https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/rotorua-kainga-ora-container-homes-cost-630000-each-to-build/2WGGO4D2VNDWVEUPEL5U7ITXKE/
While this is about some overpriced 1 brm apartments it is good to see
" a cost K?inga Ora now admits wouldnt be approved under the new >Government."
Looks like another Labour showing us what value is.
On 17 Feb 2025 07:34:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a pathetic lie, your desperation is endemic in your posts.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/rotorua-kainga-ora-container-homes-cost-630000-each-to-build/2WGGO4D2VNDWVEUPEL5U7ITXKE/
While this is about some overpriced 1 brm apartments it is good to see
" a cost K?inga Ora now admits wouldnt be approved under the new >>Government."
Looks like another Labour showing us what value is.
Absolutely - Labour built dwellings that met healthy home standards,
and catered for occupiers with disabilities. That costs extra money,
but the main reason why it wouldn't be approved by the new Government
is because that new government has stopped nearly all building of
social housing, although they will finish some that were started but
not completed before the last election.
While this is about some overpriced 1 brm apartments it is good to seeA good post Gordon, what a shame that the money was not better spent and maybe more homes would have resulted.
" a cost Kāinga Ora now admits wouldn’t be approved under the new >Government."
Looks like another Labour showing us what value is.
On 17 Feb 2025 07:34:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/rotorua-kainga-ora-container-homes-cost-630000-each-to-build/2WGGO4D2VNDWVEUPEL5U7ITXKE/
While this is about some overpriced 1 brm apartments it is good to see
" a cost K?inga Ora now admits wouldnt be approved under the new >>Government."
Looks like another Labour showing us what value is.
Absolutely - Labour built dwellings that met healthy home standards,
and catered for occupiers with disabilities.
That costs extra money,
but the main reason why it wouldn't be approved by the new Government
is because that new government has stopped nearly all building of
social housing, although they will finish some that were started but
not completed before the last election.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:29:59 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 07:34:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/rotorua-kainga-ora-container-homes-cost-630000-each-to-build/2WGGO4D2VNDWVEUPEL5U7ITXKE/
While this is about some overpriced 1 brm apartments it is good to see
" a cost K?inga Ora now admits wouldnt be approved under the new >>>Government."
Looks like another Labour showing us what value is.
Absolutely - Labour built dwellings that met healthy home standards,
and catered for occupiers with disabilities.
PR wording Rich. Just think what would happen if either of these
attributes were omitted.
Yes it does cost more to adjust for special needs - see above.That costs extra money,
No it does not. I have seen multiple reports from professional
housing developers that they could build for far less.
A year to two ago Housing NZ paid $2.7 million for a house on a large
section in Kerikeri valued at the time at $1.3 million. The property
is surrounded on 2.5 sides by a retirement village owned by a
charitable trust and before that owned by Christian church social
services. The trust had the $1.3 million so they could extend the
village as planned, but Housing NZ paid far more and gazzumped them -
using someone else's money. The property is still undeveloped. If
you look at it on a real estate website (such as oneroof) its
valuation history has a large spike upwards about when this all
happened.
Housing NZ has a justly-earned reputation for paying too much for
everything it does - a reputation earned in part over the 6 years of >Labour-led governments. In Kerikeri it also has a reputation for
stomping on a charity.
but the main reason why it wouldn't be approved by the new Government
is because that new government has stopped nearly all building of
social housing, although they will finish some that were started but
not completed before the last election.
So they should. Housing NZ debt, like Health NZ spending, was
spiraling out of control. Measures are now being taken to fix this,
but by a timid Government with a timid PM.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:08:14 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:29:59 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 07:34:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/rotorua-kainga-ora-container-homes-cost-630000-each-to-build/2WGGO4D2VNDWVEUPEL5U7ITXKE/
While this is about some overpriced 1 brm apartments it is good to see
" a cost K?inga Ora now admits wouldnt be approved under the new >>>>Government."
Looks like another Labour showing us what value is.
Absolutely - Labour built dwellings that met healthy home standards,
and catered for occupiers with disabilities.
PR wording Rich. Just think what would happen if either of these >>attributes were omitted.
They are commonly omitted, and the majority of people do not need
them, so for many houses additional work was done to make the homes
suitable for tenants who had such special needs - you may have seen
reports that catering for special needs is very difficult to get in
private sector rental properties. So yes such provisions do cost more
than the majority of houses - just think about what wheelchair access
needs require in terms of additional work . . .
