Housing Investment Disconnection

 How’s this for a headline? “Auckland Council economists found that property up to 500m from a train station gets a value boost, making the 'value catchments' smaller than expected. And the value uplift isn't everywhere trains service”. Shane Martin and David Norman write for Interest.co.nz and hail the benefits of transport to boost ‘value catchments’, whatever that means. I guess just like other investment markets, the property investment market has its own waffly jargon to make them sound intelligent also. 

As you may have guessed by now, some of my blogs focus on the housing crisis in Aotearoa and the issues surrounding homelessness, exorbitant rents and high council rates. These are all compounded by those behind the scenes drumming up perceived property values. Martin and Norman go on about expected selling prices in ‘Auckland’s rapid transit network catchments’ due to “frequent faster public transport”.

  Photo: Not in Auckland but you get the idea of what's install for us with continual growth right?

The average Kiwi may find these statements pleasing to the mind, yet I can’t bring myself to believe it. Why? Maybe it’s just me being critical of ideals of continued growth for growths sake. Maybe it’s their unconvincing headline or maybe it’s that there is so much scientific evidence telling us that we’re doing this modern society thing wrong. Have these guys not read Limits to Growth? Are they ignorant of the fact that we as a species are chewing up resources and polluting the environment faster than ever before?

Published in 1972, Limits to Growth by Meadows, Randers and Meadows highlights these facts using computer modelling which extrapolates data to formulate a detailed picture of where we’re heading as a species. The team of scientists who contributed to this work formulated their research through a systems dynamics approach. The group worked out that population increase, resource extraction and use, pollution outputs coupled with a planets reduced capacity to absorb such outputs would place most living things on a trajectory which didn’t end well. Given that these very intelligent people worked long and hard at compiling and analysing their data to provide such insights, one would think that the powers that be would’ve gratefully accepted their findings and implemented policies to bring about necessary change.

Recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report pointed out that  “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health, and well-being”. Some of the suggested changes from the report include reducing the amount of meat we eat and even becoming vegan. This may sound extreme; however, we now live in times of extreme industrialisation, mechanisation, population growth and demands for more products and housing. In an article from The Guardian in 2010 titled “UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet”, Achim Steiner stated “Decoupling growth from environmental degradation is the number one challenge facing governments in a world of rising numbers of people, rising incomes, rising consumption demands and the persistent challenge of poverty alleviation.”

With this information in mind, should we really be listening to those who tout the benefits of ‘value catchments’ in a world where continued growth is bound to lead to catastrophic natural disasters? I think not. There is a massive disconnection between business theology and reality and I guess this is why many of our social, political and environmental issues seem to be on a tumble cycle. It’s hard to pin point the solution when there’s so much junk in being spouted by those who want to keep growing their slice of the pie.