The fight over the Unitary Plan and the debacle of yesterdays meaningless vote have suddenly highlighted the intergenerational fault lines like no other.
The hatred older NZers from wealthy suburbs have towards younger & poorer Aucklanders on display at the Town Hall meeting was disgraceful.
Yesterday the wealthy Boomers who are trying to keep the rest of Auckland out of their gated suburbs booed and jeered Generation Zero as they put forward their case that the Council must stick to their intensification programme to allow poorer and younger Aucklander’s can live near the city,
They booed and jeered.
Less than 30000 wealthy boomers can doom 206000 Aucklanders to overcrowding & lock generations out of home ownership
We have a suburban oligarchy.
The well heeled scream process and claim they have been treated unfairly – so what?
Is Auckland 2040 right claiming the process has been harsh? Yep. They sure are.
When you are taking privilege from the rich it has to be.
They are being asked to pay back some of the billions in unpaid capital gains tax in the form of more intensification.
Their response was booing and jeering at the mere idea of sharing.
Baby boomers were the generation who fought for civil liberties but have refused to share their cradle to grave life subsidy with anyone else. If we want change we need to reach out to those boomers whose conscious is as repulsed by their generations selfishness as ours is.
The alternative to that is an explosion of repressed anger at boomers the moment the electorate demographics turn against them.
I’ve been involved with a group submitting on the Unitary Plan since the beginning.
The only ones left now are the “well-heeled” and discordant, or self-interested.
The rest suffer from Unitary Plan fatigue.
Those booing and jeering will have their capital values uplifted (sans CGT) with intensification. You know their prejudice is great when even that cannot compensate with the idea that they might live next door to someone unlike themselves.
Auckland Council needs to change the zoning regardless. We cannot wait for the personal development and character growth of people who have already had decades to grow a non-selfish trait. It is unrealistic to expect them to do so now.
(BTW, great episode on Waatea with Penny Hulse, Alan Johnson and Richard Burton on this issue. I thought Richard Burton showed his true colours when he was given time to thoughtfully reply and just trotted out a series of cliches. Penny Hulse and Alan Johnson both treating him with more politeness then his views warranted. Though, was pleased to see Alan pick up on the “lesser quality suburbs” that Richard threw out.)
The great unanswered question in the Auckland intensification debate is this: where will the intensively housed get their food, as oil decline and volatile oil prices drive up the cost of industrial farming and supermarket supply chains? Sure, people living a long, pricey bus ride from the nearest paid job have problems, but if that far-off home has a quarter-acre section, there is potential for them to grow most of their food there, especially fresh veges and fruit. Not so on the balcony of the slums of the future, and although a roof-top community garden could contribute if this was built into the design of the “apartments” (what a revealing word when you break it down), it wouldn’t be anywhere near enough.
Auckland’s climate is balmy enough to live year around in a fale (traditional Pacifica house with a waterproof roof but no walls). Already the right to own a house there is far less important than the right to land for food production. In a future of energy descent, the latter right will only become more important.
No consideration to the notion that people happy in their homes and environment, irrespective of socio economic status, will object to having it disrupted and/or degraded. That it is a very basic and understandable reaction of human beings toward possible destruction to their homes.
No, its got to be all about evil boomers out to get everyone else.
I’m in support of urban intensification, but this asinine degradation of the arguments involved is unhelpful.
“No consideration to the notion that people happy in their homes and environment, irrespective of socio economic status, will object to having it disrupted and/or degraded.
The change in zoning does nothing but IMMEDIATELY lift their capital values. Tax-free.
What they are scared of is that this lift will be too tempting for their neighbours to resist, and those neighbours will either develop, or sell to a developer and then their community will change. In fact, it is indicative of their mindset about their “community” that they can foresee a whole swathe of take the money and run members changing their built environment.
Richard Burton came across as self-interested, and unable to listen.
Diversity would improve his community, but would interfere with his sense of self.
