"The Trust uses industry tools to help people make plans that could involve co-housing, sharing costs, or renting a house to Homes for Good" its website says.

Its first project will focus on finding housing solutions for the district's over 65-year old population..

Growing the good idea

The idea of finding affordable housing for others started when Peter Ryan, Robin Gunston and David Fromont (pictured) heard a parishioner talk about housing needs.

"We want to be agents of change by alerting people living here to the future issues of home occupancy costs, not only in financial terms, but also in terms of loneliness or the need to share with someone who could offer care as one ages" Gunston says.

Central Kapiti has many unoccupied holiday homes that lie unused for 300 days a year, he notes.

"We want to explore with owners the various ways they can assist with this bedroom allocation issue for the benefit of both parties" Gunston says.

The Trust is also interested in the many larger properties with spare land that could accommodate a small residence, thus benefiting everyone involved.

Affordable housing needed

Homes for Good will promote discussion about changes in the way people currently live and suggest ways for homeowners to use their properties to benefit those who struggle to find affordable housing.

"Experience elsewhere in New Zealand has seen people willing to reduce rents in return for longer, more sustainable renters who are well supported" Gunston says.

"Every client of Homes for Good will be supported in the changes they make and the ongoing issues they may face.

"Another strategy is to partner with registered community housing providers who could build new affordable housing in this area, acting as the party to find the right occupiers and then supporting them in their new home."

How Homes for Good will help

The new charity will help broker arrangements between people who have property and those who need affordable housing.

It has industry-developed tools to enable - for instance - the owner of a large house to find suitable people to share it with.

"We can take both parties through their options and help them make a plan. That could involve one co-housing with the other and sharing costs, while their house is rented to Homes for Good."

Using existing housing stock more wisely could reduce the need for new builds, he says. There would be fewer rates increases to build infrastructure, less anxiety especially amongst older people about where their care and companionship may come from, and by making the whole community far kinder in the long-term.

But success will depend on whether people "change their attitudes" to housing issues, says Gunston.

Source

• NZ Herald

The entity could work with iwi or other organisations to build affordable or social housing on land that it bought or received from the council.

The trust will be governed by a board: one member will be appointed by the council, a Maori Trustee will be selected by the district's iwi consultative group Te Whakamienga o Kapiti, and up to five independent trustees will be recruited. Read more

We have a shortfall of more than 100,000 dwellings, all urban housing markets are considered severely unaffordable by international standards.

• 500,000 Kiwis are in overcrowded housing situations
• 350,000 households are on accommodation supplements
• Maori home ownership sits at just over 30%
• less than 50% of people in our largest city (Auckland) own their own homes, and
• 1 in 100 people — that's 50,000 people — are living in ‘severe housing deprivation (sleeping on the streets or in cars, in emergency housing, temporarily staying at relatives or friends, etc).

Our housing situation is driving inequality and it's dangerous.

The Fall of Rome, the French Revolution, the Arab Spring and Brexit, were all, in part, driven by inequality.

Inequality is a key contributor to crime, violence, abuse in its many forms, and mental illness. It destroys social cohesion by eroding the bonds that make us feel like we're all in the same boat.

As it stands, the current housing system is growing the divide.

It is creating conditions where those who own homes are witnessing their wealth grow — without having to exert any effort, and in many cases faster than their incomes ever will — while those who do not, watch the prospect of obtaining one become more and more prohibitive.

Some people will choose to take on large and unprecedented sums of debt; many more will acknowledge that homeownership is out of their reach.

At the same time, a growing number of hard-working people in this country are in unsuitable living situations, staying in cars, sheds, garages and overcrowded houses.

Every week an article is written examining the various drivers of expensive housing in New Zealand:

• lack of supply,
• easy access to finance,
• low-interest rates,
• investors,
• speculators,
• red tape,
• restrictive building codes and council rules,
• material costs and so on.

And every other week an article is written with solutions to these issues: a tax, a change in regulation or policy, a homeownership scheme or a building programme.

Why is it that despite our best efforts — that is, knowing the problems, having the technical expertise needed to address them, and making efforts to do so — the trajectory for quality affordable housing is only getting worse?

Could it be that we are not addressing the heart of the problem?

I believe it is time to reexamine and update our values and beliefs that lie at the heart of both the issues and the solutions to our housing crisis.

We are all in the same boat

We do not get to choose the circumstances into which we are born.

We don't choose our race, our gender or our economic position, and yet these circumstances have far-reaching implications on our lives.

We need to design our housing system so that every member of society, no matter who they are or where they are born, has equitable access to good quality affordable housing, along with fundamentals such as quality education, healthcare, and food, in order to lay the foundations for a strong future society.

Our current system perpetuates unaffordable housing as the status quo, and isn't good for the millions of individuals who are not in homes which they own or have unprecedented amounts of debt in their names.

We have to be fair

An expensive house or no house isn't much of a choice.

