New tenancy laws coming into effect Feb 11 2021

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › New tenancy laws coming into effect Feb 11 2021

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13

7769 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7402

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2631678 7-Jan-2021 11:50

elpenguino:

Maybe we also need a squatting law so empty houses can be used. Seems a crime to have people living in cars when perfectly good houses sit empty.

I disagree entirely.

If you own a house, you should be allowed to decide who lives in it and whether anyone does in fact live in it. If you pay for a car but don't use it, should others get to use it as a matter of right?

If you have shoes you only occasionally wear, should the shoeless get to use them on the off-days?

If you have a bunch of clothes you're not currently wearing, should others get to use them?

Shoes, cars and clothes are worth considerably less than real estate property. Why should you be forced to provide this for others?

Squatter's rights should not exist anywhere and squatters should be prosecuted at every opportunity as trespassers, burglars and criminals.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2631712 7-Jan-2021 12:44

elpenguino:

Making changes to make it easier on the supply side are also needed. I'd like to see Fletchers investigated to see whether their vertical integration is increasing the prices of building materials unnecessarily. They own everything from forests through to electrical wholesalers.

There is a lot a Govt could do, but you have to ask the question, why do Govts always do nothing? The Great Depression and WW2 were the only times that Govt built built built. All the other time it's left to the market.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2631714 7-Jan-2021 12:44

Handsomedan:

elpenguino:

Maybe we also need a squatting law so empty houses can be used. Seems a crime to have people living in cars when perfectly good houses sit empty.

I disagree entirely.

If you own a house, you should be allowed to decide who lives in it and whether anyone does in fact live in it. If you pay for a car but don't use it, should others get to use it as a matter of right?

If you have shoes you only occasionally wear, should the shoeless get to use them on the off-days?

If you have a bunch of clothes you're not currently wearing, should others get to use them?

Shoes, cars and clothes are worth considerably less than real estate property. Why should you be forced to provide this for others?

Squatter's rights should not exist anywhere and squatters should be prosecuted at every opportunity as trespassers, burglars and criminals.

The squatter's right is based on the fact that shelter is one of life's most basic necessities, unlike a car, and therefore assumes more importance. By owning a house which you do not use, you are denying shelter to someone.

You could decide who to rent to it to. Or if you can't be bothered being a landlord, sell it to someone who will be a landlord. Or sell it to an owner occupier.

If we were to take your position to the extreme, Bill Gates could move into town, buy up all houses that come onto the market and leave everyone else on the streets. Cos it's his right.

The idea of property rights is only an idea, as is the whole fiction of money. If I pay 'made up' money for a house and keep it empty, someone has to sleep in a very real garage.

As a society, we need to keep these ideas of property rights and a need of shelter in balance.

I know a lot of people complain about violent crime or climbing gang numbers - one of the factors that pushes people into these worlds is poverty, including the shutty houses and neighbourhoods people live in.

Sometimes 28.3 grams of prevention is worth 453 grams of cure. NZ needs to do more to improve our housing situation.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2631720 7-Jan-2021 12:53

tdgeek:

There is a lot a Govt could do, but you have to ask the question, why do Govts always do nothing?

I posted what I think is the reason for Labour to appear to be doing nothing.

National always did nothing because of an ideology that the market always sorts out the problem.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2631739 7-Jan-2021 13:34

elpenguino:

The squatter's right is based on the fact that shelter is one of life's most basic necessities, unlike a car, and therefore assumes more importance. By owning a house which you do not use, you are denying shelter to someone.

You could decide who to rent to it to. Or if you can't be bothered being a landlord, sell it to someone who will be a landlord. Or sell it to an owner occupier.

If we were to take your position to the extreme, Bill Gates could move into town, buy up all houses that come onto the market and leave everyone else on the streets. Cos it's his right.

The idea of property rights is only an idea, as is the whole fiction of money. If I pay 'made up' money for a house and keep it empty, someone has to sleep in a very real garage.

