Housing debate has moved beyond ethics

I despair at the acrimony which was displayed during the debate on PC14. At times it reminded me of the litany of the deaf. I received several quite unpleasant emails from people. I enjoyed several thoughtful messages and I empathised with their observations and encourage them to remain engaged with the debate which is still in front of us.  I understand the complexity of having a multi-storey house blocking out the northern sun.

We need a debate on housing, but it must not reflect a self-centred approach to housing. We must embrace housing needs for all. Those of us owning our own homes or having an affordable rental, must accept we are in an elite position.

Some will be delighted that the Council pulled the plug on PC14 last week. I’m not because the issue will not be wished away. It still exists. I read a blog by Tim in “I’m a little teapot” the other day and it said:

In the absence of stripping our democratic systems back to their foundations and starting from scratch, our best defence is to—individually—take the time to educate ourselves free of the glittering appeal of the popular.

To this I say “here, here”. It was popular to drop PC14. A minority who fought it have won and the Councillors have heaved a sigh of relief and moved onto the next topic. However, the issues still exist. I invite people to write to me and we will address the issues in the New Year. Issue by issue.

In Stuff recently there was an article addressing where the new government might be heading regarding housing matters. This article included:

The Government plans to repeal the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA) and the Spatial Planning Act before Christmas. The NBEA was the Labour Government’s replacement for the Resource Management Act and requires each region to develop a natural and built environment plan for land use.

• It plans to reinstate the RMA with amendments to make it easier to consent new infrastructure and create a “fast track, one-stop shop” for consents.
• The longer-term plan from the government is to replace the resource management laws with rules that are based on “enjoyment of property rights” as a key principle.

Economist Shmubeel Eaqub said this was likely to lead to similar outcomes as were seen in the past. “Our experience was that the housing response was ineffective, house building does not keep up with demand changes, which are very volatile.”

Independent economist Cameron Bagrie said the impact of the change would depend on what the new regime was. “At the moment there seems to be a lot of piecemeal stuff. We’ll look at this, do this and this. It’s not all encompassing.”

Later in the article it was reported:

Eaqub said, overall, the reforms seemed not to be reforms but winding back to the status quo. “The issues we face with housing will remain the same. The consequence of that is housing responsiveness will slow, supply will fall, rents will increase a lot. House prices will increase compared to the alternative.”

Bagrie said certainty was needed to get the housing supply chain working effectively. “You need a real big package. The issues are complex in regard to what’s going on. If you broke it down to demand and supply and affordability in the middle, you’ve got to have a framework where supply is far more responsive to what the demand signals are telling us.

“I wouldn’t say we’ve got a lot of uncertainty on a big picture solution. We’re picking on bits.”

Kiernan said housing had become more expensive for the past 20 years and no one had wanted to do anything about it. That was partly because politicians had to strike a balance between trying to make a difference and not upsetting their voting base, many of whom were property owners, he said.

“They are effectively talking about reversing the things Labour brought in. Whether you think those would have been successful or not, they’re not really talking about what they’re going to do better or differently, they’re just talking about what’s going back.”

One comment in this article which really worried me was one by AUT professor of construction John Tookey who said there are benefits to allowing builders to opt out if they have long-term insurance.

Tookey said there was potential for this to make the process much faster and less risky for councils.

“A builder with extensive indemnity insurance where they can self-certify and all they are doing is taking themselves out of the mix in terms of having their work checked by council so the council is no longer responsible for the quality of the build, the builder is – that makes sense in many ways. It limits the exposure that the council has.

“It makes it quicker, less risky for council and would allow the construction process to move along at pace. The flipside is some people might get caught out, for sure.”

This idea would be a disaster. All the builders would have to do would be to liquidate their company. This comment is unbelievably naive. This assumes that insurance companies are charitable institutions. Discuss this with any person who has lived in Christchurch through the earthquakes, and they will give very clear feedback.

The role of the local council is that they operate as an independent assessor of the quality of the work undertaken by a builder. It might be painful. It might be slow. But its part of an audit of the construction process and is societies tick that we can be assured that the job has been done properly.

I feel we headed down this path of light restrictions in this city with the whole “as-is” market. People who have bought an “as-is” house have often found the work to have been faulty and there is no recourse for them. The repairs were not checked by the council because they weren’t required. That was a mistake.

Here’s precisely another example of what is wrong with our “market”:

When we think about churches, we are encouraged to imagine that they care about society and are the voice for the voiceless. That’s why we give them “charitable” status and they don’t have to pay tax.

There was a parish in Christchurch called “St Lukes”. It was a parish which was always heartwarming to visit. I can recall travelling with the Sallies evening bus a number of times with Bob Miller where the prostitutes were fed and given hot drinks. They always stopped outside St Lukes and the parish used to play a key role in supporting and loving the prostitutes.

The parish members were also active as advocates for issues in this city, especially with matters regarding the poor.

Their church fell down in the earthquakes. The site was then sold by the Church Property Trustees. It doesn’t matter which denomination Church Property trustees are, generally, incredibly conservative and sell land bought by earlier generations easily. Usually with few requirements for the purchasers to accommodate the poor.

The Catholic Church in Christchurch is closing parishes and intends selling the land it owns. There appears to be a complete absence of the Church intending building housing for the poor on the land vacated by parishes. When we reflect on the need for affordable housing and the desperate need for land to build it on the only response is despair. A complete absence of “you can tell the Christians by their love”.

There are, however, some shining lights in Christchurch like Chris Chamberlain and the parish of Oxford Terrace Baptist Church. They consulted their local community and were told of the need to build affordable housing for the poor. So, they did.

When we compare what the Baptists did in Oxford Terrace let us consider this advert currently on the site of the former St Lukes church.  Is this a demonstration of a moral vacuum? Where are the affordable units? Will these become even more air-b-n-b’s? How moral is this ad?