spinofflive
Mayoral candidate Penny Bright picks a fight with struggling signboard.
Mayoral candidate Penny Bright picks a fight with struggling signboard.

AucklandSeptember 8, 2016

Her Warship abides: a day with the unsinkable would-be mayor, Penny Bright

Mayoral candidate Penny Bright picks a fight with struggling signboard.
Mayoral candidate Penny Bright picks a fight with struggling signboard.

Activist, iconoclast and serial mayoral candidate Penny Bright is an indefatigable, unmistakable fixture in Auckland politics. River Lin joins her for a day on the campaign trail

The “heartbeat of the revolution”, says Penny Bright, begins in a ramshackle home in Kingsland.

My body sinks into a worn-out couch in a corner of Bright’s house, accompanied by a plush dog with a top hat, three clocks running at three different times, several stacks of books on gardening, a ball-jointed doll with a tiny grey afro, a pack of senior nappies used for cleaning the stencils for her campaign signs, a collection of wooden horse figurines and two TVs propped on a pile of mattresses a metre high. The smell of burnt potatoes lingers in the air.

It’s 4pm. I’ve been with the activist and mayoral candidate most of the day, over the course of which all I’ve consumed is a prune, two Weetbix biscuits and a coffee topped with a dead bug and golden syrup. I’ve quickly come to the realisation that I may just be starving to death. But to explain how I’ve found myself wasting away on Penny Bright’s couch with a Bratz doll drilling its eyes into the back of my head, I need to rewind back to 9:30 this morning.

Mayoral candidate Penny Bright sits in on a meeting on glyphosate in the Auckland town hall.
Penny Bright sits in on a meeting on glyphosate at the Auckland Town Hall

I first meet Penny Bright, self-styled “corporate nightmare” and serial candidate for mayor of Auckland, during a meeting on glyphosate poisoning in the Auckland Town Hall.

She tells me, by way of greeting, that she had spent the morning making campaign signs, showing off the spray paint which had streaked her hands black and red. “Because unlike [John] Key, I can nail a signboard.”

Bright spends the first half periodically nudging me, smiling and reciting paragraphs of an obscure government act from 1956 which are far too long to meet the criteria for Things Which Should Be Whispered. The second half is spent making her rounds across the room as she joins the audience in heckling the councillors seated at the round table in front of her.

I spend the entire meeting wishing I could leave for the bathroom and never come back.

At noon, we travel from Auckland city to Kingsland, where Bright says a friend of hers has agreed to help her put up campaign signs across South Auckland. As we drive out into the suburbs, she amuses herself by calling out “Clutter!” at the clusters of signboards which dot the area.

We travel first to a home in Ōtara, then to a store in East Tamaki. She jokes about me being her assistant, laughing all the while. Bright’s supporters, though they may not be great in number, are loyal to her and her radical leftwing approach. Many have known her for years – since long before her time as a candidate in the Auckland mayoral elections.

Bright grew up in the Wairarapa town of Carterton, moving to Auckland in 1981, aged 27, where she found work as an apprentice metal fabrication engineer. “I’m a tradie, and I’m not stupid – I can read,” she says. “Part of what you are is what you’ve been through… What the public hate is flash cars and overseas trips.”

Her anti-corporate campaign, aimed at greater transparency, preventing corruption and the needs of middle New Zealand, is driven largely by the intent of “capturing that anti-Brexit feel that’s out there… that Brexit feeling.”

In between stops, the “investigative activist” takes the time to rant about the other, “spectacularly clueless” mayoral candidates and their policies. John Palino is a “one trick pony” invested in “satellite cities”. Phil Goff is “a safe pair of corporate hands”. Chloe Swarbrick lacks experience, in contrast with Bright’s own “20 years of experience” and “proven track record”.

One of the more glaring issues to come out of what she sees as a failure in her fellow candidates is the “mainstream media demonisation” of her role as an activist. Bright says isn’t too concerned with the negative connotations attached to the label but, rather, their censorship of her voice, as she explains, “If you didn’t have activists, you wouldn’t have progress.”

Her face soon turns dark as she thinks of the media’s portrayal of her highly-publicised fight against paying some $34,000 in rates – what “her warship” refers to as a “one-person, nine-year pay rates revolt”.

The reason behind the revolt, she says, is simple. When questioned on her refusal to pay, she replies, “I would ask them, ‘Have you heard of the Public Records Act?’ and they say, ‘No.'” She looks at me expectantly. I don’t really see what she’s getting at, but I smile and nod my head anyway.

If anything, Bright is incredibly optimistic – to a point of naiveté, even – but she’s earnest in her desire to do what she believes is best for the public.

“It’s not how you start the race, it’s how you finish,” she says when asked about a long list of failed campaigns – the detritus of which sit forlornly in her front yard.

The campaign signs which sit in Penny Bright's front yard.
Campaign signs in Penny Bright’s front yard. (Image: River Lin)

“I’m really allergic to people telling me what to do,” she says. Even if that means having to “do a Penny Bright, stand on my hind legs” or “do a Winston [Peters] and cause a major upset”.

This “furious independent” is undaunted by her critics. “Whether they like me or loathe me, I know they respect me because they know I get things done… I’ve got facts and evidence coming out of my ears… Gosh, what will it be like when I become mayor?”

In three-and-a-half hours, we’ve managed to put up three signs. At 3:30 pm, we travel to a local store in Onehunga to stock up on spray paint before heading back to her home. She pays in a handful of loose change.

At 4:30 pm, we leave Bright’s home in Kingsland for two final meetings in the city; the first for resource management, the second for a living wage. As we make the drive back into town, I feel a wave of dread and exhaustion wash across me. My eyes glaze over at the thought of another two hours as Penny Bright’s “assistant”.

As we drive along Queen Street, she points at the clock above Farmers and declares, “When I’m the mayor, the clock will be fixed.” I’m fading, jotting her enthusiastic remark in my notebook in a barely legible scrawl.

It’s almost 5 pm as I walk, dazed, into a building to join a tireless Bright for what will inevitably be a long, long meeting. I receive a worried call from my editor. I call out to Her Warship, one foot already in an elevator door. I’m so sorry, I cry, but I simply have to go.

Keep going!
image3366

AucklandSeptember 8, 2016

Vancouver’s foreign-buyer tax: the solution for an overheated Auckland market?

image3366

Did the Canadian experiment work? It is far too early to tell, and anybody claiming otherwise may be trying to sell you something, writes Eric Crampton

There’s a reasonable consensus that not building enough houses, apartments, or terraced housing is at the root of Auckland’s lack-of-homes problem. And there’s further reasonable consensus that that’s primarily due to zoning and planning issues making it just too tough to get new dwellings built.

But even if building houses were impossible, prices wouldn’t be rising if demand weren’t increasing. Housing in Detroit is becoming rather cheap as people flee the place; rules banning new building there would not really cause a housing affordability crisis.

Auckland house prices point to a severely dysfunctional housing market. Demand-side measures always look a bit tempting as quick-fixes – especially when they play into existing popular prejudices.

Enter Vancouver’s tax on foreign buyers.

If you followed reporting on it in New Zealand, you could be forgiven for having reckoned that Vancouver’s tax on foreign buyers has solved its housing affordability problem. Vancouver implemented a tax on foreign buyers in August; sales then dropped 23%. And some realtors report substantial drops in what they viewed as speculative demand – less heat at auctions, and fewer rushed purchases. image3366

Does that mean the tax worked? It is far too early to tell, and anybody claiming otherwise may be trying to sell you something.

While sales dropped 23% in August, July’s sales were down 27% from June’s. And this wasn’t simply a seasonal effect in mid-summer: July’s sales were down 19% on the year prior, according to the Globe and Mail (I excerpted some of the relevant bits here).

So what’s going on?

Vancouver’s tax on foreign residents seems to have come in when the Vancouver property market was already weakening. Further, in anticipation of the tax coming in, University of Victoria (British Columbia, not Wellington) economist Professor Lindsay Tedds argues some purchases that would have happened in August were brought forward to July – the numbers then make August look artificially weaker than it was, and July artificially stronger.

At the same time, the market has also been affected by nobody quite knowing what the tax would involve in the many complicated cases that come up. Communication around the policy was poor. Vancouver realtor Keith Roy notes that nobody knew to whom the tax would apply. In reality, the tax applies to buyers who are neither citizens nor permanent residents, but confusion about its application would delay a few sales.

And there will still be interesting complicated cases. Suppose Dad runs a factory in China and provides the funds to buy the house for the rest of the family, who are Vancouver-based and who achieved permanent residence. Professor Tedds warns that much of the intention of the tax might be circumvented in this way: plenty of foreign buyers will have local relatives able to make the purchase on their behalf, and figuring out how to apply the intention of the legislation could be interesting.

How much of August’s decline reflects the already declining market, the temporary shift in sales from the tax’s coming in, and some settling in of some certainty of who pays the tax and who doesn’t (and how to route around it) – it’s anybody’s guess. The longer term effects will take a fair bit of time to sort out.

But there are a few things that make me wonder.

First off, suppose you think that housing is all messed up because foreign buyers are snapping up houses in Auckland or Vancouver and leaving them empty because they’re just looking for safe places to park potentially dodgy money. Well, it doesn’t seem hard to rent out a downtown Vancouver apartment for $2,500 per month or more. If someone is willing to throw away $30,000 per year in rent – the present value of which over a decade is close to a quarter of a million dollars – is it really that likely that a 15% tax would be that much of a deterrent?

Second, if those imagined rich foreign buyers are just looking for safe places to stash money and don’t care about living in the house or renting it out, what makes Vancouver, or Seattle, or Sydney, so special? What’s wrong with Christchurch or Toronto or Invercargill? Isn’t buying a house in a place that’s at the top of the market less safe than buying one where the market is less overheated?

If you’re buying foreign property as a store of value, the best argument for buying in an overheated market is liquidity: being able to sell out quickly if you need to. The problem with that, though, is if you’re needing to sell in a hurry, whatever is making you need to sell in a hurry is likely making others sell in a hurry too. Again, places with more stable markets are safer – if what you care about is having a place to park money rather than having a place to live.

And, Professor Tedds also warns of a few other side effects of the tax. Because it applies to all foreign buyers, companies hiring in expertise from abroad would have a tougher time attracting them to Vancouver. Vancouver’s a beautiful place, like Auckland, but it can be tough to attract people to very expensive places.

I’d be a bit surprised if a tax on foreign buyers were really the right solution.

Why not just ease up on zoning restrictions and restrictions on overseas investments so that foreign money can pour into building new subdivisions, terraced housing and apartments?

The Independent Hearings Panel did make the Auckland Unitary Plan better, but I wouldn’t envy a foreign investor trying to figure out how to buy 20 hectares adjacent to a reserve to put in a new subdivision – and especially if there’s a stroppy residents’ association anywhere within 10 kilometres.

I hope that New Zealand doesn’t rush to follow Vancouver’s example on a single month’s worth of data, but I fear that “something must be done” politics could make it too tempting here too.

When I suggested that there was a chance New Zealand might, Professor Tedds was aghast: “Oh God no, please no. Do not follow our lead.”

It may pay not to be too hasty on this one.

Dr Eric Crampton is Head of Research with The New Zealand Initiative in Wellington