As a society, we need to keep these ideas of property rights and a need of shelter in balance.

I know a lot of people complain about violent crime or climbing gang numbers - one of the factors that pushes people into these worlds is poverty, including the shutty houses and neighbourhoods people live in.

Sometimes 28.3 grams of prevention is worth 453 grams of cure. NZ needs to do more to improve our housing situation.

By owning a house which you do not use, you are denying shelter to someone.

Don't agree. To take your argument one step further. If for example I owned a large house but only used part of it then using your argument I should rent the unused portion to someone. Hmmmm.

If I pay 'made up' money for a house and keep it empty, someone has to sleep in a very real garage.

There is a tremendous number of unoccupied or very occasionally occupied houses in New Zealand. I know a lot of people who own various properties in different parts of the country with each property only being occupied when they are present. I don't think this is causing anyone to be sleeping in any garage.

one of the factors that pushes people into these worlds is poverty

Now you're starting to get to the nub of the problem. Why does the poverty exist and how do we rectify it? Poverty isn't caused by empty houses.

I believe Bill English saw poverty as the cause of many of our problems and was in the process of introducing changes to address this but was scuttled by the vengeful self serving leader of New Zealand First. Governments of both persuasions including the current one haven't grasped the nettle despite our Prime Minister saying addressing child poverty was a top priority.

I believe one part of the poverty solution is better education. By that I mean better education on life skills. Things like educating people on the true expenses of pay day loans, the true cost of buying from the mobile sales trucks etc. There's plenty more.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Jase2985

13732 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6205

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2631775 7-Jan-2021 14:35

@elpenguino what about the thousands of batches around the country? or the air bnb's? long term serviced apartments?

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2631785 7-Jan-2021 15:00

elpenguino:

Sometimes 28.3 grams of prevention is worth 453 grams of cure. NZ needs to do more to improve our housing situation.

The 'not my problem' attitude is fine until social unrest makes it your problem. Until then, people seem to think 'fill your boots' is a zero-consequences approach when it comes to housing.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2631801 7-Jan-2021 15:21

There will be a percentage of landlords who whom the cost of renting exceeds the income being provided. Long term capital gains will see them realize the value of the property, but in the meantime they need to comply with ever increasing regulation and compliance and for some, it's simply not affordable so they will leave it empty. If they "release" it back onto the a super hot market, apparently first home buyers couldn't afford it anyway, and even if they do, we are talking dozens or perhaps low hundreds, this is not going to significantly reduce the heat in the market. I don't think people really understand the scale of all of this. The answer is supply, and people accepting a standalone house isn't really a practical first home option, accept compromises and live outside of the main centers. The Government could do a lot to incentivise first home owners to build not buy, but like everything else, it's all talk really.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2631805 7-Jan-2021 15:27

networkn:

The answer is supply, and people accepting a standalone house isn't really a practical first home option, accept compromises and live outside of the main centers. The Government could do a lot to incentivise first home owners to build not buy, but like everything else, it's all talk really.

Simple question? Why any part of this? Why should I have to leave the city I was born in to buy a house? Why do we insulate property investors from any risk downside at all at the expense of younger New Zealanders?

I see endless compromises being asked of younger Kiwis and being told to constantly lower their expectations, but almost no actual change on anyone else's part. The golden egg must be protected at all costs, to hell with everyone else. Until someone kicks in your front door in the middle of the night, it's everyone else who should have to just keep adjusting what they perceive as reasonable.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2631810 7-Jan-2021 15:34

GV27:

Simple question? Why any part of this? Why should I have to leave the city I was born in to buy a house? Why do we insulate property investors from any risk downside at all at the expense of younger New Zealanders?

I see endless compromises being asked of younger Kiwis and being told to constantly lower their expectations, but almost no actual change on anyone else's part. The golden egg must be protected at all costs, to hell with everyone else. Until someone kicks in your front door in the middle of the night, it's everyone else who should have to just keep adjusting what they perceive as reasonable.

