Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | ... | 186

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3182211 15-Jan-2024 13:42

GV27: National's biggest drubbing was on the back of a lack of action housing (despite the fact Labour got in and made things worse and did even less to fix it) and if Bill English had acknowledged the need for reform he would have been forming a government in 2017.

The Ardern Labour government removed medium density rules and allowed numerous more sites to be used for high density residential development. That single change made a huge difference to the number of projects started.

Back to the topic - Luxon's National government has signaled an intention to roll back that change. It's unclear to me if that rollback will happen only for the upper tier suburbs or more general.

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#3182237 15-Jan-2024 15:26

gzt:
The Ardern Labour government removed medium density rules and allowed numerous more sites to be used for high density residential development. That single change made a huge difference to the number of projects started.

Is that the density rule change that National also supported, knowing it would improve housing outcomes, before making a humiliating about face for some unknown reason ?

Back to the topic - Luxon's National government has signalled an intention to roll back that change. It's unclear to me if that rollback will happen only for the upper tier suburbs or more general.

Nimbys say it's a good idea, just not here.

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

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#3182241 15-Jan-2024 15:39

gzt:
Back to the topic - Luxon's National government has signaled an intention to roll back that change. It's unclear to me if that rollback will happen only for the upper tier suburbs or more general.

There were two big changes under the last government; the first one focused currently height-limited development along key transport routes and within a catchment of routes with frequent public transport. This happened just before the 2020 election and I think it was a Green party initiative.

The cross-party accord that National and Labour later voted for went far further and basically opened up most of the city to more intensive development, without the corresponding requirement that it have the transport services or other things to support a big increase in infill housing.

So instead of focusing development to create higher buildings along established and future transport routes that could support them, the development would now just happen where-ever; the predictable consequence being that housing development would be intensified where land is cheapest, not in the places that could actually support the development.

It was a step in a direction but I'm still not convinced it was the right one. Matters not helped by Auckland Council effectively refusing to zone the entire central city corridor because it was subject to further Light Rail plans (and thus might chance what it could in theory support for development).

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3182247 15-Jan-2024 16:20

GV27:

gzt:
Back to the topic - Luxon's National government has signaled an intention to roll back that change. It's unclear to me if that rollback will happen only for the upper tier suburbs or more general.

There were two big changes under the last government; the first one focused currently height-limited development along key transport routes and within a catchment of routes with frequent public transport. This happened just before the 2020 election and I think it was a Green party initiative.

The cross-party accord that National and Labour later voted for went far further and basically opened up most of the city to more intensive development, without the corresponding requirement that it have the transport services or other things to support a big increase in infill housing.

So instead of focusing development to create higher buildings along established and future transport routes that could support them, the development would now just happen where-ever; the predictable consequence being that housing development would be intensified where land is cheapest, not in the places that could actually support the development.

It was a step in a direction but I'm still not convinced it was the right one. Matters not helped by Auckland Council effectively refusing to zone the entire central city corridor because it was subject to further Light Rail plans (and thus might chance what it could in theory support for development).

The issue is, intensification is a good idea to stem house demand if you can add peeps to an existing piece of land. But if the transport infrastructure isn't added you are just replacing one problem with another. Transport infrastructure within city limits just wont happen. Too many obstacles. $200M spent planning LR then no one seems to want it anyway

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3182249 15-Jan-2024 16:31

Of course, the flip side is that we have developers buying market gardens in Drury and building new subdivisions on them. The only ‘transport’ is a motorway on-ramp 5km away, and so now we have more people, more traffic, AND less food. Winner!

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3182250 15-Jan-2024 16:33

Cities: Skylines should be a mandatory course in Year 12. Change my mind.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3182251 15-Jan-2024 16:35

SaltyNZ: Of course, the flip side is that we have developers buying market gardens in Drury and building new subdivisions on them. The only ‘transport’ is a motorway on-ramp 5km away, and so now we have more people, more traffic, AND less food. Winner!

Yep, like I said, we dont do infrastructure, until its desperate. Here in ChCh we have done a few cool motorways, but even then they just save some time exiting and entering the city, doesnt help city limit congestion at all

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3182332 15-Jan-2024 18:37

quickymart:

GV27:

When enough time has passed and we have agencies capable of communicating the (real) need for it and not using it as a stalking horse for their actual pet projects (tunnels under the Harbour) then we might actually get a shot at building something.

Yes, following on your logic, let's just keep talking about it without doing anything, as that seems to work so well 🙄 Case in point, speaking of a second harbour crossing, how long have they been talking about that for again? It's 2024, do we have a second crossing yet? Maybe we should talk about it some more.

At least just talking about it wouldn't cost $228 million while accomplishing the same thing.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3182537 16-Jan-2024 10:18

Handle9: cost $228 million while accomplishing the same thing.

Money spent yes but probably not wasted. It seems there were many property purchases involved:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/property-insider-33m-auckland-block-bought-pre-election-for-now-scrapped-light-rail-how-mitre-10-reacted-to-owners-being-named-house-building-update-snells-beach-scheme-allowed/YDKTLAPB2NDPRIWWYCLYOJY5FY/

Those will be sold if National has decided to cancel the whole project.

