guys stuff http://www.richdad.com/about/rich-dad.aspx

[Tigadee]

...someone should start caring because pretty soon there will be signs at the airport saying "Please will the last Kiwi person leaving switch off the lights".

Fixed that for you...

[Flip]

Its just symptomatic of the I want generation. I want a nice house in a good area, I want a fast car, I want a overseas holiday, I want a 52" flat screen TV, I want, I want, I want it NOW!

Tought titties, people make a lot of money from the I want generation.

What I did was.....By the time I had finished my engineering quals I had almost saved enough for a deposit on a basic house. At 24 I brought my first house, it was in the middle of Wellington very close to the CBD and it cost me $107k. It was a rundown 100 year old dump in 2 flats but the basics were right, it was the worst house in a good street. I fixed it up over the next 10 years. I then got an work assignment in Christchurch so I rented it out for $260 pw, which covered the morgage with about 6k to spare, moved and brought another house. Well just that wee 2 story Wellington house now has a GV of $600k. There an't no more new land being developed in Wellington, so even if the GV is a little high, who cares, the house will double its value over the next 10 years.

If I had brought the house across the road that was worth $260k I would not have had the funds available to fix it up and I would have had a morgage over a much longer term that I would have struggled to get on top of.

Buy the worst rundown cheap house in a good area that you can easily afford and stop paying rent to others. Fix it up and get some capital gains. Wait a couple of years and rent it out and do it again, by the time you have done it 3-4 times you will have a million dollars worth of capital. Don't buy the best house in a cheap street ever.

Never buy a new house as a first home, you will never get ahead. Places close to the CBD like Newtown in Wellington are always going to be popular with tennants. Never rent to students, unless you like fixing houses and want to run a bording house that is.

I remember when Ponsonby was not a nice place to be.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I remember when Ponsonby was not a nice place to be.

shit yeah, I remember going to a party in this old shitter of a house in the early 80's (81, or early 82) It was the first time i had ridden a bike from Wellington to Auckland and I had no idea...... anyway, the house this party was at was awful, full of punk rockers and boot boys and drugs and stuff. And it could have been bought for (I think) $60k. Even the site would be $600k today probably.

We paid in 1988 $60k for our first house and had a $15k deposit. It took us 9 1/2 years to completely do the old girl up, bought a second hand garage, put it up, every weekend doing landscaping, painting, joinery, yada yada yada. We did the last wee bit of painting after it was sold the night before we moved out of it. Sold for $145k I think. and so on.

Its quite rare now for me to see people doing the same thing. and at the same age: I was 24, SWMBO was 23: first home buyers now are in their 30's


One thing I am pleased about: in early 2008 we were looking at the big "Fuck you peasant, look how wonderful I am and what a lovely house I have" house which we would have had to buy with a massive mortgage (no problemo, right, I was making really good money at the time). Thank goodness I didnt because I'd be bloody broke by now. Debt is BAD. Starting to get itchy feet again though. plus the garage is too small. Time to build?

[jasonu]

What I did was.....By the time I had finished my engineering quals I had almost saved enough for a deposit on a basic house. .

How did you save enough cash to put a deposit on a house while still at enginimeering school?

[Flip]

I was living at home in the family's granny flat and had no expenses, I also had as much work as a junior engineer as I could do.
I didn't do much partying back then, don't do much now. I used to put 2 or 3k away each year no probs.

[Winston001]

Starting to get itchy feet again though. plus the garage is too small. Time to build?

Mmm..or buy a lifestyle property to enjoy. A crib on Banks Peninsula or Lake Coleridge etc. Financiers will tell you this is dead money, bad idea etc but they fail to consider quality of life. One of the best decisions I ever made was to buy a crib with another family. Damn tough financially but it got better and my children are growing up enjoying holiday weekends which they will remember all of their lives.

Plus its nice to share a crib with wider family and friends.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Mmm..or buy a lifestyle property to enjoy. A crib on Banks Peninsula or Lake Coleridge etc. Financiers will tell you this is dead money, bad idea etc but they fail to consider quality of life. One of the best decisions I ever made was to buy a crib with another family. Damn tough financially but it got better and my children are growing up enjoying holiday weekends which they will remember all of their lives.

Plus its nice to share a crib with wider family and friends.

the issue with lifestyle blocks is that you get teh lifestyle of Dennis in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.......

My brother and I have talked about it a few times, but can't quite agree on where it should be. at one point it was going to be the Sunshine Coast (not as stupid an idea as it sounds), Friends have baches at Castle Hill (mountains, mtb-ing, walking, snow) or the Sounds (fishing, boating etc) and I've even looked at places like Okains Bay (I could commute to the city from there if I had to, and didnt have to do it 5 days a week).

Dunno. decisions next year.

[Winston001]

the issue with lifestyle blocks is that you get teh lifestyle of Dennis in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.......

Agreed but you'd have your own anarchosyndicalist commune with access to your very own filth! What's not to like?


My brother and I have talked about it a few times, but can't quite agree on where it should be. at one point it was going to be the Sunshine Coast (not as stupid an idea as it sounds), Friends have baches at Castle Hill (mountains, mtb-ing, walking, snow) or the Sounds (fishing, boating etc) and I've even looked at places like Okains Bay (I could commute to the city from there if I had to, and didnt have to do it 5 days a week).

Dunno. decisions next year.

I'm not suggesting yer actual "Good Life" farmlet, just a crib/batch away from the city. Okains Bay is exactly the sort of place. Close enough so you go but far enough away to be completely different. The Sounds are beautiful but would you look forward to a 5 hour drive on a Friday night? I'm told there are nice places on lakes in the Alps which I'd guess are 2 hours away. That's far enough.

Certainly buying with family or friends makes possible what might otherwise only be a nice idea.

[R-Soul]

Good man, and there are plenty others in Southland, North Canterbury, Wast Coast, and Central North Island.



Despite my agreement with Jantar, you are right. Not much chop buying a house and having no job. Still, its worth knowing that it is possible to buy a home - yours, no landlord, your own peg in the dirt - on a benefit or a low wage. There is a strong psychological value in terms of personal security.

I can also say that there is work in some of these areas but the farmers/locals don't bother with TM. Its word of mouth and good employees keep the job. My brother-in-law struggles to get a reliable farm hand - they just don't turn up or are dumb as a bag of hammers. Jobs do exist in these out of the way places.

Furthermore lets think laterally: the internet changes things. The OP is a patent attorney. It is possible to provide intellectual advice and knowledge these days from anywhere in the world. Granted its no use to a truckie or an electrician but computer literate people can work living where they want to.

Personally I prefer face to face but I've had clients I've never met (including in Australia) through the internet. The telephone and email plus a bit of post does the job. So living in an expensive large city is not as essential as it once was.

Nope - law is about relationships. Patent law is about establsihing close relationships with industrial clients. That means being there, meetinng with them often, keeping track of their developments, and being a trusted confidant. Internet is too impersonal.
Last time I looked, there weren't too many industrial clients out in the sticks.

[Spyke]

So what do you guys suggest young people do to go up the property ladder?

Buy the shittiest house on a good street and do it up, then wait till you have enough for another deposit and buy another place and repeat? Is it profitable to build houses purely to sell?

What are some ways you guys have worked your way up to having a portfolio that works for you?

I want to buy a first house and have people board with me, then either buy a second place and rent it out or build basic houses people can afford while i still make it worth while for me . My dads a builder and would love to be able to employ him. building a few houses a year but that would be down the line a bit.

Really interested in seeing how others done it.

[Spyke]

Is it still possible in this economic climate to go out and do it yourself without being a big business?

[Winston001]

No easy answers for you Spyke but yes, buying a house and having flatmates is a good start. Location location etc is the key but one twist is to anticipate a suburb on the rise. For example, Ponsonby in my mind is associated with police dawn raids and illegal immigrants - very downmarket. But of course its been gentrified and at the opposite end of the market these days.

When you have paid the mortgage down or your home has risen in value, buy a second house. You are on your way.

Still, while you are building assets you risk missing some crucial aspects of life. A relationship and children mean far far more in the long term. Overseas travel gains you memories and experiences which no amount of money can buy.

[Flip]

But its a hell ofa lot easier to travel after you have a million dollars worth of capital in the bank than as a bust grad.

[Indiana_Jones]

I doubt I'll buy my first home in Auckland, I'll most likely move to Hamilton or Dunners and get twice the house for less money.

We're not expecting a modern 5+ bedroom house for a first place, we just a tidy 3 bedroom house to start a family.

-Indy

[scumdog]

Shirley there is nowhere in this country you could buy a house for $75k

Well nowhere 'trendy' maybe, otherwise there's lots of places for less than that.

Of course there's always the work availability to think about...

[sidecar bob]

So what do you guys suggest young people do to go up the property ladder?

Buy the shittiest house on a good street and do it up, then wait till you have enough for another deposit and buy another place and repeat? Is it profitable to build houses purely to sell?

What are some ways you guys have worked your way up to having a portfolio that works for you?

I want to buy a first house and have people board with me, then either buy a second place and rent it out or build basic houses people can afford while i still make it worth while for me . My dads a builder and would love to be able to employ him. building a few houses a year but that would be down the line a bit.

Really interested in seeing how others done it.

Well I worked 14 hours a day, six days a week for years, & people say im LUCKY to own such a nice home.
It worked for me, & I rekon it could work for nearly anybody.
Sitting on your arse whinging that property values should fall so you can buy one with your part time wage from KFC is just stupid.

[BoristheBiter]

I my case buying a house has been the single worst thing i have ever done.
If I had still been renting where i was (still in the same suburb), I would be financially better off.

Buying a house is not the "be all and end all" that others make it out to be and most only tell you it is so you can get sucked into the same trap they have.

If I could go back I might still buy a house but no way in hell would it be in Auckland.

[Flip]

I brought my first house, a wee old house in the middle of wellington, for $104k and its GV is now $550k. By the time I owned 2 houses and the property values were on the climb the value of these houses was going up faster than I was earning money as an senior engineer.

Ok its been flat over the last 3 years buy you can't get into property with a short term plan.

Rents are generally on the rise because of the changes to the LAQC tax system and prices are low at the moment.

