Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[dean]

Just did an interesting exercise. When my wife and I were first married (30 years ago in a few weeks), we rented a house valued at $170,000 for $120 PW.... giving the landlord a rental return of 3.67% PA. Later, we brought that property from the landlord. After 10 years, we sold it.

Then, in 2016, we brought it back with the intention of ultimately retiring in it. I've just had a look and using an estimated online valuation, the rental return we're getting on the house is 3.69%.

What really amazing is that, at the peak of the property market when FOMO and COVID pushed prices up too absurd levels, the rental return dropped down to less than 2.5%.

Yields drop when house prices rise.
On a gross yield of 3.7% over 30 years, that is a pretty poor return. Much easier, less hassle and a better return to simply put your money in the bank over that 30 years rather than be a landlord. I guess the value has increased, any idea of current market value?

 

[miket12]

Yields drop when house prices rise.
On a gross yield of 3.7% over 30 years, that is a pretty poor return. Much easier, less hassle and a better return to simply put your money in the bank over that 30 years rather than be a landlord. I guess the value has increased, any idea of current market value?

Despite what some landlords will tell you, it's simply not worth having a rental property, firstly, without a tenant paying of a significant part of the mortgage by increasing your equity in the property, and, secondly, the capital gains.

Don't want to say the value of the property online except to say it's pretty much the average for the area.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

I can guarantee you it is my guy.
The distance is not the issue, it is the time it takes to cover it. If your truck is sitting in road works traffic stops, having to detour on 60km winding roads and generally not being able to travel at the safe speed limit, then the cost is not the same as travelling the same distance on a two lane highway.
Wages are probably the same or lower than in bigger places and land prices are lower, so rents and leases are lower, so those overheads are competitive.
We have two supermarkets in town that regularly run out of some stock due to transport time.
When the Brynderwyns closed for a few months earlier this year. some forestry harvest also stopped because of the added transport costs.

Transport costs are high in relation because there is fuck all demand. Northlands entire 200k population is a small Australian suburb. Its population density is 12/km2. Brisbane is 159/km2.

 

[miket12]

On Auckland's public transport/cycling verses new roading, it would be interesting to know of any similar sized cities as Auckland with the same sort of geography (similar to the two harbours) and density who has a model for a high-quality Public Transport system and cycling network built for an affordable price, runs efficiently and not requiring huge subsidies to run which Auckland could copy. You may be able to think of one, but Auckland seems pretty unique, and I can't think of one.

 

[MaybeTop8]

On Auckland's public transport/cycling verses new roading, it would be interesting to know of any similar sized cities as Auckland with the same sort of geography (similar to the two harbours) and density who has a model for a high-quality Public Transport system and cycling network built for an affordable price, runs efficiently and not requiring huge subsidies to run which Auckland could copy. You may be able to think of one, but Auckland seems pretty unique, and I can't think of one.

Trams, perfect for our cities but the road lobby would never allow that. We used to have a great network.

 

[miket12]

Trams, perfect for our cities but the road lobby would never allow that. We used to have a great network.

I just looked for a city called Trams on Google maps but can't find it

 

[MrFrankWhite]

On Auckland's public transport/cycling verses new roading, it would be interesting to know of any similar sized cities as Auckland with the same sort of geography (similar to the two harbours) and density who has a model for a high-quality Public Transport system and cycling network built for an affordable price, runs efficiently and not requiring huge subsidies to run which Auckland could copy. You may be able to think of one, but Auckland seems pretty unique, and I can't think of one.

Isnt Sydney close geographically?

 

[MaybeTop8]

If just looked for a city called Trams on Google maps but can't find it

Hippocrate!

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

If it was Māori wanting to open a conversation or referendum regarding the treaty, and the crown opposed it as Māori do, would your support it?

Why is anyone bothering opposing it? It’s a dead duck. It’s on record National won’t support it into law.

It was just a product of MMP.

Everyone making statements opposing it are just grandstanding and politicking.

 

[marv.]

Why is anyone bothering opposing it? It’s a dead duck. It’s on record National won’t support it into law.

It was just a product of MMP.

Everyone making statements opposing it are just grandstanding and politicking.

political suicide for national to let it go any further than luxon has said.

 

[Bay39er]

political suicide for national to let it go any further than luxon has said.

Is this the same Luxon who touted himself as a great negotiator but was unable to keep this item off the coalition agreement and is now forced to have the country waste $$$$$$$$ on something that he says is dead in the water

 

[marv.]

Is this the same Luxon who touted himself as a great negotiator but was unable to keep this item off the coalition agreement and is now forced to have the country waste $$$$$$$$ on something that he says is dead in the water

good point!
i guess we’ll see.
my money would be on it doesn’t go any further than he’s said but you can’t trust any of them anyway so who fucking knows.

time will tell though.