Why should future homebuyers, who are entitled to the basic human right of adequate shelter, be forced to pay ever-higher prices for property that hasn't necessarily had any real value (such as habitable space) added to it?

Is it fair that those who have been on the receiving end of property sales have accumulated large sums of money at the expense of buyers?

If large sums of money have found their way into the hands of current and previous property owners without any real value being added, wouldn't it be only fair to look at how that money could be redirected and redistributed towards things that add real value to our society?

Given our current state of crisis, we could begin by looking at how such money could be directed towards solutions to the housing crisis.

No pain, no gain

It is not possible for the average house to be both unaffordable and affordable at the same time.

In order to move towards affordability, we're going to have to give up our expensive housing. This will mean a sacrifice for some individuals who, relatively speaking, have more than others.

It is not easy to give up something that we enjoy, even when we know the outcome of giving it up is better for us.

Whether it's giving up or reducing smoking, alcohol, or sugary drinks for a healthier lifestyle, or forgoing a social outing or sports activity to spend more time with the kids, all of these require some sort of sacrifice on one level in order to achieve a greater objective.

The same is true when it comes to expensive housing.

We will need to find and develop the strength within ourselves to overcome our self-interest for the benefit of all.

The media

The tone of the conversation about housing and especially housing as ‘an investment' needs to change, and our media industry needs to lead this charge.

We need to critically examine whether it's appropriate to talk about rising house prices as if it's a good thing when in reality, rising house prices also plays out as rising inequality, crime, mental illness and violence.

Newspaper stories with headlines "Major urban centres continue to show strong gains" and "Cheaper suburbs leap ahead" could accurately be rewritten to headline "Major urban centres witness inequality and child poverty grow" and "Rents increase for already struggling families in cheaper suburbs".

Just substitute any reference to ‘rising house prices' with ‘rising inequality' and you have a fuller picture of what is going on.

Some hard choices

We have some choices to make.

We can allow our house prices to rise.

We can watch as our homeless population grows, more people sleep in cars, and the prospect of homeownership slip away from more Maori and Pasifika families.

We can build taller fences and put up barbed wire to keep thieves out as we further isolate ourselves from ‘the other' — people in different socio-economic circles than us.

We can witness our society become more and more divided.

Or we can design our housing system to ensure that everyone, no matter who they are, has access to quality affordable homes, homes that they can own should they wish.

We can make the price of property commensurate with the real value of property.

We can stop concentrating wealth via property into the hands of a minority at the expense of the majority, and we can think about how wealth that has been obtained without creating any real value can be redistributed in a sensible fashion.

Redesigning the housing system to be more fair and equitable means we are going to have to make some changes in our thoughts, attitudes, policies and practices.

We are going to have to give up a system that is helping an increasingly small segment of society get ahead economically for one that is more holistic and considers the wellbeing of all over the wellbeing of only some.

It may be hard in the short term but a more equitable society, a society where we all feel more connected and safer, one in which all human potential is given the chance to develop, is surely a society that we'd rather live in.

Be sure, however, that if we fail to make the necessary sacrifices soon, it is our future generations that we are sacrificing.

• Zane Sabour retrofits garages, runs youth empowerment programmes is often with his children. He is interested in broadening and deepening the conversation on affordable housing in Aotearoa, and is the founder of the web platform Low-Cost Housing Aotearoa where he showcases practical examples of completed projects in New Zealand communities.

But we can produce an overabundance of expensive homes. So why the massive disconnect between demand and supply?

Without political ownership and a major overhaul of the current regulatory processes, affordable housing will never be delivered. New Zealand's journey to housing unaffordability has been 30-plus years in the making.

Over the past four decades, I've built hundreds of homes, and have watched the market progressively tilt towards larger homes on smaller, very expensive lots, with building time frames stretching out and productivity plummeting.

Unfortunately, this is what our current system and market dictates, but it is woefully under-delivering on what we need to house everyone, especially in the dawning era where affordability will be paramount.

The current Government's worthy political aspirations to ramp up affordable housing by 10,000 units per annum under the guise of Kiwibuild crashed and burned in spectacular fashion.

They soon realised what those of us in the industry have long known — the delivery system is broken.

At huge political embarrassment, they learned that our underlying system is plagued with hurdles, delays, costs at every turn, and is inadvertently skewed to only create high-cost land and, subsequently, high-cost homes.

It's a pipe dream to think that the current system or market will produce affordable housing without intervention, especially in urban areas.

The sad thing is that the Government's response to fixing the broken system is to change the law so that government projects can sidestep the Resource Management Act (RMA) and leave the rest of the country stuck in the regulatory mire.

Why not be brave and fix the problem for everyone, once and for all? Instead, it's an opportunity lost, and the problem kicked down the road because it's politically difficult.

There are currently many hundreds of unsold new homes sitting in Auckland and other locations around the country because those that need the housing can't afford them.

We have been building a disproportionate oversupply of expensive larger homes, with the greatest area of demand being affordable homes hardly catered for.