[BoristheBiter]

I brought my first house, a wee old house in the middle of wellington, for $104k and its GV is now $550k. By the time I owned 2 houses and the property values were on the climb the value of these houses was going up faster than I was earning money as an senior engineer.

Ok its been flat over the last 3 years buy you can't get into property with a short term plan.

Rents are generally on the rise because of the changes to the LAQC tax system and prices are low at the moment.

And because people like you have used the housing market to make as much money as possible most can't afford to buy their first home due to over inflated house prices.

[sidecar bob]

And because people like you have used the housing market to make as much money as possible most can't afford to buy their first home due to over inflated house prices.

Yes, & that is because all the stupid people that paid the over inflated house prices had a gun held to their heads while they signed up for them.
Its called supply & demand. if you cant afford a first home, I suggest getting two or three jobs & doing the hours to get the rewards.

[BoristheBiter]

Yes, & that is because all the stupid people that paid the over inflated house prices had a gun held to their heads while they signed up for them.
Its called supply & demand. if you cant afford a first home, I suggest getting two or three jobs & doing the hours to get the rewards.

1) I have my own home thanks,
2) I wouldn't call having one a reward.

[Indiana_Jones]

you can't get into property with a short term plan.

This I agree with.

And two or three jobs to buy your first basic home? where the fuck did we go wrong? lol


If I could go back I might still buy a house but no way in hell would it be in Auckland.

Pretty much what I think I'll end up doing. Buying a house in Bucklame seems silly when you can get twice the house for half the cost elsewhere.

-Indy

[neels]

A bit of research would suggest that immigration has a substantial effect on house values, after all the extra money for the increased house values has to come from somewhere, you can't just decide to ask 100k more for your house and expect the buyer to find the money out of thin air.

264631
264632


As per previous posts, there appears to be a different mindset regarding house buying compared to the past. If you're complaining that you can't save a deposit then you need to look at if you have;

a car less than 20 years old
any bling on your car it doesn't need
sky tv
iPhone/iPad/any other iWank
any new furniture
any new appliances
been overseas for a holiday
any money owing on a credit card

If the answer is yes, that's where your deposit went.

[Indiana_Jones]

a car less than 20 years old


So the guy with the Morris 1300 is sweet? :D

-Indy

[sidecar bob]

1) I have my own home thanks,
2) I wouldn't call having one a reward.

Aww stink bro.
You need to get a flash as pad like me then!!!

[BoristheBiter]

Aww stink bro.
You need to get a flash as pad like me then!!!

Why I'm never there as I'm working my 3 jobs to pay for it:msn-wink:

[Delerium]

A lot of whinging about the I want it now generation. Interesting. How many of you had a 30,000 plus head start via student loan before getting into property?

Thought so. Its not all lollipops and sunshine.

Hope your looking forward to when my generation gets into government and kicks super out the door.

[BoristheBiter]

A lot of whinging about the I want it now generation. Interesting. How many of you had a 30,000 plus head start via student loan before getting into property?

Thought so. Its not all lollipops and sunshine.

Hope your looking forward to when my generation gets into government and kicks super out the door.

I wouldn't expect anything less from a generation that thinks it deserves something for nothing.

[Delerium]

I wouldn't expect anything less from a generation that thinks it deserves something for nothing.

Get a grip. The country simply cant afford it. I dont expect to get govt provided super either. Not enough taxpayers to support the retired. Super is already the biggest cost in welfare. Oh and by the way, my student loan is already paid back and I have two jobs, one of which I will have more responsibility than you ever will.

[BoristheBiter]

Get a grip. The country simply cant afford it. I dont expect to get govt provided super either. Not enough taxpayers to support the retired. Super is already the biggest cost in welfare. Oh and by the way, my student loan is already paid back and I have two jobs, one of which I will have more responsibility than you ever will.


:tugger:
Bit full of yourself me thinks. Why would I give a shit about your student loan?
SO what is this job that makes you have SO much more responsibility that I will every have?

If you care that little for those that have come before you than you are a right selfish arse.
Where did you learn? All paid for by those that have come before you?

[sidecar bob]

Get a grip. The country simply cant afford it. I dont expect to get govt provided super either. Not enough taxpayers to support the retired. Super is already the biggest cost in welfare. Oh and by the way, my student loan is already paid back and I have two jobs, one of which I will have more responsibility than you ever will.

Responsibility is for dumb fucks that arent far enough up the ladder to dump it onto someone else, its the income that counts.

[jonbuoy]

Get a grip. The country simply cant afford it. I dont expect to get govt provided super either. Not enough taxpayers to support the retired. Super is already the biggest cost in welfare. Oh and by the way, my student loan is already paid back and I have two jobs, one of which I will have more responsibility than you ever will.

That drive through window can be stressful on a Saturday night eh? :baby: NZ is in a housing bubble.

[caspernz]

As per previous posts, there appears to be a different mindset regarding house buying compared to the past. If you're complaining that you can't save a deposit then you need to look at if you have;

a car less than 20 years old
any bling on your car it doesn't need
sky tv
iPhone/iPad/any other iWank
any new furniture
any new appliances
been overseas for a holiday
any money owing on a credit card

If the answer is yes, that's where your deposit went.

Bit of truth in that... There seems to be a thought amongst some that living like the middle class on minimum wage is actually possible, or even their right...

[Delerium]

That drive through window can be stressful on a Saturday night eh? :baby: NZ is in a housing bubble.

Wouldnt know, are you speaking from experience?

[Delerium]

:tugger:
Bit full of yourself me thinks. Why would I give a shit about your student loan?
SO what is this job that makes you have SO much more responsibility that I will every have?

If you care that little for those that have come before you than you are a right selfish arse.
Where did you learn? All paid for by those that have come before you?



You bought up the point of something for nothing. Er, wrong, I paid back my debts, ergo not something for nothing. Did I hit a nerve there? Good.

[Delerium]

Responsibility is for dumb fucks that arent far enough up the ladder to dump it onto someone else, its the income that counts.

Doing well there too, but its the other perks of the job im more interested. Thanks for your input though.

[Delerium]

Bit of truth in that... There seems to be a thought amongst some that living like the middle class on minimum wage is actually possible, or even their right...

Agree, Part of the current difficulty now is that in the main centres at least, rent is now getting more expensive than mortgage repayments which really hinders getting a deposit. So many people have resigned to the fact that they wont own their own home have decided to buy the toys instead.

[BoristheBiter]

You bought up the point of something for nothing. Er, wrong, I paid back my debts, ergo not something for nothing. Did I hit a nerve there? Good.

You still never answered the question.

[neels]

rent is now getting more expensive than mortgage repayments which really hinders getting a deposit.
So how is it that landlords are claiming the tax losses from their rental properties that everyone seems to love complaining about?

If you crunch the numbers on average it's cheaper by about 2% to rent a house than to own it, and the real irony is that if rents go up or house prices come down it becomes more viable to own rental property not less.

[sidecar bob]

So how is it that landlords are claiming the tax losses from their rental properties that everyone seems to love complaining about?

If you crunch the numbers on average it's cheaper by about 2% to rent a house than to own it, and the real irony is that if rents go up or house prices come down it becomes more viable to own rental property not less.

But the main difference between renters & home owners/ landlords, is that the home owners have gambled more than their life savings in the hope of a better future, whereas the renters wont take the risk of buying, prefering to whinge that the home buyers made so much money of property speculation, that they can no longer afford to buy a home.
Remember, not everybody makes money off buying & selling houses. Ask the people that bought leaky apartments.

[sidecar bob]

Doing well there too, but its the other perks of the job im more interested. Thanks for your input though.

What, free burgers at the end of the shift??

[Flip]

And because people like you have used the housing market to make as much money as possible most can't afford to buy their first home due to over inflated house prices.

Yes I have invested wisely and made a good return on my money, its simply supply and demand. I have other investments in primary industry which are now making good returns. I have never invested in finance companies as I simply don't like not being in control of my assets.

Personally I believe the price of houses is about right here, and that rents are too cheap. We are entering a period where rents are going to climb steeply for the next few years. So I expect shortly to be making a even better return from my rental income, keep in mind that over the last 10 years the LAQC has artificially kept rental prices low and the gains landlords have made have been from capital growth. Once rents go up there will be even more demand on entry level properties being purchased by landlords.

I am not and have never been a member of the "I wan't" generation, I am a member of the "I have what you need" one. :bleh:

[Flip]

So how is it that landlords are claiming the tax losses from their rental properties that everyone seems to love complaining about?

If you crunch the numbers on average it's cheaper by about 2% to rent a house than to own it, and the real irony is that if rents go up or house prices come down it becomes more viable to own rental property not less.

Every other business can clain losses against income so why can't landlords?

There is a real shortage of good rental properties at the moment and I don't see this changing for at least 20 years. The LAQC status was introduced when their was no rentals available and the govt didnt have the money to make new state houses. This is happening again, demand is going up, rents are going up and availability is going down. This will drive the price of entry level homes up.

The National goverment has payed the "greedy rich landlord" card and all it is really going to end up hurting is the working class renters and first home buyers. The minority of negatively geared ma and pa landlords, by now, would have sold off their rental properties. Probably reducing the supply by 10-15% which should put the rental prices up by the same margin. Factor in also the changes to LAQC which will also put up rental prices by the same ammount. I do expect without any adjustments for inflation that the real rental prices to go up from 20-30%.

Sucks to not own a home, but now is the time IMHO!

[BoristheBiter]

Yes I have invested wisely and made a good return on my money, its simply supply and demand. I have other investments in primary industry which are now making good returns. I have never invested in finance companies as I simply don't like not being in control of my assets.

Personally I believe the price of houses is about right here, and that rents are too cheap. We are entering a period where rents are going to climb steeply for the next few years. So I expect shortly to be making a even better return from my rental income, keep in mind that over the last 10 years the LAQC has artificially kept rental prices low and the gains landlords have made have been from capital growth. Once rents go up there will be even more demand on entry level properties being purchased by landlords.

I am not and have never been a member of the "I wan't" generation, I am a member of the "I have what you need" one. :bleh:

I just hope you have it all locked up in a trust so when you get means tested you are covered as when Labour get back in they will put on CGT.