Agreed, but once the process is underway whatever is driving whatever is largely immaterial, as it will start with the reclassification and artificial lift in values and will end in a vastly changed community.
chicken? egg? chicken? egg?- we’ll still end up with an omelette.
Doesn’t matter where the community is, rich or poor, some will always take the money and run. Having seen this happen up close and personal like, to others in an area I’ve had an attachment to, I think the first out are the sensible ones.
Burton tried desperately to appear tactful and diplomatic, but there’s no nice way to say “lesser quality suburbs”, and anyone with an ounce of intuition could see that for the euphemism it was. “We don’t want brownies and poor people lowering the property values in our suburbs with their swarms of grubby urchins and rusty non-european cars.”
Nice, Richard. Stay classy.
Equally it can be an euphemism for green space, decent amenities, retreat from noise, pollution and social problems. That some suburbs have these things might merit the consideration that preserve those qualities.
Here’s an idea, instead of clamouring to pull all of Auckland down to the level of a grey concrete conformity, devoid of the above features, how about preserving the best of existent housing and working to improve that which isn’t, and develop or redevelop the less functional areas first.
Also relevant is preservation of worthwhile architectural heritage, where it exists. We’ve destroyed quite enough of it already.
that is a total strawman of the unitary plan. the intensification is to allow more 3 storey dwellings instead of infinite sprawl and quarter acre bungalows. adding sprawl from Hamilton to Whangarei might be your idea of heaven but the infrastructure costs are stratospheric as will the impact of masses more commuters from far and wide.
“it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
They probably disagree with leftist mantra like “Diversity would improve his community”. I keep reading this being said, but there seem to be very few examples of it actually happening in practice. If someone is happy with their current culture and environment, why would you expect them to be happy it will be changed out from underneath them.
Karma happens..one day the selfish boomers will be fragile with age, demented and unable to take care of themselves. They will need care in rest homes, hospitals and secure wards. The generations they locked out of home ownership by then may have become cynical enough to have no qualms about profiting from this grey tsunami of misery by investing what they may have otherwise put into a home deposit into aged care shares instead. It will then be in those shareholders financial interests to minimise costs and maximise profits ensuring the selfish boomers die miserable lonely deaths in the care of low wage imported workers they can not culturally relate to. Personally, I am for equality, fairness and caring about the wellbeing of others as much as my own…and I’m also for improving the wages and conditions in the care sector, but if this cynical scenario eventuated, it would not surprise me…dog eat dog, kill or be killed, children learn what they live, etc.
What do you mean “if” ? Just how many rest homes have you been into lately? It’s already happening.I have no intention as a boomer of going into one. I intend to take my own life. I have worked in far too many old people’s homes thank you very much. I have paid for my offspring’s education and helped them with their house deposits. I am not greedy like most in my age group. The greed exhibited by my generation disgusts me as does their selfishness and lack of community responsibility. I would rather be in the company of intelligent young people or school children at any time than in the company of my peers.
Greed and selfishness have nothing whatsoever to do with age group. There are plenty of selfish and greedy younger people, just as there are plenty of poor baby boomers who don’t own their own homes, and I utterly reject the constant attempts by Martyn and others to vilify an entire generation to make a political point. It’s as nasty and vicious as it is flat-out wrong!
so we can both agree it’s neither nasty nor vicious..
“most in your age group” ? You mean most people you know in your age group! Don’t lump me or mine in with your upper crust friends. Greed has no age boundary.
IMO what seems to be the issue here is the classic” divide and rule “between the two factions baby boomers and the new tenants in our own country
While the guilty go on unnoticed and laughing all the way (jealousy , envy and self righteousness is such a effective motive to use on the sheeple)
Social policy over the last 20 + years has brought about these social consequences and of course mismanagement of the economy and tax payers contributions
Would it be interesting if these two factions combined thier efforts to the the real cause of inequality
Mount Eden/Epsom are about the only places in Auckland that are beautiful to live in – everywhere else is screwed over by transport issues and neighbour squashed against neighbour. The brutal truth is that if these area are allowed to go high density than these neighbourhoods will essentially be destroyed because virtually noone can resist being paid $10 million for a home so that a speculator can build a 10 story apartment block there.