Yes it does cost more to adjust for special needs - see above.That costs extra money,
No it does not. I have seen multiple reports from professional
housing developers that they could build for far less.
Yes plenty of developers will claim that they could do better, and in
some cases that may be true, bit more of the work in the last few
years was done by private companies contracting for the work than may
have been the case decades earlier.
A year to two ago Housing NZ paid $2.7 million for a house on a large >>section in Kerikeri valued at the time at $1.3 million. The property
is surrounded on 2.5 sides by a retirement village owned by a
charitable trust and before that owned by Christian church social
services. The trust had the $1.3 million so they could extend the
village as planned, but Housing NZ paid far more and gazzumped them -
using someone else's money. The property is still undeveloped. If
you look at it on a real estate website (such as oneroof) its
valuation history has a large spike upwards about when this all
happened.
Housing NZ has a justly-earned reputation for paying too much for >>everything it does - a reputation earned in part over the 6 years of >>Labour-led governments. In Kerikeri it also has a reputation for
stomping on a charity.
but the main reason why it wouldn't be approved by the new Government
is because that new government has stopped nearly all building of
social housing, although they will finish some that were started but
not completed before the last election.
So they should. Housing NZ debt, like Health NZ spending, was
spiraling out of control. Measures are now being taken to fix this,
but by a timid Government with a timid PM.
The overall financial results of the work Kainga Ora did was also
tracked
- the effect of the work during the previous government covers
more than the cost of new builds either in new locations or to replace >existing dwellings. Overall the money spent gave an excellent return
on capital - the increased value of the portfolio was a very good
return on the opening investment allowing for additional money spent.
Comparing apples with pears is not particularly helpful - the overall
results were however better than experienced by some large private
housing development companies . . .
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:17:54 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>That is not what I said. As far as I am aware Housing NZ did much of
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:08:14 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:29:59 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 07:34:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/rotorua-kainga-ora-container-homes-cost-630000-each-to-build/2WGGO4D2VNDWVEUPEL5U7ITXKE/
While this is about some overpriced 1 brm apartments it is good to see >>>>>
" a cost K?inga Ora now admits wouldnt be approved under the new >>>>>Government."
Looks like another Labour showing us what value is.
Absolutely - Labour built dwellings that met healthy home standards, >>>>and catered for occupiers with disabilities.
PR wording Rich. Just think what would happen if either of these >>>attributes were omitted.
They are commonly omitted, and the majority of people do not need
them, so for many houses additional work was done to make the homes >>suitable for tenants who had such special needs - you may have seen
reports that catering for special needs is very difficult to get in
private sector rental properties. So yes such provisions do cost more
than the majority of houses - just think about what wheelchair access
needs require in terms of additional work . . .
Yes it does cost more to adjust for special needs - see above.That costs extra money,
No it does not. I have seen multiple reports from professional
housing developers that they could build for far less.
Yes plenty of developers will claim that they could do better, and in
some cases that may be true, bit more of the work in the last few
years was done by private companies contracting for the work than may
have been the case decades earlier.
So Housing NZ got stung by Developers? Yes they did - knowing Housing
NZ had other peoples money to spend are were intent on producing stuff
at any cost.
Do you have any reference to this purported incident?
A year to two ago Housing NZ paid $2.7 million for a house on a large >>>section in Kerikeri valued at the time at $1.3 million. The property
is surrounded on 2.5 sides by a retirement village owned by a
charitable trust and before that owned by Christian church social >>>services. The trust had the $1.3 million so they could extend the >>>village as planned, but Housing NZ paid far more and gazzumped them - >>>using someone else's money. The property is still undeveloped. If
you look at it on a real estate website (such as oneroof) its
valuation history has a large spike upwards about when this all
happened.
I have not seen anything about such a reputation or incident - do you
Housing NZ has a justly-earned reputation for paying too much for >>>everything it does - a reputation earned in part over the 6 years of >>>Labour-led governments. In Kerikeri it also has a reputation for >>>stomping on a charity.
Yes debt was growing, but the value of houses was growing faster - the
but the main reason why it wouldn't be approved by the new Government >>>>is because that new government has stopped nearly all building of >>>>social housing, although they will finish some that were started but >>>>not completed before the last election.