You only think house prices are just right because you don't have to start from scratch in this market.
Yes you are correct it is supply and demand, doesn't make it right and it has been led by greed.

[scumdog]

when Labour get back in


With a bit of luck that may not happen soon...

[Flip]

I just hope you have it all locked up in a trust so when you get means tested you are covered as when Labour get back in they will put on CGT.

You only think house prices are just right because you don't have to start from scratch in this market.
Yes you are correct it is supply and demand, doesn't make it right and it has been led by greed.

When I brought my first house, I was a newby engineer and it cost me 3.7 years income. I don't know about Auckland butb that seems about right for down here at the moment.

The issue as I see it is young folk wanting a good middle class home on a bad working class income. They don't deserve it and haven't earnt it. It just does not add up in the long term. Just buy the worst house in the best street you can afford and fix it up. Thats all you have to do, it's QED. Now is the time.

[Delerium]

When I brought my first house, I was a newby engineer and it cost me 3.7 years income. I don't know about Auckland butb that seems about right for down here at the moment.

The issue as I see it is young folk wanting a good middle class home on a bad working class income. They don't deserve it and haven't earnt it. It just does not add up in the long term. Just buy the worst house in the best street you can afford and fix it up. Thats all you have to do, it's QED. Now is the time.



Its more than that. Home purchase price is now 8.6 times the average wage. Thats worse than london. Income to house price ratio is on the piss in a big way. Buying further from your work just puts the amount you save into transport and time cost.

[Flip]

Its more than that. Home purchase price is now 8.6 times the average wage. Thats worse than london. Income to house price ratio is on the piss in a big way. Buying further from your work just puts the amount you save into transport and time cost.

Don't like these stats because there have been some big ticket houses sold to rich immigrants with zero income.

How much would you pay for a entry level home in Ak?

[BoristheBiter]

Don't like these stats because there have been some big ticket houses sold to rich immigrants with zero income.

How much would you pay for a entry level home in Ak?

It is around 400K, but it is more a case of where you can afford to live as that price will get you a place in one of the worst suburbs.

I have a cheap house in an expensive area but it was a case of right place right time. (and a good deposit)
The down side is it takes me 45-60 min to get to work.

[BoristheBiter]

With a bit of luck that may not happen soon...

With the way they're going it might be sooner then we think.

[Indiana_Jones]

So anyone without a house/not a baby boomer is pretty much fucked? ....yay :niceone:

-Indy

[Winston001]

Every other business can clain losses against income so why can't landlords?

There is a real shortage of good rental properties at the moment and I don't see this changing for at least 20 years. The LAQC status was introduced when their was no rentals available and the govt didnt have the money to make new state houses. I do expect without any adjustments for inflation that the real rental prices to go up from 20-30%.

Sucks to not own a home, but now is the time IMHO!

OK reality check. The Loss Attributing Company was introduced to enable small businessmen to combine their business income and losses with their personal income from part-time jobs. Nobody including me ever thought property buyers would grab on to it.


I just hope you have it all locked up in a trust so when you get means tested you are covered as when Labour get back in they will put on CGT.

Yes you are correct it is supply and demand, doesn't make it right and it has been led by greed.

A Capital Gains Tax will treat everyone the same: holding your property in an LAQC will not evade the tax.

As for greed, I can't agree. The people you are referring to are ordinary mums and dads who have worked hard and gone without in order to buy a second property. That is no different to them buying a unit trust or investing in Kiwisaver. Just ordinary people trying to secure their future.

On another thread you'll find younger members stridently calling for the end of national superannuation. So on the one hand, save as much as you can, on the other, expect your children to strip your efforts away.

Fk why bother. Honestly I want to give up at times.

[jonbuoy]

You can´t really blame people for investing in property, re-mortgaging their own property to buy investments works as long as house prices rise - if there is a crash or the bubble bursts it can backfire badly - take a look at Spain. The government hadn´t borrowed like Greece had until they had to absorb all the toxic (negative equity) debts that 100% mortgages and "property is rock solid can´t fail" investing had brought about.

For a long time people really couldn´t loose with property - buy a house now, sell it in 10 years for 50% more. In the old school banking system it used to be they would only lend 3.5 times your annual wage for a mortgage. With the average house price of over $500K you need a lot more than the average wage of $70K in Auckland to afford an average house or a near 50% Deposit. Something has to give long term, the bubble will pop.

[schrodingers cat]

It is a nice idea to invest money into other things than property.
Its just that so much greed and white collar theft makes it unattractive to me.
If the market tanks I'd rather have a house I could live in than some cunts Lamborgini that I'll never get to drive

[sidecar bob]

I had three rental properties, but the constant stream of helpless no hope losers that represents the average tenant these days drove me fuckin nuts. So instead of providing cheap rental housing on behalf of a government that stacks the law in favour of some broke gutless tenant, I sold them all & put the lot into one home that I could enjoy.
The retirement plan (or a small part of it) is to sell the home & buy something for between a third & quater of the value & have some cash.
It sure beats being a landlord.

[BoristheBiter]

I had three rental properties, but the constant stream of helpless no hope losers that represents the average tenant these days drove me fuckin nuts. So instead of providing cheap rental housing on behalf of a government that stacks the law in favour of some broke gutless tenant, I sold them all & put the lot into one home that I could enjoy.
The retirement plan (or a small part of it) is to sell the home & buy something for between a third & quater of the value & have some cash.
It sure beats being a landlord.

When it comes time me to retire I will sell all my assets and go on a massive 10 year party around the world.
If I return I will go and rob a bank or similar as If they don't catch me I can carry on if not then they will stuck me in jail where i will get fed, watered and clothed as well as get free TV.

It's more than i can expect from the pension.

[SPman]

http://thejackalman.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/mortgagee-sales-who-is-to-blame.html

[waspnz]

Does anybody else here think that property costs are what is bringing NZ down and making it unlivable?

Hear me out: Tax favours property ownerhsip instead of ownership in shares/bonds/business ventures etc. So speculators buy property and make money from it, to buy more property. Everybody who can invest anything does it. Nobody invests in industry, so no jobs get created. Demand for property is kept high by the speculative buying so property prices inflate. As they inflate, more people buy property for the capital gains, inflating it further. In the meantime, rents also start going up because the poor cant afford to buy and demand increases for rentals. In fact, nobody can afford to buy except those who started off rich or who owned a house before they got too expensive.

Also, nobody develops new housing when tehy can just buy existing housing without risk for immediate profits and capaital gains. Only home owners build their own houses, because they want what they want and are prepared to wait for it. So eventually there is not enough housing for an expanding population, making house prices and rent more expensive.

Now nobody can afford to buy or rent, and they bugger off to Australia because they cant afford to get by on the low wages (because there is not much productive industry going on from lack of new buisiness development) and cannot afford to live here. In the meantime the few in established busnesses with monopolies (like Countdown) are making lots of money because there is not much competition, and they can pay low wages because there is not much competition, and not enough disposable income in anybody's pockets to drive new startup busineses.

This causes the separation of the classes out into extremes of the rich and the poor. Except that the rich are screwing themselves because the costs of living (especially rent or mortgages) are so high that even theoretically middle class salaries are struggling to get by. Even the middle classes start looking to leave, leaving even fewer entrepreneurs to start new businesses. Soon the whole country will be living in OZ, or looking to live in Oz and whoever is left wont be able to afford to live, or wont provide a market big enough for new busineses, or to compete with old businesses.

Instead, if the government took away all the incentives to invest in property, and made shitloads of land available for development (and maybe incentivinsing development - not ownership- of land), this would happen:
Property prices would fall a lot
Speculative property owners would sell their properties fast - and maybe invest in housing development (i.e. business) ventures instead, to make housing even more affordable for all
the cost of housing would fall
the costs of rent would fall
People would have more disposable income, thereby allowing newly formed busness ventures to have a better chance of succeeding
Reduced commercial rent would also give new businesses more chance of turning a profit.
Liquidity from sale of houses would be invested in new businesses that provide competition to the current single or double players, and make the costs of living and renting (commercial stores too) even cheaper.
Lifestyles in NZ would be btter because we would be able to own our own houses, and have decent sized houses and land for reasonable prices - sop less people would leave because they would not get the same lifestyles in Oz.


FFS the one thing that we do have shitloads of in NZ is space, and yet we pay the most for land (at least as a ration of our salaries)- even worse than in NEW FUCKING YORK?

High property prices and speculative property ownership are obviously the root of all the problems here right now,but nobody in government has the balls to piss off the property owners, probably because they own a good few properties themselves...

I will vote for the next party who promises to drive property prices down. If I am still here...
*Rant over*

Excellent, well written.

[Indiana_Jones]

Prices are still shit, never gonna own a house at this rate.

Even more so when the government considers a 400k house affordable.....we're fucked aye lol.

-Indy

[Jantar]

As long as people only want to live in high price areas like Auckland then they can't complain about the cost of housing. There are still plenty of properties available in other parts of the coutry at less than half that Auckland price.

[Indiana_Jones]

As soon as I can get a transfer I'm fucking leaving Auckland. It's made it quite clear that people aren't welcome to buy homes there!

-Indy

[Swoop]

I'm stoked! The lawyer said that my house price has gone up by at least $150K recently!

[merv]

SpearFish basically said this a few pages back but remember the usual motto with housing is that there is no cheaper price than now (a few fluctuations aside), so those that sit and keep watching the prices go up while paying rent will find it harder in future. Best bet is get in early, buy yourself a cheap box, pay it off quick and then start using that as leverage to buy a better place.

As for the $400k house, what is the issue? - I'm old so remember buying our first house in 1978 for $40k when me and Mrs were both in our early 20s - salary then was about $4,500. So a $400k house is ten times the price, but sure as hell most people are on $45k or better now at a similar stage of life to what me and Mrs were then i.e. ten times the salary - so what's the problem.

Even on my measly salary at the time I think the upper tax rate was 48 cents in the $. That is way less now. The other thing is the cost of goods. Relative to our salaries then things like whiteware were expensive and so were TVs etc. The youth of today don't know how well off they are - the problem then being they want it all now - whereas then we waited four years until we could afford a dishwasher for example and didn't buy our first TV and VCR for six years.

