크리스 비숍의 야심찬 주택 정책, 내각 내 반발로 좌초 위기
Chris Bishop’s ambitious housing policies have run into inevitable roadblocks in Cabinet, which includes a number of NIMBY ministers
As expected, Housing Minister Chris Bishop’s mission to fix the housing crisis has run into opposition in his own Cabinet and with city councils wanting more control over housing.
The NZ Herald reported on Friday that Cabinet had overruled a proposal put forward by Bishop which would have required Auckland City to zone for an estimated 540,000 dwellings, if it wanted to opt out of the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS).
The National Party campaigned on allowing councils to opt out of the MDRS if they instead zoned for at least 30 years of housing demand immediately. But in a Cabinet paper, Bishop suggested adding an extra rule that required the same amount of housing to be enabled as under the existing MDRS policy.
A Ministry of Housing and Urban Development document, seen by the Herald, estimated this extra rule would mean Auckland Council had to zone for 540,000 developable homes; almost double the existing housing stock.
However, Cabinet wouldn’t support the proposal and approved the policy with just the 30 year supply rule, which is expected to result in about 200,000 buildable dwellings.
Bishop has been working hard to create a housing policy which provides the same amount of housing capacity as the MDRS, but still gives local councils flexibility to choose which suburbs are intensified.
This is partly in response to voter backlash in wealthy suburbs where National Party voters often live in single family homes. The MDRS would have allowed developers to build three units, three stories high in almost any residential lot in NZ’s largest cities.
It was formed as a bipartisan policy because the blunt approach was highly unpopular with the existing residents of many suburbs, while mostly benefitting developers and hypothetical future renters or homeowners.
But it was also an easy way to radically increase the supply of housing, as it allowed at least three homes to be built on every residential lot. In many cases, tripling the total number of housing units that could be put on a street or in a suburb.
The challenge for Bishop has been to create a policy which allows councils to carve out some suburbs—particularly those which are flood prone—but still forces them to rezone a similar amount of development opportunities as under the MDRS.
Most councils already claim to have zoning plans which provide for 30 years of housing growth, although usually the majority of this land does not yet have infrastructure and is not ready for development.
Some cities have also used unrealistically low population growth forecasts in order to limit the amount of land they have to zone, or chosen undesirable areas where building is less likely to actually occur.
Opposition to density in wealthy Auckland suburbs has created a ‘doughnut city’ where lots of the most development-friendly areas are far from the city center and often have limited transport infrastructure.
While Bishop is deeply committed to getting more housing built, many of his colleagues in caucus and Cabinet do not share his enthusiasm.
The Act Party campaigned against urban density, even suggesting allowing just 30% of a suburb’s existing residents to veto any multi-unit development, and at least one National Party MP celebrated the demise of the MDRS in a social media video.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has said his home suburb in Botany should always stay as a single family home zone and campaigned against a large development that was planned on an abandoned petrol station site.
New Zealand First’s manifesto also promised to “address and correct” legislation for the intensification of housing that had happened “without consultation”.
It should not be a surprise Cabinet rejected Bishop’s more radical proposals.
Asked if his bold policies could face a second backlash, Bishop said the National Party and the Coalition Government were both pro-housing and would support his urbanist agenda.
While his policy work has received support so far, this pushback in Cabinet reveals resistance to his more radical ideas, which could limit his ambition to flood the housing market with supply and drive down prices.
It is vital that Bishop finishes his reforms. Allowing councils to opt out of the MDRS has delayed upzoning in many cities by multiple years. If the final policy, now expected to be enacted in 2027, is significantly weaker than the MDRS, it will all have been for nothing.
크리스 비숍의 야심찬 주택 정책, 내각 내 반발로 좌초 위기
크리스 비숍 주택부 장관의 야심찬 주택 정책이 내각 내에서 예상치 못한 장애물에 부딪혔다.
내각에 속한 다수의 ‘님비(NIMBY, Not In My Backyard)’ 성향 장관들이 그의 계획에 반대하며 제동을 걸고 있는 것으로 알려졌다.
비숍 장관은 뉴질랜드의 주택 위기를 해결하기 위해 과감한 정책을 추진해왔다. 그러나 그의 정책은 내각 동료들과 지방 의회로부터 강한 반발을 불러일으켰다. 특히 지난 금요일, 뉴질랜드 헤럴드는 내각이 비숍 장관이 제안한 오클랜드 시에 54만 가구를 추가로 조성하도록 요구하는 안을 거부했다고 보도했다. 이는 국민당이 선거 공약으로 내세웠던 ‘중밀도 주거 기준(MDRS)’에서 지방 의회가 제외되려면 즉시 30년치 주택 수요를 충족할 수 있는 구역을 지정해야 한다는 정책의 일환이었다. 그러나 비숍 장관은 기존 MDRS 정책에 준하는 주택 공급을 보장하기 위해 추가 규정을 포함시켰던 것으로 전해졌다.
크리스토퍼 럭슨 총리는 자신의 지역구인 보타니(Botany)를 단독 주택 구역으로 유지해야 한다고 주장하며, 버려진 주유소 부지에 계획된 대규모 개발에 반대하는 입장을 밝힌 바 있다. 또한 뉴질랜드 퍼스트당은 정강에서 주택 밀도 강화를 위한 법안이 충분한 협의 없이 추진되었다며 이를 수정하겠다고 약속했다. 이러한 상황은 내각이 비숍의 급진적 제안을 거부할 가능성을 이미 예고한 셈이다.
비숍 장관은 자신의 정책이 국민당과 연립 정부의 지지를 받을 것이며, 도시 중심적 의제를 뒷받침할 것이라고 낙관했다. 실제로 그의 정책은 지금까지 어느 정도 지지를 받아왔으나, 이번 내각의 반발은 그의 급진적 아이디어가 주택 시장에 공급을 대거 늘리고 가격을 낮추려는 야심을 제한할 수 있음을 보여준다.
한편, 비숍 장관의 노력 중 하나인 60㎡ 미만의 단층 주거용 건물(일명 ‘그랜니 플랫’)에 대한 지방 의회의 간섭과 비용을 최소화하려는 시도는 주목할 만하다. 이는 지방 의회와 보험사, 심지어 건설부(MBIE)로부터 강한 반발을 불러일으킬 가능성이 크다. 내각 내에서 누가 이 계획에 반대했을지는 정확히 확인되지 않았으나, 크리스 럭슨, 니콜라 윌리스, 데이비드 시모어, 브룩 반 벨든, 니콜 맥기 등이 총리의 입장을 따랐을 가능성이 제기된다. 뉴질랜드 퍼스트당의 입장은 불확실하나, 비숍의 계획을 지지했을 가능성도 배제할 수 없다.
이번 사태는 뉴질랜드 주택 정책의 방향성을 둘러싼 갈등을 여실히 드러내며, 비숍 장관의 개혁이 과연 성공으로 이어질지 주목된다.