Advocates for the Poor Increase Poverty

Auckland Mayoral candidate Stephen Berry accepts that in Auckland, survival is becoming increasingly difficult for families on low incomes as housing and rental costs explode. “This is not the fault of landlords, foreign buyers or investors. The blame for the hyper-inflation in our housing market lies squarely at the feet of left wing central planners and their NIMBY acolytes. Their routine vandalism of private property rights creates a speculator environment and adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of construction in Auckland. Len Brown, Penny Hulse and the left wing councillors who claim to care about poverty are actually the chief architects of its growth”

Mr. Berry says the most obvious example of private property rights abuse leading to higher property prices is the ban on residential construction outside of the Metropolitan Urban Limit. “The Productivity Commission demonstrated in 2010 that limiting residential development had created an artificial land shortage in a city with plenty of room to build, making land prices two kilometres inside the boundary eight times higher than land prices two kilometres outside of the boundary. Basic high school economics shows that when supply is artificially reduced but demand remains constant then prices increase.”

The cost of complying with Council regulations and obtaining permission to build or make alterations is also excessively expensive according to Stephen. “Talking to Aucklanders tells me that a five figure bill per property is routine. The estimates range from $15,000 according to one local board member to Len Brown himself claiming $30,000 per home is the norm. Developers don’t simply reduce their profits and absorb this cost. It is factored into the price they will eventually charge for their finished product so they can maintain their margins. The landlords who also buy the homes as an investment will pass this cost on to their tenants which is why the poorest Aucklanders are now spending 60% of their incomes on rent alone.”

“The ability of activists and busybodies to object to development that has absolutely no impact on their own properties also needs to be thwarted. Only if a development can be objectively shown to have a legitimately negative impact on a neighbour’s property rights, should it be prevented. Heritage and character ought to be developed organically by owners who wish to participate rather than stipulated by a nosey neighbour living down the other end of the road. Maintaining the value of your own home by violating somebody else’s ability to enjoy their own is elitist and immoral.”

Mr. Berry points out that one of the primary examples of community activists attacking property rights and exploding the cost of construction can be found in the controversy of the felling of a kauri tree in Titirangi. “Developer John Lenihan has developed a plan which reduces the clearance of vegetation to obtain permission by Auckland Council to build on his property. This permission has been reviewed and again endorsed by the Council. The development has been subjected to interference, unlawful occupation and intimidation by left-wing agitators causing costly delays, legal costs and security costs which will likely run into the tens of thousands of dollars. When this house is eventually constructed, all these costs will be factored into the price of the finished product ensuring it will be even less affordable than before. How do the advocates of the poor expect to have more affordable housing constructed in Auckland when they deliberately take steps to drive up its cost?”

“Making housing affordable in Auckland will not come from centrally planned intensification, nor will it come from centrally planned sprawl. Rather it will come from organic growth that respects private property rights. The most effective thing the Council can do to make housing affordable in Auckland is to minimise its interference to ensuring this occurs.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media