Heh, kick my door in ? I think not.

It's called reality. What is your magic solution to fix this? Who do you think build the majority of houses? Property investors and developers. Take away the incentives then what? Even less houses. The problem is demand outstrips supply. Land is expensive in Auckland, less so in other places.

If the price of houses dropped significantly, there still won't be any more houses!

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2631822 7-Jan-2021 15:57

networkn:

It's called reality. What is your magic solution to fix this? Who do you think build the majority of houses? Property investors and developers. Take away the incentives then what? Even less houses. The problem is demand outstrips supply. Land is expensive in Auckland, less so in other places.

If the price of houses dropped significantly, there still won't be any more houses!

My solution is that we treat it as the national level disaster it is like we did in Christchurch: you insure people out based on a historic valuation for their family home so they are protected from negative equity, and then aggressively attack demand through monetary and tax policy and collapse the whole thing in on itself - and then never let this sort of idiocy happen again.

The fact that people have been able to make huge amounts of money from imported population pressure we can't support through infrastructure or policy execution does not mean that house prices should be forever inflated past the point of affordability because people think their investments should be insulated from the basic concept of risk, and certainly not to the extent that we ignore the massive social costs that come with house prices and rents being what they are.

The status quo is not sustainable. Either we manage it down to something reasonable, or an external shock will do that for us. At that point though, all bets are off.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2631887 7-Jan-2021 16:39

Pray tell, where is this magic pot of money to pay to insure all home owners etc against negative equity coming from? I believe it would cause a massive financial collapse we would take decades to recover from.

You are still missing the big problem which is there *aren't enough houses*. If you can attack demand after this, then they should do this now. If you want to kill demand you can do that now.

As you have yourself said, who gets to tell you if you get to buy a house in Auckland, if anyone feels this way, attacking demand won't work, because it equates to asking people to move out to the regions and build, which also solves the issue.

WinNZ90

196 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 21
Inactive user

#2631970 7-Jan-2021 18:54

After reading the responses to my post I see I failed to get across what I was saying, it is nothing to do with getting the property market prices done.

If you own a home and choose to leave it empty and don't care there are people living on the streets, you should be penalised for that fact. And investment property is not something you buy and leave empty, its meant to be lived it, B&B, things like bachcare and things like that too should all be stopped, there would be a lot more houses on the rental market if people weren't greedy thinking they can charge over $100 dollars a night.

To bring the market prices down you'd have to do something about the useless councils spending money where it doesn't need to be spent and not taking care of things when they need to be done, leaving things to get worse and worse, costing the rates payer hundreds of thousands every year.

I have live in multiple different council zones over the years and I have to say Taranaki has the best council so far, they invest in the rate payer extremely well.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15454

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2631989 7-Jan-2021 19:08

You are incorrect. Investment properties serve the purpose to make the investor money. They are not there for the benefit of everyone except the investor.

You can try and apply whatever morality you choose to, to that, but it's primary purpose is a money making vehicle. If the investor cannot make money with tenants in it, then it's their absolute right to leave it empty.

Unless you are going to regulate all property in NZ, fiddling on the fringes won't solve the issues experienced present.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2632011 7-Jan-2021 20:00

Build is the only option. Govts are not here to build (apart from the Great Depression and WW2 recovery when they did) maybe they could again? If you import people (immigrants), thats fine but mandate that they are unable to buy. They rent (supporting NZ landlords) or they build (thereby adding population (good) but not reducing housing stock. Ive never built, but if you incentivise me I might. If I wanted to get another house next week, make it better to build. Maybe if I buy I play a fee, if I build I get that fee towards the build. Maybe a build gets a subsided interest rate, paid for by buyers paying a higher rate. Humans are easy, dangle a carrot, they will bite. But all these schemes to artificially fix a problem won't work.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13