I suspect what is happening now is that most aren't spending wisely through their 20s and when they reach 30s or later with no house the sinking feeling sets in - they've left it too late to have what other people their age have who may have invested more wisely earlier.

There is no evil about property - just get in early and move up as you can.

[James Deuce]

I suspect what is happening now is that most aren't spending wisely through their 20s and when they reach 30s or later with no house the sinking feeling sets in - they've left it too late to have what other people their age have who may have invested more wisely earlier.


That and the student loan thing and the insistence that women have to have a career at the expense of family only to find that their bits don't work in their early thirties they way they expected them too, so the house goes on hold while the fertility issues are addressed (massively expensive) - there are a large range of drivers for late house ownership adoption, coupled with a conservative attitude to house ownership that is suggesting it is better to rent (from your well-off conservative landlord) and invest your money in your landlord's businesses rather than buy.

One listens to the young-uns in horror sometimes.

[Ocean1]

One listens to the young-uns in horror sometimes.

I've had rather a lot more exposure to gen Y over the last year or two. Before that the only regular contact in any detail had been with friends of the family, and that usually in somewhat sheltered environments. One shouldn't generalise, of course, and I’m aware of the generational, almost default dislike of one’s children’s efforts as compared with one’s own.

Even allowing for that, however, admitting that one wasn’t perhaps quite the paragon of virtue in one’s youth that one’s memory insists, there’s a distinct generational difference. They have a hard wired concept of what represents life at the turn of the century. It involves vehicles, iphones, reasonable digs, certain levels of toy ownership. It also involves a certain hourly rate, a moderately relaxed work environment and no overtime. Also, what seems almost completely universal for that group: no concept of any link between one and the other.

This, I’m led to believe is what used to be called a work/life balance, and is now more fashionably referred to as a work/life blend.

God help us.

[mstriumph]

generation Y..... the aliens have landed


(oh no - wait a moment - isn't that what 'they' used to say about - erm - us?)

:drinkup: Happy New Year everyone!

[blue rider]

As long as people only want to live in high price areas like Auckland then they can't complain about the cost of housing. There are still plenty of properties available in other parts of the coutry at less than half that Auckland price.

cheap house prices are only good if you have a job, without a job, the cheapest house price is un-affordable.


the problem is that Auckland suffers from over population. if someone wants/needs a job, they will look at Auckland, cause every where else there are none, or not enough to accommodate Aucklander's moving in.



.

[Jantar]

cheap house prices are only good if you have a job, without a job, the cheapest house price is un-affordable.


the problem is that Auckland suffers from over population. if someone wants/needs a job, they will look at Auckland, cause every where else there are none, or not enough to accommodate Aucklander's moving in.



.

If the cheapest house prices are unaffordable without a job, then how come there are so many unemployed in Auckland where the house prices are the highest?

I don't understand why they would want to move to an area with a greater proportion of unemployment when there are plenty of jobs outside of Auckland. Of course I'm not saying that there are enough jobs around the rest of the country to employ all those in Auckland who are looking, but there are still enough jobs available to encourage people to open their eyes.

One job vacancy we had down here recently (paying over $100k) didn't attract a single applicant from Auckland and a guy from Twizel the successfull applicant.

Another IT position was filled by someone from Dunedin, again there were no Auckland applicants.

[Brian d marge]

nice thread dredge

just read through it

things changed , once in 71 , again in the eighties. The NZ you remember has changed,

YES we have moved into a more consumerist society, Possibly due to the freeing up of credit , ( remember banks actually WANT you to borrow money , its what they do !)

Student loans . Im guessing most people on KB are in the over 40s bracket and never had a student loan

anywhere from 20 to 100k before you even start life.

Now add a perfectly reasonable expectation of ROI, I have invested X and it seems reasonable to get a return of Y on my investment .

and remember a lot of these investors may not be from NZ , possibly from England ( for example ) taking advantage of the exchange rates , and why not ....

So we end up in a situation of NEEDING 2 incomes to service one mortgage, ( reasonable to say this in the norm?) . Working back from the 30% of income as a marker for mortgage stress, and which suburb do we end up in ?

say 600 per week actual take home? ...thats 200 a week .....( thats a pretty reasonable Job ?)

but to return to the original post , the question was raised "IF we didnt have to spend so much money on the house , would this free up cash for others things "?

the short answer is yes , as A young man I know in NZ bought a house , in a shitty area , big old cold villa ,,, has nearly paid it off , pays around 100 a week for mortgage ( 2 younguns ) and yes has quite a bit of disposable cash for his cars , all spent locally !

Me , I buggered off , have a box in Tokyo, a car, a few bikes and a massive hangover ( the debt repayment on that one could cripple ) and while the work has crept up to 6 days a week ( I will reduce this ),it certainly isnt stressful ( the wife is the main source of me stress ! , keeps saying stupid things like I must stop drinking and sell some of me bikes ! )

Finally is a house a " house " or is it a "home "

Stephen

[scumdog]

That and the student loan thing and the insistence that women have to have a career at the expense of family.

One listens to the young-uns in horror sometimes.

Not ALL youn'uns have a student loan hanging over their head - and not ALL women are career focussed.

But I concur with the last statement.

[BoristheBiter]

If the cheapest house prices are unaffordable without a job, then how come there are so many unemployed in Auckland where the house prices are the highest?

I don't understand why they would want to move to an area with a greater proportion of unemployment when there are plenty of jobs outside of Auckland. Of course I'm not saying that there are enough jobs around the rest of the country to employ all those in Auckland who are looking, but there are still enough jobs available to encourage people to open their eyes.

One job vacancy we had down here recently (paying over $100k) didn't attract a single applicant from Auckland and a guy from Twizel the successfull applicant.

Another IT position was filled by someone from Dunedin, again there were no Auckland applicants.

Maybe they get paid more up here?
Or they just don't want the cold of winter.

[davereid]

If the cheapest house prices are unaffordable without a job, then how come there are so many unemployed in Auckland where the house prices are the highest?

I don't understand why they would want to move to an area with a greater proportion of unemployment when there are plenty of jobs outside of Auckland. Of course I'm not saying that there are enough jobs around the rest of the country to employ all those in Auckland who are looking, but there are still enough jobs available to encourage people to open their eyes.

One job vacancy we had down here recently (paying over $100k) didn't attract a single applicant from Auckland and a guy from Twizel the successfull applicant.

Another IT position was filled by someone from Dunedin, again there were no Auckland applicants.

Yes, its rubbish.

Southland has under 4% unemployment, and some of the most affordable housing in the country.

I just laugh my head off every time an Aucklander tells me he

(a) is the economic powerhouse of NZ.
(b) that housing is too expensive.


Because Taranaki makes more money than Auckland. And so does Manawatu.

And a nice home is $200k.

[BoristheBiter]

Yes, its rubbish.

Southland has under 4% unemployment, and some of the most affordable housing in the country.

I just laugh my head off every time an Aucklander tells me he

(a) is the economic powerhouse of NZ.
(b) that housing is too expensive.


Because Taranaki makes more money than Auckland. And so does Manawatu.

And a nice home is $200k.

Might be true but no one wants to live there.:whistle:

[davereid]

Maybe they get paid more up here?


In terms of incomes the highest pay region is Wellington. Auckland is second, if measured as a city, but about 4th as measured as a region, although google has let me down I can't put my hand on the regional stats just now.

[BMWST?]

10 char

http://www.chranz.co.nz/pdfs/rbnz-trends-and-cycles-in-new-zealand-house-prices.pdf

[tri boy]

Finally is a house a " house " or is it a "home "

Stephen

My view is thus,
A house is a house when your not fully settled inside yourself, and your life.
A house is a home when you are.:yes:

[davereid]

Might be true but no one wants to live there.:whistle:

Yeah its strange. Most people who say they don't want to live in the south quote climate as reason.

But I think Auckland has the worst climate in NZ.

Scumdog has the nicest, every spring they get to do a proper blossom festival, as they get a proper winter, proper spring, proper summer and beautiful autumn.

Kiwis race to an air-conditioner in surfers before they even check out the beautiful south.

Its got me fucked to be honest.

[scumdog]

Might be true but no one wants to live there.:whistle:

And long may it stay like that - we don't need certain 'perks' such as Auckland has...:wacko:

[vifferman]

But I think Auckland has the worst climate in NZ.
Yeah it pretty much suxses.


Scumdog has the nicest, every spring they get to do a proper blossom festival, as they get a proper winter, proper spring, proper summer and beautiful autumn.

I love Otago - every time I visit there it's like some kinda spiritual homecoming. But (however) I need to work at the moment.

[Brian d marge]

My view is thus,
A house is a house when your not fully settled inside yourself, and your life.
A house is a home when you are.:yes:

Good call

when u say fully settled , buy that you mean "one realised one may never be a rocket scientist or rich and this is ones lot in life "

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

10 char

http://www.chranz.co.nz/pdfs/rbnz-trends-and-cycles-in-new-zealand-house-prices.pdf

good read well done

back up what Ive been saying about the financial deregulation, also backs up the anecdotal evidence given on here by people

interesting to see about section prices .... baby boomer’s , life stylers , rich americans??? ( no you can stay lower case ya twats )

Stephen

need more wine , must get ,,,of couch and get it ......oh where is the wife when you need here , bloody kids are useless,

[BMWST?]

good read well done

back up what Ive been saying about the financial deregulation, also backs up the anecdotal evidence given on here by people

interesting to see about section prices .... baby boomer’s , life stylers , rich americans??? ( no you can stay lower case ya twats )

Stephen

need more wine , must get ,,,of couch and get it ......oh where is the wife when you need here , bloody kids are useless,


i didnt read it,only small peices and looked at some graphs...seems things changed somewhat about 2002

[Winston001]

Yes, its rubbish.

Southland has under 4% unemployment, and some of the most affordable housing in the country.

I just laugh my head off every time an Aucklander tells me he

(a) is the economic powerhouse of NZ.
(b) that housing is too expensive.


Because Taranaki makes more money than Auckland. And so does Manawatu.

And a nice home is $200k.

