You stated "charging the properties who stand to gain value from the investment". That is the issue here. Many Tauranga residents do not want such rapid growth, they don't want some of these proposed projects (and have never been consulted on them), and while their homes may well increase in value, they will do so anyway - whether or not these projects proceed!
In fact, past experience indicates a pattern:
Councils and central government say they need to invest in transport infrastructure "to enable growth"... Which leads to faster-than-otherwise growth and higher carbon emissions... Which leads to demands for more workers to come to Tauranga... Which leads to higher house prices and higher carbon emissions... Which leads to councils and government saying they need to invest in infrastructure to enable more affordable housing and to reduce emissions... Which leads to councils and central government saying they need to invest in transport infrastructure "to enable growth and reduce emissions"... Which leads to faster-than-otherwise growth and higher carbon emissions... Which leads to higher house prices and higher carbon emissions... and on it goes...
Hi Glen, thanks for engaging and apologies about the slow reply.
Do you think existing residents should be able to control growth rates? What gives them such authority beyond their own property boundary? Tauranga has been growing at a fair pace for around 30 years and for the same reasons most existing residents moved there. Do you think the residents prior to them should have had a say on that growth? I'm not sure what your conclusion is with this line of thinking?
All proposed projects will have been consulted on through Regional Land Transport Plans and will have more detailed consultations as projects progress. Yes properties are likely to increase in value anyway due to high demand, but the projects will increase the value of surrounding properties, above a scenario where it is not built.
The issue is that, unlike every other NZ city, All proposed projects have NOT been consulted on through Regional Land Transport Plans and have NOT more detailed consultations as projects progress. The Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) programme and business case never had any consultation. The Transport System Plan (TSP) has never had any consultation. A number of major transport projects have had no formal consultation.
As a trained valuer, I have looked and seen no evidence of property values increasing more due to local projects ("above a scenario where it is not built"), but have seen clear evidence of changes in values moving broadly in line with national and sub-regional factors.
Finally, even if values increase, many residents would prefer quality of life over money. While we can't stop all growth, we can at least try to slow it down a bit and also invest in sustainable infrastructure programmes - not more and more urban sprawl that increases congestion, CO2 emissions, rates, debt, and developers profits.
Looks like consultation for the RLTP happened in 2021 and I can see the projects listed at the end of the draft RLTP document. I think there is room to improve the consultation process for sure but it did happen...
Interesting, I can understand it would be hard to detect on an anecdotal level but there is plenty of research on transport infrastructure investments shaping land values and demand. Would you not see the Welcome Bay Link Rd under SH29A as having improved access to and from from Welcome Bay? The improved access makes it more attractive place to live for most, increasing demand and consequently property values.
Again, what right do some residents who may hold that view have to stop others moving there or development of private land? I agree we need to invest more in sustainable transport options and reduce sprawl but simply trying to stop growth is not a way forward. In fact, growth can be key to reshaping our urban areas to have density around centres, supporting local access to daily needs and improved public transport services.
Hi again Malcolm. I sit as an advisor to the BOP Regional Transport Committee, so saw the 2021 RLTP process up close. From a public point of view, there was no say about Tauranga's urban form and transport plan, its Transport System Plan, or the projects put into the RLTP. Naturally, without any promotion from Tauranga City Council, most Tauranga residents clearly didn't know about the RLTP, but if they did, and if they submitted, they were guided to submit from a different perspective than addressing the fundamental issues.
My point being that if growth is to be 'managed' well, then I believe it's best done by open engagement with communities and finding the 'sweet spot', so we end up with a more sustainable transport system, a sustainable infrastructure plan, and better-functioning communities. That seems to have happened to some extent in cities like Auckland, but it'd be hard to find anyone in Tauranga who thinks that's the case. Hence any added value from growth is a side-issue, as the core issue is the worsening congestion, soaring CO2 emissions, and escalating financial costs.
The Hairini underpass has helped, but growth has meant that the congestion has just shifted down the road. There is some evidence of increased property values in Welcome Bay slightly above the city-wide trend, but that also applies to suburbs such as Matua, Mount Maunganui and Tauranga South that had all had no significant infrastructure investment and worsening congestion, and could also be explained by new greenfield sales of higher-valued homes.
You stated "charging the properties who stand to gain value from the investment". That is the issue here. Many Tauranga residents do not want such rapid growth, they don't want some of these proposed projects (and have never been consulted on them), and while their homes may well increase in value, they will do so anyway - whether or not these projects proceed!
