He was right. For decades, Nimbys have used council zoning plans to artificially inflate their house prices by preventing new housing in existing neighbourhoods.

This means young Kiwis today don’t have the same opportunities to get into the housing market that their parents did. It’s not surprising that instead of filling out town halls they’re simply leaving.

This is an existential threat for Auckland.

Auckland’s central suburbs, closest to jobs and opportunity, are emptying out of people – especially young people.

Kingsland, which will be eight minutes away from the city centre when the City Rail Link opens later this year, lost 15% of people aged 15-29 in just five years.

A similar number left suburbs in the inner-west. It’s not hard to see why businesses in Ponsonby are struggling.

But house-price-driven brain drain and decline is not written in stone, and Auckland’s new housing plan (Plan Change 120) offers a proportionate response: more homes near major centres and public transport, combined with stronger flood and natural-hazard protections.

It’s not an entirely new response, either. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development was passed in 2020, and promised New Zealanders growth focused around existing infrastructure. It has already been implemented by both Christchurch and Wellington.

In Auckland, that promise remains unkept almost six years later. It will remain unkept until a final decision is made well into 2027 – when hearings have concluded and the public have had their say.

That is, if it gets a chance.

Plan Change 120 is under threat. Persistent scaremongering by its opponents has spooked Wellington, with reports that the Government is going to water it down.

These threats don’t come from credible evidence of infrastructure concerns, or building in the wrong place. They’re from those who embody New Zealand’s culture of “no”. No to building new houses. No to solving our housing crisis.

This back-down couldn’t be coming at a worse time for Auckland. The International Convention Centre, City Rail Link and Central Interceptor are all opening or opening soon. The building sector is poised to start ramping back up, as long as we can provide it with some certainty.

If we take advantage of these investments, they will revitalise Auckland.

Plan Change 120 is the final piece of the puzzle to put homes near these investments and maximise our return on them. It aligns zoning, infrastructure and commercial feasibility, in a way that previous plans have failed to.

If we pull back on Plan Change 120 now, we’re putting all of that under threat, and we’ll still have to pay the price of housing growth anyway.

Cutting down Plan Change 120’s housing capacity won’t slow down growth. It will just limit where it can happen.

People will still need roads. They’ll still need public transport. Their homes will still need pipes.

Plan Change 120 focuses on growth where we’ve spent billions of dollars to build exactly that infrastructure.

Cutting back on the number of houses that Plan Change 120 enables risks wasting those investments. It means leaving sites that are infrastructure enabled, and commercially feasible, undeveloped.

It means pushing growth to places that can’t handle it, but more importantly, where a lot fewer people want to live.

Mouldy flats aren’t the only reason people leave Auckland. They leave because homes and rent are unaffordable. They leave because of long commutes. They leave because they can’t access the jobs and lifestyles they want.

They leave because all of these things pile up, and eventually living in Melbourne becomes more attractive than living in Drury.

Tinkering with house targets isn’t going to give these young people a reason to stay. It isn’t going to help our housing crisis, or deliver cost-of-living wins for Aucklanders.

The Coalition for More Homes calls on the Government to re-affirm its commitment to “the economy of ‘yes’”.

Yes, to Plan Change 120’s ambitious housing goals. Yes, to building homes near train stations and other infrastructure. Yes, to providing more Aucklanders access to more opportunities.

Yes, to staying the course, throwing away the planning mistakes of the past, and creating a more vibrant, more affordable city.

Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.