Nice one Dave, bling sent. But most people won't have a clue about what you say. I even pointed this out to Tony Alexander one day but he kept on with his mantra that Auckland is more important. Sigh...


Might be true but no one wants to live there.:whistle:

Farg you trogldyte :D

I've spent my life in Southland and Otago (with a stint overseas) and it has been a win. Right now I'm relaxing in Central Otago looking out the window at Coronet Peak, a whole 2 hours drive from Invercargill, and I can do that every weekend if my teenagers don't insist on sports coaching. I don't know any Aucklanders who have the lifestyle and choices which are possible in other parts of NZ. Oh I'm sure there are some but not many.

[Indiana_Jones]

I've been thinking it over lately and think sod it, I might just have bloody kids now and just see what happens.

If I'm gonna wait till I can afford to rent or buy a house I'll never fucking get one lol

-Indy

[Winston001]

Actually Indy, its easier to have a kid than buy a house. In fact, its lots more fun trying to make a kid than get a house. And you can try out the kid-making with helpers of various style whereas you can only buy one house. And if the lucky child-bearer later develops leaks or has shaky foundations...well, Oz is only over the ditch. ;)

[Indiana_Jones]

Actually Indy, its easier to have a kid than buy a house. In fact, its lots more fun trying to make a kid than get a house. And you can try out the kid-making with helpers of various style whereas you can only buy one house. And if the lucky child-bearer later develops leaks or has shaky foundations...well, Oz is only over the ditch. ;)

That is good advice lol :D

-Indy

[Brian d marge]

i didnt read it,only small peices and looked at some graphs...seems things changed somewhat about 2002

I have a feeling there was a law change , in either england or ahole of america , which allowed money to move

for the life of me i cant remember,

linked with the sub prime fiasco?? who knows

what I do know is money is the (all evil)^1/2

Stephen

Ps
was talking to someone whose rent was going up to 350 pw and he reckoned it was the same payment more or less to a 200k mortgage in chch AND the government guarantees the mortgage insurance , so small or sweet fa deposit

that cant be right ?? can it???

[davereid]

I have a feeling there was a law change , in either england or ahole of america , which allowed money to move

for the life of me i cant remember,

linked with the sub prime fiasco?? who knows

what I do know is money is the (all evil)^1/2

Stephen

Ps
was talking to someone whose rent was going up to 350 pw and he reckoned it was the same payment more or less to a 200k mortgage in chch AND the government guarantees the mortgage insurance , so small or sweet fa deposit

that cant be right ?? can it???

Yes, anyone with an income less than $85k can apply for a no deposit loan of up to $200k under a government scheme, and its not just limited to Canterbury.

It will buy a very nice home in most of provincial NZ.

The only catch is, provincial NZ has low unemployment, no traffic, no toll roads and low crime.

[Robert Taylor]

I have a feeling there was a law change , in either england or ahole of america , which allowed money to move

for the life of me i cant remember,

linked with the sub prime fiasco?? who knows

what I do know is money is the (all evil)^1/2

Stephen

Ps
was talking to someone whose rent was going up to 350 pw and he reckoned it was the same payment more or less to a 200k mortgage in chch AND the government guarantees the mortgage insurance , so small or sweet fa deposit

that cant be right ?? can it???

We seem to have an environment where the money supply favours speculation, as opposed to favouring backing business people who will do something that is actually productive and usefully employs and rewards people to assist in such endeavour.

Given the culture that we have had of casino banking and speculators running rife is it any wonder that bankers and property speculators are those who engender little or no respect?

It is shameful that there is now an environment where it is almost impossible now for too many young people to ever harbour hope of owning their own homes, all because of created property booms lining greedy pockets.

[merv]

Robert, you'll be going all left wing on us soon.

davereid has talked about the easy start loans above and I made comment earlier on where we started, signing up to buy our first house in 1978 - then we had Housing Corp loans, but the maximum was $20,000 and so you had to have a second mortgage at a higher interest rate to buy the house because none of us then had huge deposits. Also if you went the Housing Corp way you had to buy a new house i.e get one built or buy a spec house so you had all the breaking in of the grounds to do and the furnishing of the house - carpet, drapes etc - none of that was included.

Remembering the numbers we paid around $318 per month when we started for a $40,000 house because the interest rates weren't very low and we borrowed more than 3/4 of the cost. First mortgage was for 30 years and cost was $148 pm and second mortgage was for 10 years and cost $170 pm. We put around half of our take home pay into the first house to get started and scraped along with second hand gear, doing as much work ourselves to make it work.

At current floating interest rate of 5.74% (so not even allowing for lower fixed rates) the $200,000 no deposit loan davereid talks of if for 30 years the cost would be less than $1,200 pm. The income of less than $85,000 per year would be roughly 10 times what me and Mrs were paid way back. So I'm struggling to see the issue today - salaries are much higher, the mortgage has only gone up about less than four fold, salaries are up 10 fold and tax is lower.

Back then we just had to work for what we got and others have talked on this thread of breaking in sections etc too and living in 100m2 boxes. The yoof of today need to stop bitching and put more effort in to work for what they want. The numbers are in there favour more than they were when we were young but they have to act now. Tomorrow will always be more expensive. If you want a house stop wasting your money on pointless things and concentrate on the goal, else enjoy the crazy life you are leading and stop blaming everyone else because you can't buy a house.

[mashman]

Back then we just had to work for what we got and others have talked on this thread of breaking in sections etc too and living in 100m2 boxes. The yoof of today need to stop bitching and put more effort in to work for what they want. The numbers are in there favour more than they were when we were young but they have to act now. Tomorrow will always be more expensive. If you want a house stop wasting your money on pointless things and concentrate on the goal, else enjoy the crazy life you are leading and stop blaming everyone else because you can't buy a house.

How much ACC did a person pay per $100 on their salary back in the day? What was the rate of GST back in the day (where there any exemptions)? What was the duty on fuel? What was the duty on beer? What was the duty on Cigs? How much was vehicle insurance? How much was a vehicle? How much was whiteware? How much was a insert food stuff/drink? How much was electricity/gas? How much were water rates? How much was council rates? Take out beer and cigs iffen ye like as they shouldn't be bought if you're saving :innocent:... How much was home and contents insurance? How much was the EQC levy? How much has the average wage risen? What were the costs of public transport/Infrstructure? How much was rent? How much was a penny chew :blink:? How much was detergent? How much were kid costs? What type of mortgage did you have?

From a wee read I see that some of that list didn't exist in the early 80's? No doubt there are many more "stealth" taxes that I've never even contemplated and there's likely other odds n sods that should be in that list, but I reckon there's enough there to shrink the factor of 10 you're querying in regards to housing affordability?

[scumdog]

How much ACC did a person pay per $100 on their salary back in the day? What was the rate of GST back in the day (where there any exemptions)? What was the duty on fuel? What was the duty on beer? What was the duty on Cigs? How much was vehicle insurance? How much was a vehicle? How much was whiteware? How much was a insert food stuff/drink? How much was electricity/gas? How much were water rates? How much was council rates? Take out beer and cigs iffen ye like as they shouldn't be bought if you're saving :innocent:... How much was home and contents insurance? How much was the EQC levy? How much has the average wage risen? What were the costs of public transport/Infrstructure? How much was rent? How much was a penny chew :blink:? How much was detergent? How much were kid costs? What type of mortgage did you have?

From a wee read I see that some of that list didn't exist in the early 80's? No doubt there are many more "stealth" taxes that I've never even contemplated and there's likely other odds n sods that should be in that list, but I reckon there's enough there to shrink the factor of 10 you're querying in regards to housing affordability?

Merv is onto it - Mashy, we didn't have so many 'things' back them - but the whiteware, TV's etc cost heaps (i.e. a mate scored an almost new VCR for 'only' $1,200 when they were $1,400 at the time) and in '84 I was paying 22% interest on my mortgage.

A 13" radial tyre was $33 when my off-season income was $60 a week.

And so it goes on...

[davereid]

How much ACC did a person pay per $100 on their salary back in the day? What was the rate of GST back in the day (where there any exemptions)? What was the duty on fuel? What was the duty on beer? What was the duty on Cigs? How much was vehicle insurance? How much was a vehicle? How much was whiteware? How much was a insert food stuff/drink? How much was electricity/gas? How much were water rates? How much was council rates? Take out beer and cigs iffen ye like as they shouldn't be bought if you're saving :innocent:... How much was home and contents insurance? How much was the EQC levy? How much has the average wage risen? What were the costs of public transport/Infrstructure? How much was rent? How much was a penny chew :blink:? How much was detergent? How much were kid costs? What type of mortgage did you have?

From a wee read I see that some of that list didn't exist in the early 80's? No doubt there are many more "stealth" taxes that I've never even contemplated and there's likely other odds n sods that should be in that list, but I reckon there's enough there to shrink the factor of 10 you're querying in regards to housing affordability?

Vehicles were prohibitively expensive - in 1972 a new Chrysler Ranger XL cost the same as an average house.

Unless you had access to overseas funds you couldn't buy one anyway.

Mortgage Interest rates varied, same as now. Mine peaked at 19.5% but they got higher than that for some.

You saved and saved for whiteware, only F&P made it and they charged what they liked.

Some foods were cheap, especially sheep meats and electricity was very cheap.

Many people couldn't afford a TV, a two car family was rare, and a no car family common. You were always asked "if you were on the phone" as many people couldn't afford telephones.

[mashman]

Vehicles were prohibitively expensive - in 1972 a new Chrysler Ranger XL cost the same as an average house.

Unless you had access to overseas funds you couldn't buy one anyway.

Mortgage Interest rates varied, same as now. Mine peaked at 19.5% but they got higher than that for some.

You saved and saved for whiteware, only F&P made it and they charged what they liked.

Some foods were cheap, especially sheep meats and electricity was very cheap.

Many people couldn't afford a TV, a two car family was rare, and a no car family common. You were always asked "if you were on the phone" as many people couldn't afford telephones.

Plenty of extra money to put towards house ownership then ;)

[Winston001]

We seem to have an environment where the money supply favours speculation, as opposed to favouring backing business people who will do something that is actually productive and usefully employs and rewards people to assist in such endeavour.