There aren’t enough houses because people arrive in NZ and settle in Auckland and because speculators would rather have houses sitting empty so they can sell exactly when they want too. That’s the real problem.
I agree with MOLLY: We need some intensification. It need not be a right/left issue. It simply makes sense.
However, the devil is in the detail – where do we intensify?
Around the CBD
Adjacent transport hubs
Near industrial centres
Next to significant suburban commercial centres
Where the existing housing stock is not very flash
Where there are no major ‘heritage’ issues
Looking from my office high in the city I can see a slew of sites which would fit the bill. It really shouldn’t be this hard.
So in my view the recent protests regarding intensification are just a reflection of the utter incompetence of the current council members and their staff, rather than any major ideological battle between the generations.
1. Set out the basic criteria for intensification
2. Communicate those criteria
3. Identify zones based on the criteria
4. Communicate & consult the proposed zoning
5. Gazette the final zoning
6. Set minimum standards for intensification (so we don’t build more shoe boxes)
6. Implementation
Six years of Len and his mates and we haven’t even done step 1 yet!
With out ten year funding plans our well laid out plans will hit a brick wall like Mainzeal, The Orewa developments, and with the rest of the failed construction and supply companies that have come and gone.
Sheesh Andrew, that sounds much too democratic to be the Act way.
But I forget this is about property.
Agree with your points Andrew. My concern is will these apartments really be any more affordable? Right now the people that clean your buildings and serve your food, can’t afford to live in the area they work.
There is strong evidence, and it’s a world-wide city phenomenon, that there is not so much a housing shortage, but an available housing shortage. Speculators are buying them up and leaving them empty, untenanted until the values rise, then flick them off for huge profits.
According to the 2013 census there were roughly 1.5 million households in New Zealand. It doesn’t take a mathematician to work out that there are more than 1.5 million dwellings in Auckland alone.
Liberty4NZ:
If property price escalation is on the cards, then sure speculators will climb in. Add to this the lack of a capital gains tax and its easy to see why they do it. But this is a symptom rather than the root cause.
What underpins all this problem is an artificial restriction on land use, thanks to the rules. Building houses is not that expensive and it costs no more to build a house in Auckland than it does anywhere else in NZ.
The current government has already done a lot of good work in supporting the design of affordable homes;
http://www.building.govt.nz/starter-home-design-winners
but short of putting Auckland Council under statutory control there’s not much more they can do.
The problems start when we apply Auckland’s crazy resource consent rules and to a much lesser extent, the building regulations. I’ve just been through this process and like many others I have stories of bizarre and arbitrary rules combined with incompetent council employees (Stories I won’t bore you with).
The net result is that we have an artificial land shortage. Auckland is one of the least densely occupied cities in the world. There is ample space to densify but the current rules simply won’t allow it to happen.
Pfft. Watch out for this Andrew. He lies. Especially about his work history and investments.
Right from the very beginning when the Unitary Plan was launched I knew that there would be “selected” suburbs which would never be touched by intensification – those lovely very large sites with a lone mansion sitting plonk in the middle – “no name” has not one site but two sites merged for his privacy in Parnell. Why did anyone think it would be any different, one law for one and another law for the other. Ironic isn’t it that lots of us have to suffer apartments everywhere and 3 storey lots next door to us. Luck of the draw I am afraid – democracy doesn’t work for us little people. Good luck on the council trying but it was a wasted exercise. Leafy suburbs rule.
Well Martyn lad, that’s your fucking middle classes for you. Welcome to the shitheads who keep Dear Leader in power.
And please don’t generalise…
I’m a baby-boomer with no fucking show of ever owning a house. I’m busy paying rent to these boofheads.
Same here. And I’m a socialist, too, not even remotely like Martyn’s fatuous and insulting stereotype.
Kia ora guys,
I think perhaps us younger non-selfish non baby boomers need to start coordinating some political movement… ie marches demanding free education, demanding that the increasing divide between the have and have nots is reversed and demanding the intensification of housing.
It seems time to create an intergenerational “war” as such in order to move the power from the conservative elder generation who have become the most selfish and self serving generation ever, to the youth (who unfortunately, many of which are selfish themselves).
By “war” I obviously don’t mean a physical battle, it means to start movements to ensure that the youth become engaged with politics and actually start thinking about what they want and realise that if they actually put their will behind it, we can actually determine the fate of the country we live in.
I’d be keen to start talking to people who are keen to get involved?
I think it would be good to coordinate with the likes of generation zero… Get them to work with students at universities. Get students to look past this National vs Labour paradigm and start thinking for themselves and actually get out and do something about it.
As a Goldie Oldie I fully support your idea. I keep saying the young need to become more politically involved.It is time to fight for your rights and to realise that people power will win . We are not all greedy and my biggest concern is for my grandchildren who may never be able to own their own home .
I acknowledge we were the lucky generation with free tertiary education and great opportunities. But at the same time we were very active politically fighting for Nuclear Free New Zealand , against apartheid rules in Rugby. I find it very difficult to accept the terms of the TPPA when overseas investors can buy our farms and houses . Come on you energetic young ones, become involved and find out what is really happening to this country.
we could all try voting and brake the power base of the baby boomer’s they vote we don’t thats the problem we need to change the power balance on our favor then vote there wealth to our generation
Dear generations X and Y. The next time your Baby Boomer parent/(largest generation of divorce stats, hence all the messed up latch-key kids) or parents, insinuate you are a loser for not doing as well as them, and they do, you may want to remind them of a few things.
– They grew up and came of age in a booming economy. Jobs were so plentiful if you didn’t like your job you could quit and have another one the same day.
– The spending power for many of these jobs, including allowances, was the equivalent of $30 an hour in todays money.
– If you worked hard and saved money, because you could, you got large rewards for your efforts.
– The cost of living – housing, rent, power, phone, food were by far cheaper operatively speaking, you had allot more disposable income. High end luxury goods were expensive but the New Zealand made quality of these goods was impeccable, you got what you paid for.
– Wanted a higher education? That was free.
– Fat superannuation
– In a position to buy rental properties because of getting in before the values went ape-shit and because their family home was comparatively so much cheaper.
– Have/will inherit their own parents wealth and likely spend everything they can on holidays and luxuries, leaving little, if anything to the next generation because of their “loser” view of them.
– Receive a generous non-income tested pension for life.
Gen X and onwards on the other hand –
– Wouldn’t know what a booming economy looks like because we have never seen one.
– Endured back to back economic bust cycles just as we were coming of age and entering the labour force.
– Endured neo-liberal government policies for the last 30 years that have diminished our earning/spending power so much, owning a home or being debt-free is a distant fantasy for most.
– Endured out-of-control cost of living inflation due to privatisation.
– Want a higher education? Expect a 100,000 debt with interest, you may even get a job after it if you are really lucky and don’t mind working for free for a while. Don’t expect the good life until you are at least middle aged though because of course you need to pay that debt back. There is a slim chance you could have a small family then, if you are still fertile. You may get a mortgage then, of course it will be a 7,- 800,000 dollar shit hole that will take so much of your better than average income, you will have no quality of life.
– Retirement pension looking less and less likely.
No, the losers are the ones who thrived from the fruits of socialism, then pulled the ladder up after them on their own kids and grandkids by voting blue. It reminds me of that classic line in the movie “The Breakfast Club”. The headmaster is talking to the caretaker and says “The thought that keeps me up at night is that these, these kids are gonna take care of me when I’m old”. The janitor replies with a smirk, “Don’t bet on it”.
I will use this if you don’t mind as I have been told by a bully baby boomer prick to stop being a victim recently.
How the f***k does that work when my husband and I have student loans which mark against us for buying a house, and my work (artist) doesn’t even count to buy a dirt cheap house in the sticks in Otago we really really want.
It seems like no matter what we do to get this house the computer says no! It’s a sick joke that is keeping low paid and self employed people out of the house owner market so we can be screwed by rents instead.
And that is with a 20% deposit scratched up thanks to Art sales to New York recently. So I need to get a job I don’t want to subsidize my husband’s full time shit paid job to get the computer counter to say yes, because what I do already doesn’t count. The house I want is less than one hundred grand,’ amazing stories to you Aucklanders’.
Has anyone noticed that only well known artists are all baby boomers, it’s like no other generation exists unless cronyism and nepotism are involved eg Max Key, Ottis Frizzle..
Just call me a victim!
You mean like McCahon? Goldie? Angus? Lindauer? Henderson? Lye? Moon?Apple? Fomison? Hundertwasser? none of whom are baby boomers? Could it just be that you haven’t done the length of time? My son is an artist, and like every artist I’ve ever known he has mostly had a day job
Well read my message properly Tony.
My work sells overseas! But it is not counted on the mortgage counter here! Most N.Zers are aesthetic philistines have you seen the hideous housing estates!
all too true Kate. One of my regular haunts these days is the Kawakawa Art gallery. Always has exceptional new NZ art on display by a whole bunch of young kiwis no one gets to hear about! After my trip to Europe last year( a 40 year long ambition I might add) where I did my best to see as much new Art as possible I came away dismayed at the fuss over what was average and unoriginal compared with the brilliant work of so many New Zealanders who never get their due. I know your experience is frustrating ( my own offspring have been thru hell and are consistently treated like shit!)but hang in there. As oldies we long accepted that we would have to financially guide and support our kids until we die!
Knowing a person who was at that meeting, who I totally trust, there were some disgruntled people making angry comments, but it is simply not true that young speakers at that Special Council Meeting were booed or shouted down. The Mayor himself told people to be quiet, and so the few that raised their voices did then shut up and let people speak.
I do not see this so much a generational issue that we lack affordable housing in Auckland. We should perhaps consider that it is due to the unconstrained population growth, which some seem to want, that is causing unaffordability.
Supply has not kept up with demand, but rezoning already expensive areas to be intensified, is unlikely to create the affordable housing there, as a square metre of apartment building costs more to build than a square metre of one story homes. Yes, land can be used more efficiently, but due to growth and speculation much land is simply unaffordable, and that is where action may be needed.
Also there are limits to water that nobody seems to be considering. Two years ago Council applied for more water to be pipelined from the Waikato River, as without that we will not be able to supply more than another 45000 homes with water. But the Waikato Regional Council has not granted that application yet, and may not allow the 2 million additional litres per day that Watercare needs.
So how can be grow and intensify Auckland, when we may not have the water to supply the additional population?
Add costs for more transport infrastructure and more schools, hospitals and so, and it will become a very expensive project, that will put more costs on us residents, many of whom are already struggling.
Those people at the meeting in Auckland yesterday are not likely to have been the property magnates or speculators that some presume, they may simply be ordinary one property home owners who simply objected to non notified changes to their residential zones, which is a process issue.
What is the employment/work all these people are clomping into Auckland and surrounds to do?
Will it be there in another ten years? Or will it have followed the slide rule into oblivion?
And how well does The Plan protect and conserve for present and future generations the vital horticultural lands that are now so temptingly close to the creeping miasma of urbanisation?