So they should. Housing NZ debt, like Health NZ spending, was
spiraling out of control.
Measures are now being taken to fix this,I saw an article recently, but will have to look for it.
but by a timid Government with a timid PM.
The overall financial results of the work Kainga Ora did was also
tracked
Can you cite this?
As above - I will look for the reference.- the effect of the work during the previous government covers
more than the cost of new builds either in new locations or to replace >>existing dwellings. Overall the money spent gave an excellent return
on capital - the increased value of the portfolio was a very good
return on the opening investment allowing for additional money spent.
Can you cite this?
Comparing apples with pears is not particularly helpful - the overall >>results were however better than experienced by some large private
housing development companies . . .
Can you cite this?
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:00:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:17:54 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:That is not what I said. As far as I am aware Housing NZ did much of
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:08:14 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:29:59 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 07:34:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/rotorua-kainga-ora-container-homes-cost-630000-each-to-build/2WGGO4D2VNDWVEUPEL5U7ITXKE/
While this is about some overpriced 1 brm apartments it is good to see >>>>>>
" a cost K?inga Ora now admits wouldnt be approved under the new >>>>>>Government."
Looks like another Labour showing us what value is.
Absolutely - Labour built dwellings that met healthy home standards, >>>>>and catered for occupiers with disabilities.
PR wording Rich. Just think what would happen if either of these >>>>attributes were omitted.
They are commonly omitted, and the majority of people do not need
them, so for many houses additional work was done to make the homes >>>suitable for tenants who had such special needs - you may have seen >>>reports that catering for special needs is very difficult to get in >>>private sector rental properties. So yes such provisions do cost more >>>than the majority of houses - just think about what wheelchair access >>>needs require in terms of additional work . . .
Yes it does cost more to adjust for special needs - see above.That costs extra money,
No it does not. I have seen multiple reports from professional
housing developers that they could build for far less.
Yes plenty of developers will claim that they could do better, and in >>>some cases that may be true, bit more of the work in the last few
years was done by private companies contracting for the work than may >>>have been the case decades earlier.
So Housing NZ got stung by Developers? Yes they did - knowing Housing
NZ had other peoples money to spend are were intent on producing stuff
at any cost.
its own development, but they did use contractors for some building of
new houses and to bring many houses up to healthy home standards. They
were certainly not intent on producing stuff at any cost; I know one
person whose company was ding work for them and his impression was
that they were much like any other client in wanting low prices but
also realistic about market costs.
Do you have any reference to this purported incident?
A year to two ago Housing NZ paid $2.7 million for a house on a large >>>>section in Kerikeri valued at the time at $1.3 million. The property >>>>is surrounded on 2.5 sides by a retirement village owned by a >>>>charitable trust and before that owned by Christian church social >>>>services. The trust had the $1.3 million so they could extend the >>>>village as planned, but Housing NZ paid far more and gazzumped them - >>>>using someone else's money. The property is still undeveloped. If
you look at it on a real estate website (such as oneroof) its
valuation history has a large spike upwards about when this all >>>>happened.
I have not seen anything about such a reputation or incident - do you
Housing NZ has a justly-earned reputation for paying too much for >>>>everything it does - a reputation earned in part over the 6 years of >>>>Labour-led governments. In Kerikeri it also has a reputation for >>>>stomping on a charity.
have a reference?
Yes debt was growing, but the value of houses was growing faster - the
but the main reason why it wouldn't be approved by the new Government >>>>>is because that new government has stopped nearly all building of >>>>>social housing, although they will finish some that were started but >>>>>not completed before the last election.
So they should. Housing NZ debt, like Health NZ spending, was >>>>spiraling out of control.
answer is not to stop all work when social housing is still needed.
Measures are now being taken to fix this,I saw an article recently, but will have to look for it.
but by a timid Government with a timid PM.
The overall financial results of the work Kainga Ora did was also
tracked
Can you cite this?
As above - I will look for the reference.
- the effect of the work during the previous government covers
more than the cost of new builds either in new locations or to replace >>>existing dwellings. Overall the money spent gave an excellent return
on capital - the increased value of the portfolio was a very good
return on the opening investment allowing for additional money spent.
Can you cite this?
Comparing apples with pears is not particularly helpful - the overall >>>results were however better than experienced by some large private >>>housing development companies . . .
Can you cite this?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:00:26 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,242 |