They\u2019ve probably sunk close to a million dollars, if not multiples of that, in order to get on the property ladder in our biggest city. Not only is it possibly their biggest single investment, but \u2013 more importantly \u2013 it\u2019s their home. It\u2019s the place they spend most of their time. It\u2019s the place they make many of their memories with their families.<\/p>\n
They are entitled to object to rules that could allow a multi-storey apartment block popping up next door. They shouldn\u2019t be mocked or vilified for defending it.<\/p>\n
Nimbys are not the problem with this week\u2019s backdown. The problem was that the Government let this plan go as far as it did.<\/p>\n
Auckland never needed to allow up to 2 million new homes to be built. If you accept that there are three people to a home in Auckland, constructing that many units would\u2019ve accommodated 6 million people. Hands up who really thinks more than New Zealand\u2019s entire current population will move to just Auckland in the next 30 years?<\/p>\n
Even at the reduced level of 1.6 million additional homes, we\u2019re making space for up to 4.8 million people moving in, which isn\u2019t going to happen.<\/p>\n
To be fair, no one actually thinks the number will be struck in that time. After all, Auckland\u2019s only built about 100,000 new homes in the past decade. The 2 million number was only supposed to provide an abundance of options for developers to choose where to build.<\/p>\n
But that high number was important because the difference between 1.6 million and 2 million is the suburbs. At 1.6 million the density happens mainly around Auckland\u2019s 23 town centres and transport corridors.<\/p>\n
At 2 million the density bleeds into the leafy suburbs: Remuera, \u014cr\u0101kei, Parnell.<\/p>\n
Which is why the Nimbys got cross. Because, if there are actually more than enough options without including the leafy suburbs \u2013 and if you accept we\u2019ll never actually max it out because we\u2019ll never need that many houses \u2013 then why did the Government shoot for a number so high that it did include the leafy suburbs?<\/p>\n
No one you speak to can really answer that question. Some blame Wellington-based Housing Minister Chris Bishop for failing to understand Aucklanders. Some blame the Prime Minister for not taking advice when he was warned it would turn Auckland septic. Some blame Auckland Council for asking for it then changing its mind.<\/p>\n
Whatever it was, it was a mistake that probably could\u2019ve been avoided given that it was National\u2019s second crack at densifying leafy suburbs. The last one was that terrible agreement National\u2019s Nicola Willis and Labour\u2019s Megan Woods struck to build three houses of three storeys on urban residential sites without consent. It too went down like a cup of cold sick and had to be abandoned.<\/p>\n
At least National has demonstrated it does listen. It had to. It\u2019s election year, National is as low down the polls as a dam in a drought, Auckland is a key battleground and the city is full of frenemies such as the NZ First-friendly Mayor Wayne Brown and Act Party electorate MPs David Seymour and Brooke van Velden.<\/p>\n
A backdown this early in the year means the problem\u2019s been cauterised. The only fallout will be a lingering resentment from the many normally National-voting Auckland homeowners who got worked up enough to go to public meetings.<\/p>\n
As LV Martin said, it\u2019s the putting right that counts. Whether the Nimbys forgive the unnecessary stress in election year is an unknown.<\/p>\n