This needs to change, and quickly. However, if we continue to follow the same regulatory processes, how can we expect a different outcome? It just won't happen.

If we want affordable housing, we need to produce affordable land free of inflationary minimum size and design-restrictive covenants.

In reality, these covenants are put in place by developers to raise the price of subsequent section releases. They cut out a large portion of buyers who might be wanting a smaller, more efficient home.

Any meaningful changes will only come about under current systems by sidestepping the market and some of the feel-good niceties of planning, and simply getting on with pragmatically producing the housing, and centrally funding the infrastructure needed.

If the politicians have not got the wisdom or courage to change the rules that have created this mess, perhaps they will need to develop their own land that can be used for affordable housing. Previous governments have successfully done it before.

To solve this crisis, we need a different approach

The solution is relatively clear — we need fewer rules and political fortitude, as local authorities will need to be curbed and, in some cases, overruled — and not just for Government projects.

I know of one private enterprise example where a smaller local authority has been sitting on its hands for more than 12 months like possums frozen in the headlights.

It's a $40 million project that will deliver 150 affordable homes to market for less than $400,000 each, including the land.

Clients are crying out for the product, but what I refer to as two star-gazing planners just seem overwhelmed, and the project continues to sit in limbo. The planners' strategy seems to be to go slow with the hope the project will eventually disappear.

How unjust is that on society? Affordable new homes being kept out of the market on the whim of a planner. All the while, holding costs are pushing up prices by the day, and the clients remain unhoused in motels and cars.

Another example is a transitional housing project, with a perfect site and location and the need overwhelming.

This time, the neighbours got a bit jittery, politicians circled, didn't like the heat, and the project was canned, resulting in more motel rooms booked.

God only knows what all this is costing the taxpayer. This is the crazy disconnected world the RMA creates.

If they asked me, I would remove all smaller residential projects from the RMA as it is no longer fit for purpose, and the planning process too subjective. The process often gets highjacked by neighbours, anti-commercial practices, personal agendas and nimbism.

More standardisation of design and modular building needs to be increased, and the consumer conditioned to not expect a bespoke home if they want affordability and value.

Building companies create the expectation that you can have your home any way you want. However, if the consumer realised that building bespoke added at least 25% to the cost of their home, they may view things very differently.

This is even more important now where people will be cutting their cloth accordingly, and looking for homes within their means that deliver efficiency on all fronts.

The social and health costs from not getting more affordable housing into the market far outweigh the cost of providing good housing. All these people forced to live in motels, cars and caravans need a stable, warm place to call home.

Is the RMA helping?

Although well-intentioned, the RMA has morphed into a major stumbling block. Currently it is project-specific and has no cognisance as to what the community actually needs to house its people, or what its impacts are on the financial viability of a project.

It is heavily weighted against the party wanting to commence a new project. The applicant is made to feel guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.

The surrounding homes seem to have an inordinate amount of say, and councils often pander to spurious objections.

It's a cost-plus model, with the first person purchasing paying the bill for infrastructure, GST and all manner of other local authority fees.

The RMA, along with the 70-disjointed individual council district schemes, is an unsustainable model.

What about the Building Act?

In addition to issues caused by the RMA, since the introduction of The Building Act 2004, construction costs have soared, and productivity has plummeted.

Why? Considerable administrative process has cumulatively been forced into place, but it is adding very little material value.

Risk-averse behaviour has turned once helpful local authorities into gun-shy, chicken-little organisations slowing construction down, and demanding consumer money be spent to absolve themselves of liability.

The construction industry currently works at the speed that the controlling local authority can issue and administer consent — and that impacts significantly on productivity and costs.

Some local authorities are brilliant while others are woeful. I have heard in some locations you can wait as long as 21 days for an inspection. How can anyone be expected to be productive or work within constraints like that?

In the past 15 years the cost of building has increased 110%, while the general cost of living has increased only 44%. Much of this extra cost is the result of compounding regulatory change, council fees and unfairly imposed infrastructure cost.

Many good operators have been worn down by the incessant regulatory creep and the growing army of Clipboard Charlies. They are exiting and taking much needed skills away from the industry.

We need strong leadership, meaningful change and a complete overhaul of the RMA, The Building Act and The Local Government Act so that the drivers and outcomes result in efficient, affordable and sustainable housing.

Change will only happen through collaboration between industry and policy makers, but there must be a catalyst for change. I believe we have reached that tipping point.

One would also hope housing can be depoliticised, and an across-party accord could be reached.

It is too important an issue to be used as a political football. Recent events have opened the gates of pragmatism, and we should take this opportunity to improve things for the industry.

A full review of the governing acts should be undertaken, and if regulation doesn't help the delivery of affordable healthy housing or make the industry more productive, then the time has come to ditch it.

• Mike Fox is EasyBuild director and Building Today, columnist.
• First published in Building Today. Republished with permission.
• The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of CathNews.