True but our current attitudes exist for a good reason. Up until the 1970s most people could buy a basic house if they wanted to. They could also start a business with some confidence. Money put away for savings generally kept its value.

Then in the 70s we experienced the first oil shock, we lost our export markets to the EEC, and inflation of our money supply ran wild. You'll recall annual inflation rates of 12 - 15% and mortgage interest (as Scummy said) of up to 22%. Businesses failed, savings shrank to nothing...but the one constant was that house prices boomed. Owning property was the only safe thing to do.

I have long advocated investing in business but after 30 years of watching (and suffering) NZ business failures (which includes finance companies wiping out our parents savings), I no longer trust business investment. By comparison, a house might lose value but it won't disappear unlike say, Feltex.

[Indiana_Jones]

Might take a look at one of these

http://www.welcomehomeloan.co.nz/

"It’s not what will stop you getting a home loan, but what will start you.

The problem with getting a normal home loan is, for many people, finding the deposit. The Welcome Home Loan removes that problem."

See I have the other problem, the deposit isn't really the issue so much as opposed to being able to service it.....

-Indy

[mashman]

Merv is onto it - Mashy, we didn't have so many 'things' back them - but the whiteware, TV's etc cost heaps (i.e. a mate scored an almost new VCR for 'only' $1,200 when they were $1,400 at the time) and in '84 I was paying 22% interest on my mortgage.

A 13" radial tyre was $33 when my off-season income was $60 a week.

And so it goes on...

I'm not saying he isn't on to it, but as he says, somewhere along the lines house ownership has become unaffordable for some reason where everything else seems to have fallen in price by comparison. That sort of cash doesn't just disappear does it, certainly not when it's a new phone every year (free with plan), or a new TV every year (hundy a month) etc... Of my friends grown kids I don't see them spending their cash on these items, yet they can't afford to get a house and they're by no means frivolous.

In all honesty I'd be more interested in what Indy's take would be in regards to what he thinks he's overspending on :sweatdrop as he's the one unable to get a foot in the door.

[Indiana_Jones]

In all honesty I'd be more interested in what Indy's take would be in regards to what he thinks he's overspending on :sweatdrop as he's the one unable to get a foot in the door.

lol my one vice for bleeding a bit cash has been my classic car, but in the grand scheme it hasn't been that much.

I don't by new phones every 6 months, I get a new one when the current one gives up the ghost and only get average ones etc. I've only just bought a TV last month actually (haven't had one for nearly two years!).

-Indy

[Winston001]

I'm no expert Mashy, we need to read the Productivity Commission's report to understand why houses cost so much.

http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Final%20Housing%20Affordability%20Report_0_0.pdf

It appears to be a mix of expensive building materials, council charges, RMA costs, being a very small market in a long skinny set of islands, earthquakes, insulation, lots of red tape because of the leaky homes fiasco, the cost of building new streets and pipelines etc etc.

Plus a simple box is no longer considered an adequate home.

But as I understand it, even if you built a simple box the cost would be way out of proportion to the same house in the 1970s. That needs to change.

[Winston001]

On tv a few weeks ago a council chap from Rangiora? was showing temp housing built after the earthquake. He said it simply wasn't economic to build. Say wut??

FFS - NZs big dams were all built using working mens camps filled with huts plus temporary houses for families. That's the only reason Twizel exists today - and it was nearly demolished by NZED. Cromwell is twice its original size now as a result of the construction of the Clyde dam.

Quite why the government refuses to create housing in Christchurch is beyond me.

[Ocean1]

It appears to be a mix of expensive building materials, council charges, RMA costs, being a very small market in a long skinny set of islands, earthquakes, insulation, lots of red tape because of the leaky homes fiasco, the cost of building new streets and pipelines etc etc.

So, ask yourself how much of those building related costs are actually physically contributing to the building of a house. And how much of it would the average home buyer choose not to spend, had he the choice.

Example 1: Most NZ residential buildings are now required have double glazing. It's been available for decades, costing approximately $4.5k more than standard glazing, but very few people elected to choose it. Nonetheless, knowing full well that people didn't want to pay the extra, govt, (pushed by various lobby groups) decided that we had to pay for it. It's just 1% of the cost of a new home, but it's one of literally hundreds of building costs that didn't exist a decade or so ago.

Good mate of mine is a building inspector. Asked by a mutual friend why council compliance costs were so high, he explained that the council doesn't actually make anything from the service, so it can't be that expensive. It's a peculiarly bureaucratic mindset, he genuinely can’t see that the client might not agree that his services are worth the price. We don’t talk work.

Existing house prices are governed, more than anything else by the cost of building new. If you started dismantling any monopolies relating to the cost of house building you'd damn soon see a dramatic drop in house prices. Start with central and local govt, they contribute fuck all to the value of houses.

[flyingcrocodile46]

i didnt read it,only small peices and looked at some graphs...seems things changed somewhat about 2002

I know that both the Building Act and Resource management Act added shitloads of additional direct cost to building and development processes but my gut feel is that even more has been added at the front end through indirect costs/risks associated with the resource management Act.

The press often run articles about massive delays in processing building consents, but as usual they are clueless cunts and have got it wrong. The majority of applications are combination applications for resource and building consent together and I know for a fact that nearly all delays (well over 95%) are related solely to the resource consent, not the building consent.

The resource management act introduced the template for thousands of previously ignored compliance issues around environmental sustainability and correctness which have been over scrutinised and complicated by rampant enthusiasm for political correctness at the expense of common sense. It took some years for the template filling process but by the time the dust settled new subdivsions sprouting up all over the place had become a thing of the past.

People considering investments in land for development purposes now have to contend with (and financially plan for) protracted periods of time being chewed up by way of compliance requirements that see them spending hundreds of thousands of $ on consultants that write reports that are literally unreadable by laymen and paying back handers to local Iwi and the like, together with protracted legal battles costing further hundreds of thousand$. One unreasonable and active dissenter can cost a developer hundreds of thousand$. The risks outweigh the rewards unless they jack the prices up to cover all contingencies. Less people want to develop their land because of this and it results in less availability and premium prices.

Once you have paid your $250 to $500K for your section you then need to consider maximising your capital gain to recoup costs. You can't do that by building a budget home so instead you end up paying $1500 to $2500 per M2 to build a house that will return the best price 5 or 10 years down the track.

I believe we screwed the pooch when we introduced the Resource management and Building Acts circa 91 and have largely made them worse with each successive change to them.

It's all good and well to want to attempt to raise the standard of housing/living/health etc but not when it comes so highly priced that half the population can't even afford to get to the first rung on the ladder.

We need to start shooting people who promote political correctness. It just ain't right.

[flyingcrocodile46]

So, ask yourself how much of those building related costs are actually physically contributing to the building of a house. And how much of it would the average home buyer choose not to spend, had he the choice.

Example 1: Most NZ residential buildings are now required have double glazing. It's been available for decades, costing approximately $4.5k more than standard glazing, but very few people elected to choose it. Nonetheless, knowing full well that people didn't want to pay the extra, govt, (pushed by various lobby groups) decided that we had to pay for it. It's just 1% of the cost of a new home, but it's one of literally hundreds of building costs that didn't exist a decade or so ago.

Good mate of mine is a building inspector. Asked by a mutual friend why council compliance costs were so high, he explained that the council doesn't actually make anything from the service, so it can't be that expensive. It's a peculiarly bureaucratic mindset, he genuinely can’t see that the client might not agree that his services are worth the price. We don’t talk work.

Existing house prices are governed, more than anything else by the cost of building new. If you started dismantling any monopolies relating to the cost of house building you'd damn soon see a dramatic drop in house prices. Start with central and local govt, they contribute fuck all to the value of houses.


Good post. Monopolies fuck our pricing. Look at Gib board for example. Rikki Merchants started importing a substantially superior product back around the mid 90's and Winstones kept running to the commerce commission complaining about unsustainable pricing of the product, that our market was been dumped on to kill it off. The commerce commission introduced additional levies on at least three occassions (each followed by winstones undercutting of Rikki Merchants pricing). They were and are nothing more than lying sacks of shit who have (since the times of the business round table) duped the NZ govt and public into paying more for their products than they charged their overseas customers (incl delivery costs). We were bled to make these fat cunts even fatter.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Might take a look at one of these

http://www.welcomehomeloan.co.nz/

"It’s not what will stop you getting a home loan, but what will start you.

The problem with getting a normal home loan is, for many people, finding the deposit. The Welcome Home Loan removes that problem."

See I have the other problem, the deposit isn't really the issue so much as opposed to being able to service it.....

-Indy

A maximum of $350k? The target market for such schemes is incredibly small (particularly for housing under $350K in Akld). People earning less than 42.5 K pa but whom have managed to save 22.5k (half of an annual salary which isn't enough to live on even if you use all of it) just don't exist. You would have to have saved the money on a higher income then swapped your job for a low income one in order to qualify and even then, you wouldn't be able to make it if you were supporting children. It's a typical govt Claytons mortgage scheme for the poor. Still, just like lotto there may come a time when we hear of a rumour about someone who knows someone who actually managed to make it work for them.

[mashman]

lol my one vice for bleeding a bit cash has been my classic car, but in the grand scheme it hasn't been that much.

I don't by new phones every 6 months, I get a new one when the current one gives up the ghost and only get average ones etc. I've only just bought a TV last month actually (haven't had one for nearly two years!).

-Indy

Did you feel guilty? :laugh:


I'm no expert Mashy, we need to read the Productivity Commission's report to understand why houses cost so much.

http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Final%20Housing%20Affordability%20Report_0_0.pdf

It appears to be a mix of expensive building materials, council charges, RMA costs, being a very small market in a long skinny set of islands, earthquakes, insulation, lots of red tape because of the leaky homes fiasco, the cost of building new streets and pipelines etc etc.

Plus a simple box is no longer considered an adequate home.

But as I understand it, even if you built a simple box the cost would be way out of proportion to the same house in the 1970s. That needs to change.

I know what the problem is $$$$$$$$$$$ :shifty:... but some of that was interesting to read, albeit a bit high brow for a lowly pleb like myself, needless to say I cherry picked what looked interested :yawn:.