 

[miket12]

Isnt Sydney close geographically?

But Sydney can continue growing in three directions while Auckland can really only go in two. Place Sydney has just over three times the population and twice the density.

Just be really interesting to see how a comparable city has done it.

 

[miket12]

watcher a bit of a question about a town planning issue. The PAUP, in its definitions, says a building includes any deck or terrace over 1.5m high. The Building Coverage definition says it includes anything defined as a building but then excludes “open decks”.

I’ve always taken a conservative approach and included any deck above the ground floor in the building coverage calculations but I’m currently working on a really tight site with a steep slope. It’s also an upside down house so the deck outside of the living room is on the first floor and is also the outdoor living space for the house. At the moment, the BC complies by just over 0.45 m sq. but the client wants me to add 6.0 sq. m to the house…. the same area as the deck.

Interested in your opinion whether the deck should be included or not.

Cheers!!

 

[MrFrankWhite]

But Sydney can continue growing in three directions while Auckland can really only go in two. Place Sydney has just over three times the population and twice the density.

Just be really interesting to see how a comparable city has done it.

Sorry cant it be used as a model, scaling population up and down? Maybe i misunderstood the premise.

 

[miket12]

So, Wayne Browns answer to a second harbour crossing is a bridge to no where. As far as I can see, it’s not the bridge that’s the issue but what to do at each end off it. Is it treated like a major arterial route (like the Waipuna Road bridge) or part of an extended motorway system.

While he’s right that the Meola Reef would make a good foundation for a causeway or series of smaller bridges, it’s what happens north and south of the bridge where the issues start. Garnet Road or Motions Road (by the Zoo) could be upgraded to major arterial roads south of the new crossing but there’s no major roads at the northern end of the proposed bridge by Kauri Point through Chatswood and up to Birkenhead.

Another option is to extend the motorway system to include running it south to link up with the Northwestern and Southwestern at the Waterview interchange. North of the proposed bridge and a new motorway could be built through Birkenhead and Nothcote to link up with State Highway 18 at Rosesdale. But, you’d think the price of that would be on par with a tunnel.

 

[watcher]

watcher a bit of a question about a town planning issue. The PAUP, in its definitions, says a building includes any deck or terrace over 1.5m high. The Building Coverage definition says it includes anything defined as a building but then excludes “open decks”.

I’ve always taken a conservative approach and included any deck above the ground floor in the building coverage calculations but I’m currently working on a really tight site with a steep slope. It’s also an upside down house so the deck outside of the living room is on the first floor and is also the outdoor living space for the house. At the moment, the BC complies by just over 0.45 m sq. but the client wants me to add 6.0 sq. m to the house…. the same area as the deck.

Interested in your opinion whether the deck should be included or not.

Cheers!!

I have been out of the game for quite a while Mike, but I would think on instinct it will need consent for site covreage and overlooking reasons.

 

[miket12]

I have been out of the game for quite a while Mike, but I would think on instinct it will need consent for site covreage and overlooking reasons.

Cheers mate. I was on the phone yesterday with AC's planning help desk.... let's just say they were anything but helpful. I think I'll note on the plans that if the deck is included in the BC, it doesn't comply and let the reviewing TP decide what to do with it after that. It already doesn't comply with the Landscaping requirements but, because of the stormwater management area it's in, the development was always going to require a detection tank so that would mitigate the oversized driveway/maneuvering area.

Because of the slope of the section, the lower part of the stormwater system is already below the existing S/W connection so, in this case, having a tank helps us as it would have required a pump anyway to push the water up to the connection. We'll "harvest" some of the rainwater for laundries and outside taps.

 

[watcher]

Cheers mate. I was on the phone yesterday with AC's planning help desk.... let's just say they were anything but helpful. I think I'll note on the plans that if the deck is included in the BC, it doesn't comply and let the reviewing TP decide what to do with it after that. It already doesn't comply with the Landscaping requirements but, because of the stormwater management area it's in, the development was always going to require a detection tank so that would mitigate the oversized driveway/maneuvering area.

Because of the slope of the section, the lower part of the stormwater system is already below the existing S/W connection so, in this case, having a tank helps us as it would have required a pump anyway to push the water up to the connection. We'll "harvest" some of the rainwater for laundries and outside taps.

After a coffee a yhoughyt came to me, hpw would your clients react to svreeong of yhe deck, aboit 1.7m, might help with overlooking., but why spend money until AC lpoks at it.

 

[watcher]

After a coffee a yhoughyt came to me, hpw would your clients react to svreeong of yhe deck, aboit 1.7m, might help with overlooking., but why spend money until AC lpoks at it.

Had another coffee, doesnt AC have a duty planner to deal with the public. Probably a silly question mate.