In fact, past experience indicates a pattern:
Councils and central government say they need to invest in transport infrastructure "to enable growth"... Which leads to faster-than-otherwise growth and higher carbon emissions... Which leads to demands for more workers to come to Tauranga... Which leads to higher house prices and higher carbon emissions... Which leads to councils and government saying they need to invest in infrastructure to enable more affordable housing and to reduce emissions... Which leads to councils and central government saying they need to invest in transport infrastructure "to enable growth and reduce emissions"... Which leads to faster-than-otherwise growth and higher carbon emissions... Which leads to higher house prices and higher carbon emissions... and on it goes...
Hi Glen, thanks for engaging and apologies about the slow reply.
Do you think existing residents should be able to control growth rates? What gives them such authority beyond their own property boundary? Tauranga has been growing at a fair pace for around 30 years and for the same reasons most existing residents moved there. Do you think the residents prior to them should have had a say on that growth? I'm not sure what your conclusion is with this line of thinking?
All proposed projects will have been consulted on through Regional Land Transport Plans and will have more detailed consultations as projects progress. Yes properties are likely to increase in value anyway due to high demand, but the projects will increase the value of surrounding properties, above a scenario where it is not built.
The issue is that, unlike every other NZ city, All proposed projects have NOT been consulted on through Regional Land Transport Plans and have NOT more detailed consultations as projects progress. The Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) programme and business case never had any consultation. The Transport System Plan (TSP) has never had any consultation. A number of major transport projects have had no formal consultation.
As a trained valuer, I have looked and seen no evidence of property values increasing more due to local projects ("above a scenario where it is not built"), but have seen clear evidence of changes in values moving broadly in line with national and sub-regional factors.
Finally, even if values increase, many residents would prefer quality of life over money. While we can't stop all growth, we can at least try to slow it down a bit and also invest in sustainable infrastructure programmes - not more and more urban sprawl that increases congestion, CO2 emissions, rates, debt, and developers profits.
Looks like consultation for the RLTP happened in 2021 and I can see the projects listed at the end of the draft RLTP document. I think there is room to improve the consultation process for sure but it did happen...
https://www.participate.boprc.govt.nz/rltp-2021-2031
https://hdp-au-prod-app-boprc-participate-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/6816/1482/3126/DRAFT_RLTP_-_March_2021_-_Consultation_Document.pdf
Interesting, I can understand it would be hard to detect on an anecdotal level but there is plenty of research on transport infrastructure investments shaping land values and demand. Would you not see the Welcome Bay Link Rd under SH29A as having improved access to and from from Welcome Bay? The improved access makes it more attractive place to live for most, increasing demand and consequently property values.
Again, what right do some residents who may hold that view have to stop others moving there or development of private land? I agree we need to invest more in sustainable transport options and reduce sprawl but simply trying to stop growth is not a way forward. In fact, growth can be key to reshaping our urban areas to have density around centres, supporting local access to daily needs and improved public transport services.
Hi again Malcolm. I sit as an advisor to the BOP Regional Transport Committee, so saw the 2021 RLTP process up close. From a public point of view, there was no say about Tauranga's urban form and transport plan, its Transport System Plan, or the projects put into the RLTP. Naturally, without any promotion from Tauranga City Council, most Tauranga residents clearly didn't know about the RLTP, but if they did, and if they submitted, they were guided to submit from a different perspective than addressing the fundamental issues.
My point being that if growth is to be 'managed' well, then I believe it's best done by open engagement with communities and finding the 'sweet spot', so we end up with a more sustainable transport system, a sustainable infrastructure plan, and better-functioning communities. That seems to have happened to some extent in cities like Auckland, but it'd be hard to find anyone in Tauranga who thinks that's the case. Hence any added value from growth is a side-issue, as the core issue is the worsening congestion, soaring CO2 emissions, and escalating financial costs.
The Hairini underpass has helped, but growth has meant that the congestion has just shifted down the road. There is some evidence of increased property values in Welcome Bay slightly above the city-wide trend, but that also applies to suburbs such as Matua, Mount Maunganui and Tauranga South that had all had no significant infrastructure investment and worsening congestion, and could also be explained by new greenfield sales of higher-valued homes.
https://www.opespartners.co.nz/property-markets/bay-of-plenty#block_tauranga-house-price-growth-by-suburb
https://www.opespartners.co.nz/property-markets/bay-of-plenty#block_tauranga-property-market