I've no doubt that the cost of building materials and labour have a huge bearing on the cost of building the house (anything under $1500 per square being a substandard build in some way or another it seems), but the general cost of living seems to be the biggest thing that has hit us and our only debt is the mortgage, which oddly enough has become cheaper over the last 2-3 years, yet we aren't any financially better off. We frivolous by Indy's standards, but our lifestyle hasn't changed, it's just become more expensive. To the point where we're, well I am heh, thinking about trying something a wee bit different to lower the cost of the build. A large part of that cost saving will be to important certain items from overseas as the equivalent is almost 4 times as much over here as over there :facepalm:.

I guess the land prices really haven't helped, getting more expensive all the time and much smaller. I'll be moving further up the coast as it's getting too expensive to build where we are (230k+ for 600m2, and part of that is bank).

[Indiana_Jones]

A maximum of $350k? The target market for such schemes is incredibly small (particularly for housing under $350K in Akld). People earning less than 42.5 K pa but whom have managed to save 22.5k (half of an annual salary which isn't enough to live on even if you use all of it) just don't exist. You would have to have saved the money on a higher income then swapped your job for a low income one in order to qualify and even then, you wouldn't be able to make it if you were supporting children. It's a typical govt Claytons mortgage scheme for the poor. Still, just like lotto there may come a time when we hear of a rumour about someone who knows someone who actually managed to make it work for them.

Yea the scheme is a bit of a laugh really. As for saving the cash, it hasn't been done in a year and also that includes Kiwisaver and a little help from the in-laws.


Did you feel guilty? :laugh:


Ever so slightly lol

-Indy

[Ocean1]

The commerce commission introduced additional levies on at least three occassions (each followed by winstones undercutting of Rikki Merchants pricing).

I wonder if you imported NZ made Gib from Perth, where it retails at about 40% less than here, and managed to undercut Winstone's local prices whether the Commerse Commission would admit they'd been had. You'd only have to do it long enough to get a few calls out to the media.

The CC are a fucking joke, monopolies siphon huge quantities of cash from the economy, mostly off shore, and the entity charged with protecting the economy from such underhanded bullshit sits gibbering in the corner.

[flyingcrocodile46]

I wonder if you imported NZ made Gib from Perth, where it retails at about 40% less than here, and managed to undercut Winstone's local prices whether the Commerse Commission would admit they'd been had. You'd only have to do it long enough to get a few calls out to the media.

The CC are a fucking joke, monopolies siphon huge quantities of cash from the economy, mostly off shore, and the entity charged with protecting the economy from such underhanded bullshit sits gibbering in the corner.


Pleased to see that some know the truth about at least one of the many conspiracies that we are victims of. That's right! this shit is a real life bonafide conspiracy carried out by a portion of the minority elite to legally steal money from individuals over a long period of time.

Real true in your face conspiracies like this are all over the place, but when we find them to be real we don't seem to recognise that they are in fact conspiracies, but rather choose to see them as isolated (rather than typical) incidents of morally questionable events or at most isolated incidents of fraud. I put it down to our fear to believe that what we see is only the iddy biddy tip of a very sick system of laws designed to take advantage of the sheeples dislike of confronting bad things

[Brian d marge]

firstly , you cant go talking about , "in my day " we ..... the world fundamentally changed , august 15th 1971 , when nixon started printing money , and again in the late 80 when the financial markets deregulated , 27 October 1986
and The American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 which implemented many of Bush’s recommendations, and subprime lending, financed by mortgage securities, accelerated.
"The giant pool of money " , indian, chinese , japanese uradashis later on all looking for a good rate of return , had SOME influence on the NZ market ,
House prices shot up , incomes remained static .Yes a few are spending beyond their means , most aren’t ( I suspect)
Also the cost of the goods has dropped ( I think) , I mean a TV was an expensive item , now in terms of a weekly wage, cheap
Cars the same ( someone could clarify this , or check as I HAVE to do some work! )
As well as all the other " stealth taxes" , real income , HAS dropped since 1950

Dont even get me started on "earth ships and sustainable housing ...... thats a county councils nightmare !

why arent they built more !

Stephen

[merv]

There still seems to be a lot of comment on the high price of houses but you seem to be ignoring my comment about the 10 times factor - prices and wages since 1978. What I think some are grizzling about then is that the price of houses hasn't come back proportionally in relation to wages compared to so many other things because they are so used to buying other stuff cheap. Electronics keep getting cheaper so whereas I paid almost $2,000 for my first VCR and now you can record TV or play DVD or MPEG for a fraction of that price we think so why isn't a new car only $2,000 now and a decent motorbike only $700.

All the things we bought then compared to our wages were bloody expensive - so if you were prudent and didn't have the money, you waited until you could afford it. Those not so prudent put them on HP and suffered the high interest rates.

Even simple things like a vacuum cleaner are now a fraction of the price they used to be - less than $100 at Godfreys. Me and Mrs cringe remembering the prices we paid for things which makes you feel like they were valuable and so you hang onto them too long.

With GST now instead of high taxes the yoof should be even better off if they don't buy stuff. At the tax rates we used to pay, you paid it whether you bought anything or not which made saving harder surely. So as I said before - make your choice - first house or spending up large lifestyle. If you don't get paid enough you can't have both.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Dont even get me started on "earth ships and sustainable housing ...... thats a county councils nightmare !

why arent they built more !

Stephen

We already did this one. The volume and cost of producing the reams of documented evidence and/or professional opinions required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum requirements of the building code makes it impractical. (you need to read the building code, verification methods and alternative solution methods along with each of the codes clauses to understand just how incredibly anal it is.) There is less effort required to build ten ordinary homes than is required to deal with the red tape requirements for a full on Earthship (although the degree of difficulty will vary between BCA regions and it might not be impossible everywhere.. if you are lucky).

[flyingcrocodile46]

firstly , you cant go talking about , "in my day " we .....
Stephen

Heh! :yes:

[Brian d marge]

We already did this one. The volume and cost of producing the reams of documented evidence and/or professional opinions required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum requirements of the building code makes it impractical. (you need to read the building code, verification methods and alternative solution methods along with each of the codes clauses to understand just how incredibly anal it is.) There is less effort required to build ten ordinary homes than is required to deal with the red tape requirements for a full on Earthship (although the degree of difficulty will vary between BCA regions and it might not be impossible everywhere.. if you are lucky).
I know we did , but a big part of me just wants to build it then say ..........F...K em

my house my decisions , f off

Stephen

[mashman]

There still seems to be a lot of comment on the high price of houses but you seem to be ignoring my comment about the 10 times factor - prices and wages since 1978. What I think some are grizzling about then is that the price of houses hasn't come back proportionally in relation to wages compared to so many other things because they are so used to buying other stuff cheap. Electronics keep getting cheaper so whereas I paid almost $2,000 for my first VCR and now you can record TV or play DVD or MPEG for a fraction of that price we think so why isn't a new car only $2,000 now and a decent motorbike only $700.

All the things we bought then compared to our wages were bloody expensive - so if you were prudent and didn't have the money, you waited until you could afford it. Those not so prudent put them on HP and suffered the high interest rates.

Even simple things like a vacuum cleaner are now a fraction of the price they used to be - less than $100 at Godfreys. Me and Mrs cringe remembering the prices we paid for things which makes you feel like they were valuable and so you hang onto them too long.

With GST now instead of high taxes the yoof should be even better off if they don't buy stuff. At the tax rates we used to pay, you paid it whether you bought anything or not which made saving harder surely. So as I said before - make your choice - first house or spending up large lifestyle. If you don't get paid enough you can't have both.

I wasn't ignoring your comment about the 10x factor, but merely offering other reasons for that 10x factor being next to non existent. Whilst you may say that taxation has never been lower etc... there are other not so obvious taxes and add ons to living in this day and age that didn't exist back then. As Indy pointed out before, he seems to be relatively frugal in regards to spending, yet can't service the mortgage payments for some reason or other. Being frugal just doesn't cut it anymore, likely true even if you have absolutely no life and/or toys for 20 years and have an average salary. It was getting that way back in the last 80's early 90's in the UK when I finally got into the workplace. However I was happy to live in a caravan to fund my lifetyle :D. I'd love to see a breakdown of costs next to each other as it may give a clearer idea of why these things aren't as affordable. You would think the govt would have something like that, non seasonably adjusted :eek:

[flyingcrocodile46]

I know we did , but a big part of me just wants to build it then say ..........F...K em

my house my decisions , f off

StephenI

Pretty sure that I said the same thing then as now. go for it. It is a gamble that you can take.

You would probably spend less money and expend less effort fighting a demolition order and you may eve win if you use a logic based defence and could demonstrate proof that you hadn't actually failed to comply with most or all of the code clauses (compliance by way of historical use... the proof is in the pudding)

[Brian d marge]

I

Pretty sure that I said the same thing then as now. go for it. It is a gamble that you can take.

You would probably spend less money and expend less effort fighting a demolition order and you may eve win if you use a logic based defence and could demonstrate proof that you hadn't actually failed to comply with most or all of the code clauses (compliance by way of historical use... the proof is in the pudding)

back when I was a Yoof , we studied the building code and had a few projects to design using said code , wind loadings etc
Now if a few like minded "engineers" designed ( read copied and but to the loading code " then built ,,,,Then told said council to F , off

depending on mind set of said council , there might actually be a chance ....

How fked up is that , cheaper and better ( all round ) to break the law !

We need Judas Priest here stat .....
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L397TWLwrUU" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

Stephen

coffee time .....

[BoristheBiter]

I'd love to see a breakdown of costs next to each other as it may give a clearer idea of why these things aren't as affordable.

Because everyone wants it now and doesn't want to work/save for it.

[mashman]

Because everyone wants it now and doesn't want to work/save for it.

Of course, that's it, how could it be anything but <_<

[Indiana_Jones]

Well I've never had a loan to buy a TV etc, if I want one I'll save for it and get what I can afford (as I have done)

-Indy

[slowpoke]

I know we did , but a big part of me just wants to build it then say ..........F...K em

my house my decisions , f off

Stephen

All well and good....as long as it remains your house. It's a big call to say this where I'm gonna live (and battle red tape) for the rest of my natural life. It's either live there forever or be prepared to walk away from 100's of thousands of dollars invested because nobody is gonna take a risk (or get a loan) on something not built remotely to code. Can't say I blame them either.