Perhaps if some brave souls were to say – ‘This is a city. The upside is that Culture and Stuff Like That is more available than in the boonies. The downside is that we are converting this sprawled out clump of suburbs into something a lot more European or Japanese because of our geography.
If you want the quarter acre section and the hours of weekend grass mowing – move elsewhere. They’ll appreciate your rates.
If you want the Culture etc – then it will be intense-ish but the groundrules will insist on decent sound-proofing and enough parking for residents. Plus – BIG plus – affordable, reliable, and sufficient public transport – including for parents, elderly without personal vehicles, and folk with mobility challenges.’
So, Auckland – if you can’t manage that, can you please turn the fire-hose of massive spending on the rest of the nation? We’d like a fair share PDQ. Thanks. (Boom, boom.)
My son lives in Norway no fuss no bother in his city hundreds of well designed terrace houses which people own
Why are the rich so greedy in Auckland
It is not all baby boomers that are so lucky to live in these suburbs, there are some elderly people in council flats, one room bedsits They had their rent increased from over 25% of income, do not know how they can buy food
“If we want change we need to reach out to those boomers whose conscious is as repulsed by their generations selfishness as ours is.”
On behalf of those particular boomers,thanks Martyn. I haven’t heard you acknowledge our existence previously.
Totally disagree. It is the opposite. The rich are changing the RMA and unitary plan to make themselves more money by putting in high value mansions and apartments and future slums, with intensification. There is no decent affordable housing being built in the city – it is a rout to get the left and the poor to endorse a way to make the city more unaffordable and ugly by pretending it will somehow help them.
In Europe and the UK planning is very strict and they have enviable character in their developments. Care is applied to make new developments blend in, not take over the privacy of neighbours and so forth. They have transport links so that people do not need cars. The poor can afford to live in the city in flats. Try to do any sort of flat conversion like a granny flat in Auckland and the council are onto you like a on of bricks. Put up a yurt and you will face legal action. However a bunnings or a development over height everywhere and the council will approve it and take it to environment court at rate payer cost.
Auckland planners and developers want to throw out regulation so that developers can develop as cheap and characterless as possible without preserving the natural environment or character of the area and avoid regulation of height and boundary.
This has mean Nelson ST apartments – leaky buildings – ports of Auckland, Titrangi ancient trees destruction and massive costs for rate payers.
Before the ‘left’ fight for this so called ‘intensification’ and join the developers, actually grow a brain and notice that the Auckland councils planning is meaning a lack of standards, cutting down of ancient trees, exploration of mining off the cost of Muriwai and zero public transport being included and massive hight to boundary infringements and more inequality due to litigation.
Even before this goes through the Auckland council are making sure that 99.5% of resource consents goes through. There is literally zero standards and developers can do whatever they want.
Bob jones had a funny piss take in the herald the other day highlighting what is going on. This involved asking for a massive Gareth Morgan statue over 75m of height to boundary and just sending it directly to the powers that be at the council, (to get their rubber stamp) this came with a environmental assessment report prepared by himself about the economic benefits. This is the current reality of the piss poor current regualation and the unitary plan which is being rushed through by the government with strict deadlines to councils. Submissions being put in by rich people’s lawyers to make money, while concerned residents are being denigrated as nimby’s.
If you think intensification is working in Auckland then you are deluded and if your think the unitary plan pushed through by Auckland council and the government is for the poor and will help standards you need a lobotomy.
Migration is the driver behind the lack of housing supply and that has not been addressed. It takes about 2 hours to drive out of Thailand, between the mansions and the slums and the high rises, and that is the vision for Auckland by the unitary plane.
‘Anything goes, profit before people and the more money you have the more money you can make’ is the name of the game.
At least you know what you are writing about, thank you!
Martyn, you seriously need to examine the idea that this is an intergenerational problem. You are playing right into the hands of the people who want to divide and conquer us.
http://fair.org/home/convincing-the-young-to-blame-the-old-not-the-rich/
Comments are closed.