Every time I turn on the radio or read news segments on the internet I hear about the 'Housing Crisis' facing New Zealanders. This is now one of the critical issues that the upcoming elections might swing on. Almost all of the contending parties have this 'crisis' on their electioneering agenda. Whenever on-street polling and interviewing is done by TV and radio journalists the respondents talk about the 'housing crisis' making it impossible for them to buy their own house or apartment.
Invariably the journalists are interviewing people in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch or other flourishing communities.
I'm not surprised at the response that they get and if we take Auckland as an example, that anyone earning less than a hundred thousand a year will find it difficult to make ends meet and may never be able to buy the house or apartment they want - in this city. The scary downside to this is the fact that there are so many critical jobs in health, education, services etc, that are never going to be paid a hundred thousand a year or more and that these workers will be driven out of the city.
Hold on though. In a roundabout way this highlights the real nature of the problem and that we don't have a 'housing crisis' in New Zealand we have an 'employment crisis'.
What I mean by this is that in New Zealand, like in other countries, the big cities are becoming very expensive places to live and as long as we keep allowing gravitation of population to them to find work then things will only become worse. Decentralisation is essential to take the pressure off.
New Zealand is a young country but even if we go back say only a hundred years or less we had a decentralised economy with flourishing towns and communities up and down the country. Yes, you can say that this was because we were an agrarian based economy and that towns and communities grew up around farming enterprises that provided employment but, apart from tourism and education as modern 'export' industries the biggest earners contributing to our economy are still farming based - dairy, meat, agriculture, wine etc. yet we have seen a disturbing decline in our rural communities and big migration to the major cities.
I remember in the 50s, 60s and 70s when travelling about the country that rural communities and large towns were thriving and vital places to live in. What's gone wrong? These places have been stripped of job opportunities, and services and as a result, people. to the point where they are dying. Rail services have been decimated by a mad drive for building roads and motorways that usually bypass the towns and communities thereby accelerating their demise (two road puns there).
I live in Northland a place of wide open spaces and seemingly unlimited potential - limited only by the fact that there has been bugger all investment in this area in the way of enterprise and creation of employment. It is the most geologically stable part of the country yet the government still put billions into rebuilding Christchurch and propping up Wellington - two cities that could collapse at the next seismic rumblings.
One of the many advantages of having industry and employment in other parts of the country as opposed to just in the big cities is that there is more space, cheaper cost of living and housing is and will remain affordable.
At present when driving through rural areas and the old service towns and villages it's like visiting the wild west.
 |
| Mangaweka after SH1 bypassed it |
This is something that you don't find for example when driving through UK (a country the same size as New Zealand) where towns and villages away from the major cities are still thriving.
 |
| A British Market Town |
A recent suggestion that the Ports of Auckland be relocated to Whangarei has met with a negative reaction from many business and political leaders. I can only think that they have short-term (in their own life-times) vested interests. The sooner that these myopic bastards get out of the way the better.
8 comments:
Yeah, interesting. This is a very good post. There could be a job for you at Saint Richard's Bass Bag.*
* the original saintly bass bagging site
Can't wait.
Big post. Just trying to get my head around it before I comment.
Here goes....
1. Decentralization is the answer. Richard automatically agrees by default from his first comment. Been their done that. Decentralization just means duplication of work and more taxes.
2. Next we go back 100 years to 1917! The end of the War when everyone was struggling and the 1918 flu was about to hit.
3. How could you be travelling In 1950 around the country when you were a child!
4. The North is a hilly area with few potentials for farming.
5. Moving the ports to Whangarei would involve huge expense with no benefit.
Though I could be wrong.
This post was written by a person
Jeez! Here we go (again).
1. Decentralisation is the answer. Richard automatically agrees by default from his first comment. Been their done that.
No, it was the way before but the reverse has been happening for many years.
Decentralisation just means duplication of work and more taxes.
No, not if decentralisation means people being employed where they can afford to live
2. Next we go back 100 years to 1917! The end of the War when everyone was struggling and the 1918 flu was about to hit.
The 100 years was arbitrary. Don't be so fucking pedantic Robert.
3. How could you be travelling In 1950 around the country when you were a child!
I was born in 1952. We travelled as a family every Christmas. I remember 1956. 1957. 1958, and 1959.
4. The North is a hilly area with few potentials for farming.
Crap! And anyway I didn't say farming I said enterprise and employment opportunities. Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin are hilly.
5. Moving the ports to Whangarei would involve huge expense with no benefit.
Yes expense but not as much as the on-going maintenance, rent and rates to be paid in Auckland. The benefit will be huge going forward in cheaper operating costs, employment for the region, more housing opportunities for employees etc. etc.
Thanks for reading the post. Maybe read it again.
I did.
Sadly I think you are still wrong.
My dad worked on coastal ships in the era you refer to.
They visited little ports, motoring up rivers to drop of supplies and carry produce back to the cities.
Highways and railway killed that once essential service.
Now a truck can wizz a load of veges from the fertile areas in the central North island to the city over night.
Highways and railway have killed the little guy in the districts.
It seems logical that better roads and rail would always replace coastal ships. Though mum's theory about hovercraft replacing cars by around 1980 was a little bit off. Never mind.
No.
Railways were the life blood for towns. It was the increase in roading that's fucked most because the main highways mostly bypass town whereas railway goes to the town and links them to others.
Coastal ships sure serviced coastal towns but I don't think that they's be able to help places like Mangaweka unless, like in the film Fitzcaraldo the crew dismantle the ship and carry it over the mountains.
Thanks for re-reading the post. Maybe read it again.
There is a Douglas DC3 in Mangaweka. They won't need a coastal ship.
Post a Comment