[Brian d marge]

All well and good....as long as it remains your house. It's a big call to say this where I'm gonna live (and battle red tape) for the rest of my natural life. It's either live there forever or be prepared to walk away from 100's of thousands of dollars invested because nobody is gonna take a risk (or get a loan) on something not built remotely to code. Can't say I blame them either.
that comes down , is a house a home

I said to me old man who is 70 , and was complaining about 600 dollars for compliance for the bathroom ( and he has built a few houses , )

I said If you sell the house then pay the 600 , if not fk em and keep the 600 , put the connection , the one the inspector had to look at , in an easy to get to place , like me mums rose garden ......

Stephen

[BMWST?]

back when I was a Yoof , we studied the building code and had a few projects to design using said code , wind loadings etc
Now if a few like minded "engineers" designed ( read copied and but to the loading code " then built ,,,,Then told said council to F , off

depending on mind set of said council , there might actually be a chance ....

How fked up is that , cheaper and better ( all round ) to break the law !

We need Judas Priest here stat .....

Stephen

coffee time .....

Coucil has no say on the matter.An Engineer can present his own calculatuions to the council as an alternative solution to the building code

[scumdog]

Coucil has no say on the matter.An Engineer can present his own calculatuions to the council as an alternative solution to the building code

And get paid big bucks to do so.

Even if his calculation is flawed...

[flyingcrocodile46]

Coucil has no say on the matter.An Engineer can present his own calculatuions to the council as an alternative solution to the building code


Or as a Verification method (i.e VM1 or VM4 for typical engineering calcs) ;) ... which the BCA's (councils) may not refuse to accept, unless they find fault in the calculations and then if the calculation is corrected they must accept it and can be compelled to relatively easily through determination by the DBH (now MoBIE.. [snigger] <snigger> goes well with their FAP scheme)</snigger>.

They can also be compelled to accept non verified Alternative solutions in the absence of compliance with the Acceptable solutions of the building code (providing you know how to describe in reasonable detail the basis on which you believe your alternative solution will satisfy the requirements of the building code, and the proposal is actually workable).

The BCA must give specific reasons (detailing the nitty gritty of what they take issue with) as to why they wont accept your proposal and following that, (providing you can subsequently demonstrate that your proposal is able to satisfy the requirements in the identified areas) they then must accept or decline.

Once you are declined you can go to determination (via the DBH, which typically involves genuine expert investigation/assessment and reporting by a member of the DBH panel of technical experts ;)) and providing you are right (not just being a dumbass) they will be directed to accept the proposal (though this is often only after additional identified shortcomings in technical details of the proposal are also addressed).

It's just a matter of infinite patience and per$everance

[Brian d marge]

Or as a Verification method (i.e VM1 or VM4 for typical engineering calcs) ;) ... which the BCA's (councils) may not refuse to accept, unless they find fault in the calculations and then if the calculation is corrected they must accept it and can be compelled to relatively easily through determination by the DBH (now MoBIE.. [snigger] <snigger> goes well with their FAP scheme)</snigger>.

They can also be compelled to accept non verified Alternative solutions in the absence of compliance with the Acceptable solutions of the building code (providing you know how to describe in reasonable detail the basis on which you believe your alternative solution will satisfy the requirements of the building code, and the proposal is actually workable).

The BCA must give specific reasons (detailing the nitty gritty of what they take issue with) as to why they wont accept your proposal and following that, (providing you can subsequently demonstrate that your proposal is able to satisfy the requirements in the identified areas) they then must accept or decline.

Once you are declined you can go to determination (via the DBH, which typically involves genuine expert investigation/assessment and reporting by a member of the DBH panel of technical experts ;)) and providing you are right (not just being a dumbass) they will be directed to accept the proposal (though this is often only after additional identified shortcomings in technical details of the proposal are also addressed).

It's just a matter of infinite patience and per$everance

Uzi 9mm

Beats regulations every time

Stephen

On a serious side , there are a few in NZ that want to build an earth ship, and some maybe engineers ,

[unstuck]

Heres a bargain, just needs some TLC(In the form of a 20 ton digger). http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-541487859.htm

[flyingcrocodile46]

Heres a bargain, just needs some TLC(In the form of a 20 ton digger). http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-541487859.htm

If you buried it under a pile of dirt, you could call it a earth ship:niceone:

[unstuck]

If you buried it under a pile of dirt, you could call it a earth ship:niceone:

You could chuck it across the road into the harbour, and then it would be a submarine. Just think of all the poor borer you would drown though.:devil2:

[BoristheBiter]

Or as a Verification method
It's just a matter of infinite patience and per$everance

The big one that I can't work out is why so many houses don't have sign off.

Went and looked at one the other day. 3 bed house with a granny flat on the section. Neither has sign off and they were built in 1994.

Councils have far to much to answer for and when they fuck up the rate payer foots the bill.
It should be taken out of their hands, they look after zoning as in their district plan but a building council should look after the structure.

[flyingcrocodile46]

The big one that I can't work out is why so many houses don't have sign off.

Went and looked at one the other day. 3 bed house with a granny flat on the section. Neither has sign off and they were built in 1994.


To get the CCC the applicant has to have passed final inspection AND filled in the appropriate application form (for the CCC). Prior to circa 2002 most applicants didn't even know what a CCC was and simply didn't apply for it. (it is supposed to be applied for within 6 months of the last inspection but is not mandatory to do so except for developers consents). A pretty big percentage of applicants didn't even have their final inspections as they saw it is unnecessary red tape and really only cared about whether the house was ready for them to live in.

Following 2002 all BCA's became aware of the leaking building fiasco (and subsequent litigation liabilities) and subsequently (and logically) were unable to be satisfied that the requirements of the building code could be satisfied when untreated timber (amongst other issues) was used in the project. They would have been seen to have been negligent (including in their responsibilities to the rate payers) to run around issuing retrospective CCC's for risky builds. (They have less liability for leakers that they didn't fully inspect and/or issue CCC's for).

People have tried booking inspections and requested CCC's several years after they have taken possession of their houses but must undergo full re-inspections and pass them. If the consent was issued before 2005 the council must be satisfied that the completed build will satisfy the requirements on the NZBC and as most houses prior to this time were built of untreated timber and contained multiple additional defects (which had previously mostly been ignored) the inspections invariably fail and notices to fix are then issued. If you don't comply with a Notice To Fix (which could cost hundreds of thousands) you will be in breach of the law. Unless you built it as a developer and intend to sell it, a lack of a CCC is not against the law. The majority of home owners are better off just to eat the lack of CCC and accept the loss resulting from a lack of buyer confidence as it will likely be cheaper than complying with a NTF.

The Act was changed in 2004 and subsequent applications (for the most part) have to be assessed for compliance with the approved consent documents (rather than the building code itself). These houses are more likely to be able to be economically fixed so as to pass the re-inspection but typically will have a watered down CCC issued (at best) due to the expiration of time and the NZBC durability time frames for various components. I.e paint must last 5 years, cladding 15 years, framing 50 years from the date the CCC is issued. The BCA can't reasonably expect paint and cladding systems that are already several years old to last as long as if they were brand new (the NZBC requires this and BCA''s would then be liable to pay for repainting/re-cladding when they do not last the distance).

Older consent paper work requirements are often incomplete and the people involved are either unknown or no longer contactable so the documentation requirements are often not satisfied and can't be.

An alternative to a CCC (for consents issued after 2005) is to make an application for a COW (certificate of works.. a certificate that attaches very little liability to the issuer). They are a lot easier to get and although they mean little as far as a form of surety, they do meet the Acts requirements in terms of tidying up incomplete documentation.

For consents between 92 and 2005 the BCA may accept a Safe and Sanitary report from an applicants consultant and then issue it as if they themselves carried it out (as they are the only party under the Act that can produce a safe and sanitary report) and it has a similar outcome/effect to that of a COA issued for post 2004 consents. Of course an educated buyer and lawyer (and there ain't many of them) will recognise that a COA or S&SR is worthless so it won't add any value to a house that is perceived to be at risk of being a leaker.

If the buyer and lawyer were educated they might also realise that any house built before 98 would have had to have been built with treated framing (untreated framing for the most part was only used between 98 and 2004 except for brick houses which didn't change till last year) so have a reduced risk of the same extent of damage (that is to say less rotten framing).

Additionally if a house built betweeen 92 and 98 turned out to be letting water in (recently) and the framing did decay, a CCC wouldn't be of any help whatsoever as the cladding could be said to already have satisfied it's durability requirement for a 15 year life and arguably should have been replaced. Most people don't realise this. Also houses built before 92 simply can not have a CCC as the Act (which created CCC's) didn't come into effect untill 1992. A good but unethical bluff would be to convince an owner of a pre 92 build that his house is worth less because it doesn't have a CCC (given the public's lack of knowledge about these matters that shouldn't be too difficult) However that would be a cunt act so I do not advocate such things.

Hope this helps you understand what you are looking at.

[Brian d marge]

Heres a bargain, just needs some TLC(In the form of a 20 ton digger). http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-541487859.htm
Theres a starter home right there,, near the beach though , might limit your vege garden,,,
But you wouldn't have to work much to live ,,,,
Stephen

[unstuck]

Theres a starter home right there,, near the beach though , might limit your vege garden,,,
But you wouldn't have to work much to live ,,,,
Stephen

Maybe the garage could be lived in. Great for the burt munroe challenge though. Make a killing of all you grubby bikers.:devil2:

[Brian d marge]

Maybe the garage could be lived in. Great for the burt munroe challenge though. Make a killing of all you grubby bikers.:devil2:
there must be some kind of work in invergiggle
its about 70 a week,,

if I stopped drinking.........

stephen

[unstuck]

there must be some kind of work in invergiggle
its about 70 a week,,

if I stopped drinking.........

stephen

I belive there is work anywhere if you really want it, TIWAI aluminium smelter is just across the harbour too.:headbang: