Changes to Dunedin's development contributions policy could make issues with the city's rental accommodation market worse, city councillors were told yesterday.
Under the Dunedin City Council's draft 10-year plan, development contributions will be spread more evenly across the city.
Because water and wastewater networks across the city would be better connected under the plan, development charges would be applied in the same way across most of Dunedin's urban area, whereas before they had been more localised.
There are also some proposed increases to the contributions in the plan.
During a hearing on the plan yesterday, architect and developer Michael Ovens told councillors the changes would unfairly target people who were meeting demand for housing.
When the changes were combined with other proposed fee increases in the plan, developers would start to consider investing outside the city, Mr Ovens said.
"Dunedin traditionally had a low price-point for property which made it attractive and affordable but it would be quite difficult to maintain that with these changes."
Instead, individual development projects should be targeted and the cost of new infrastructure spread across both contributions and individual rates, he said.
More properties meant more ratepayers and cheaper rates but if developers were pushed out of the city, the pressure on the existing stock would only get worse, Mr Ovens said.
Related Stories
Comments
What a surprise, developers and those who stand to make profits from developments are claiming that councils will force developers to other cities, and that the housing crises will be made worse because of higher costs to developers.
Developers won't go elsewhere for two reasons. One, no matter where they go they will be hit with development contributions for new developments. Two, they will still make a lot of money on developments regardless of the level of contributions.
Development contributions recognise that new developments require councils to invest in new infrastructure (roads, water, drainage, parks etc.). The cost of this new infrastructure should be partly borne by those creating the need (i.e. the developers).
Why should the existing ratepayer base be asked to pay for all the cost of growth-related infrastructure growth? Clearly they shouldn't be.
Get off you high horses developers, architects et al and pay your fair share. You are not doing the homeless or society a favour, you are making money in an area where demand for your product exists just like any other business.