Labour 'dreaming' with housing plan – property developer

Email
Print

Labour 'dreaming' – property expert

3News NZ

Labour leader David Shearer (AAP)

Labour leader David Shearer (AAP)

By Brook Sabin

Labour leader David Shearer hit the streets today, on a mission to prove his affordable home policy will actually work.

But one of Auckland’s top property experts has offered Mr Shearer some advice: start buying caravans, because it's not going to happen.

Publicity stunts don't always go to plan, and Mr Shearer found that out today as he showed off a low-cost subdivision.

Just over a week ago Labour announced, if elected, it would build 100,000 homes – many in Auckland – selling for just $300,000 each.

Construction costs would make up $220,000-250,000 of that, leaving just $50,000-$80,000 for the section.

When asked if he knew the average section price in Auckland, Mr Shearer says, “it depends where the section's going to be”.

The average section price in Auckland is actually $300,000.

Prime Minister John Key says Labour’s plan is unworkable.

“I think they're in fantasy land,” he says.

But not so, says Mr Shearer, who today showed off two Auckland subdivisions – built by a charity – containing $300,000 homes. Labour says the sections cost about $50,000.

But property developer Olly Newland sees it differently.

“It's a nice idea, but they're dreaming,” he says.

He says it simply isn't possible to bulk buy cheap land in Auckland.

“I don't know where you can get land for $50,000 – possibly in Mosgiel out of Dunedin.

“I think it will cost five times as much, it would be cheaper to buy 100,000 caravans.”

Mr Shearer set out to prove today that his housing policy could work, but one important aspect was absent from today's tour – those $50,000-$80,000 sections needed to make Labour's sums add up.

And the Government says that's simply because hardly any of them exist.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

2/12/2012 8:57:08 p.m.

Ruz wrote:

Dave you need to swat up om your social history. In the 1950's and 196o's the Government took the lead in building tens of thousands of state houses. In fact John Key was brought up in one. Also you might find that those state hosues never leaked which is more than can be said for the houses built by developers in the 1990's.

30/11/2012 11:32:47 p.m.

nigel wrote:

awesome idea just because the greedy slimey money loving can never have enough property developer thinks its a bad idea makes me think it must be a great idea . state houses should be rent to bye for good long term clients that have always paid the rent etc . gets people into an asset a home and off the poverty heap . and no a getto is when you dont sell them. belave me the property developer is only thinking of his own greedy vary large pockets indeed .the greedy little man sounds like he could never have enough money .

27/11/2012 11:01:17 a.m.

Dan wrote:

There's a volatile debate and a volatile market, two main things which will put a lot of sourness into this housing plan. So an alternative is to look at even cheaper housing in other areas, especially the South Island.

27/11/2012 10:05:05 a.m.

dave wrote:

you get what you pay for, we dont want future slums. people need to start saving for a house as soon as they leave school. Even a little bit helps. Try spending less on junk food and pokies. Most of all stop expecting the state to help you out. INDEPENDENCE a wonderful thing.

27/11/2012 8:50:48 a.m.

Greg wrote:

Lets get the focus of bottom down economics, which is failing, and have bottom up economics thats makes all our lifes easier. It will motivated more people to work and be economic productive for the whole economy. Why the overly focus on couples to who have sex on tap and breed, its discrimination against the single sheep.

26/11/2012 11:04:55 p.m.

Henry wrote:

I love how the media is making out Shearer to be some kind of idiot. Of course the costs are going to be higher than the initial returns, that's the point of subsidized housing.

26/11/2012 10:43:32 p.m.

Mark wrote:

Labour are dreaming. Ollie Newlands is correct. Don't you think property developers would have done this ages ago if they could ? They know there is market for cheap housing but Auckland land prices means it can't be done. Average sections in Auckland cost about $300,000 NOT $50,00. If any were built they would be slum's and drug infested ghettos. 'S' you idiot that house in Papakura for $199,000 is a condemed 'P' house. Who on earth advises Shearer ? his TV appearances are a joke. Shearer is doing a good job of looking like an bumbling idiot.

26/11/2012 10:12:02 p.m.

Kiwi Dad wrote:

I was a builder/carpenter for a number of years and am now involved in community development in South Auckland. Affordable housing is possible if we have the will to make it happen. You only need to Look at Habitat for Humanity that has provided a great service in this area. David Shearer has provided a positive vision and we should be getting behind him to make it happen.

26/11/2012 10:01:08 p.m.

Lance wrote:

Shearer on TV3 News, promoting the housing policy, asked a simple question about cost … and guess what? He does the goldfish thing – mouth open, nothing, mouth closed. For God’s sake. Inarticulate speech of a fool. HE CAN’T COPE. You might get a few ghetto houses for that cost in Auckland but really he is dreaming.

26/11/2012 9:35:03 p.m.

S wrote:

There are already plenty of houses in Auckland selling under $300,000, just look at Trademe - saw 1 3 bed in Papakura for $199000.