JPNZ

1542 posts

Uber Geek

#3182859 17-Jan-2024 07:52

2024 polls are kind to the government..

National 41% - up from 36.5%
ACT 7.8% - up from 6.3%
NZ First 5.6% down from 8.1%

Labour 28.4% - NC from 28.4%
Greens 9.5% - down from 10.5%
TPM 3.6% - down from 5%

"The poll has more bad news for Labour, with leader Chris Hipkins crashing 9 points to 13 per cent as preferred prime minister, a new low for a Labour leader in this poll, opening up an 18-point gap with Christopher Luxon who was up one point to 31 per cent . Hipkins polled 35 per cent as preferred prime minister when he took over the job a year ago."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-soars-in-new-poll-as-voters-agree-country-is-on-track-chris-hipkins-crashes-record-low/TNS4GGJHIFDTZNGMKPQLNJOGJA/

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

michaelmurfy

meow
13240 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3182881 17-Jan-2024 09:11

JPNZ: 2024 polls are kind to the government..

Taxpayers Union poll who are part of the Atlas Network who will do anything to make people believe the NACT govt is right and on the right track. I seriously wouldn't read too much into it as it is fully bias. I highly doubt this is the case given what has been happening and NZ's reaction (along with the world) right now to what NACT have done so far.

I really recommend watching this: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/mata-reports/episodes/s1-e5

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3183263 17-Jan-2024 21:54

michaelmurfy:

JPNZ: 2024 polls are kind to the government..

Taxpayers Union poll who are part of the Atlas Network who will do anything to make people believe the NACT govt is right and on the right track. I seriously wouldn't read too much into it as it is fully bias. I highly doubt this is the case given what has been happening and NZ's reaction (along with the world) right now to what NACT have done so far.

I really recommend watching this: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/mata-reports/episodes/s1-e5

The Curia poll is a reputable poll regardless of the Tax Payers Union commisioning it and being run by David Farrar (they also do the National Party polling). Their polling has been broadly consistent with the others (Verian, Reid Research, Talbot Mills and Roy Morgan) over quite some time.

They don't seem to play games with their polls and I'd expect the others to be broadly consistent. I wouldn't give half the other crap The Tax Payers Union puts out the time of day but this is reasonably legitimate.

The world really isn't paying any real attention to what New Zealand is doing but that's not unusual.

danepak

1112 posts

Uber Geek

#3183319 18-Jan-2024 08:23

A Swedish friend of mine who works in the public transport sector in Stockholm sent the following (translated via Google Translate);

Don't know which economists they have hired to calculate the costs but they are unusually high. After inflation, I would say that it might cost about 1.5 billion Swedish kronor per km of subway and the NZ dollar is about the same as the Australian one, so 4 - 5 times more. Building a tramway is therefore not nearly as expensive, even if part of it was supposed to be run in a tunnel. To claim that the costs in NZ would be more than 5 times higher than in Sweden I find completely unreasonable. The consultants hired to come up with these values must be politically appointed with the task of coming to the conclusion that it will be damn expensive. Sad that NZ is locking in fossil fuels for public transport :(

https://www.railwaygazette.com/light-rail-and-tram/government-cancels-auckland-light-rail-project/65702.article?ID=z9xqh~9jxqt9~jfjrx~W4ik~Ky0gk&utm_campaign=RG-METRO- REPORT-RBW%20170124-JM&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=RG-METRO-REPORT-RBW%20170124-JM

quickymart

13925 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3183328 18-Jan-2024 08:35

It's okay, more roads will - somehow - solve traffic problems. We don't need hardly any public transport, or so says Simeon Brown, as he cuts back a range of initiatives to please Winston 🙄

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#3183333 18-Jan-2024 08:49

danepak: A Swedish friend of mine who works in the public transport sector in Stockholm sent the following (translated via Google Translate);

Don't know which economists they have hired to calculate the costs but they are unusually high. After inflation, I would say that it might cost about 1.5 billion Swedish kronor per km of subway and the NZ dollar is about the same as the Australian one, so 4 - 5 times more. Building a tramway is therefore not nearly as expensive, even if part of it was supposed to be run in a tunnel. To claim that the costs in NZ would be more than 5 times higher than in Sweden I find completely unreasonable. The consultants hired to come up with these values must be politically appointed with the task of coming to the conclusion that it will be damn expensive. Sad that NZ is locking in fossil fuels for public transport :(

https://www.railwaygazette.com/light-rail-and-tram/government-cancels-auckland-light-rail-project/65702.article?ID=z9xqh~9jxqt9~jfjrx~W4ik~Ky0gk&utm_campaign=RG-METRO- REPORT-RBW%20170124-JM&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=RG-METRO-REPORT-RBW%20170124-JM

That fits. GA pointed out that our cost-per-km for surface light rail was hugely above other recent LRT projects, like the Gold Coast and Sydney.

I'm still convinced that the main motivation for undergrounding was to enable the need for tunnels under the Harbour, or at least a continuation of work programs relating to them.

1 | ... | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | ... | 186