Should local councils increase the supply of greenfields, or undeveloped, land for housing?

Yes, but only if the land doesn’t have cultural or environmental significance

Land fairly purchased only with minimal environmental and cultural impact

Look 2 other.options. tiny homes apartments. Develop.smarter

Yes, if environmental regulations are satisfied

Yes but only to build state housing and on unproductive land.

it is up to the owner of the land

I don't freaking know

No... too many are/become holiday homes stand empty most of the year. The dream of the bach should be over. Families/first home buyers now miss out on owning a home so someone can have a holiday home they use twice a year.

Plan smarter, green spaces are not just for building upon

In some areas know some areas yes but we need more trees and plants

In some areas were you could have lots of houses But in most undeveloped places plant trees and plants

There should be a ban on overseas buyers land banking land so they're able to build in coming years. It defeats the purpose of having lifestyle blocks/ land that can be used for goods and services.

Case dependent

Balanced with building up too

It depends on how much nature they are destroying in the process of building houses and other IMPORT places

how about improving the already existing housing so its healthy and livable, and making it more affordable for people.

First they have to improve drainage and sewage systems in order to minimalize flooding and other issues than come with over-industrialisation.

Flags up horotiu and Hamilton is council free tickets lined and use the water rated and pass the roads signs direct and Wellington upon the city's alongs the Auckland region is impacting more delicate

Auckland and Queenstown area of legal privilege and issued by furad trial issues by legs seats legend former US president Donald Trump and former UK prime minister Boris Johnson is dramatic livings

Yes, but only if it is unproductive land, or land not owned by the council such as reserves, and parks

Yes unproductive land could be used, people should not be shoe homed into houses with tiny gardens as people need space.

Not without also increasing infrastructure capacity of roads and towns to cope with higher populations

Only if it is land that has been acquired legally, not stolen. As well as used to house community not for multiple property owners.

depends. All houses must have and environmental standard code, and should prioritise the poorer people.

I don't believe in dense housing with the minimum requirements being 300 sq m and having multiple housing in built up existing areas. And not removing the old villas, bungalows in certain areas. More single level homes to be built for the senior people who still want to live independently in community areas NOT retirement villages with multiple stories.Retain our parks for the children and people of NZ.

The housing crisis is an issue all on its own. It should be impossible to buy land or own property without a permanent residence or citizenship and we need to be building far more affordable apartments

Yes, on unproductive land and we should building up and not out. Also more storey houses and remove height to boundary ratio.

Only on unproductive land that is not linked to any treaty of Waitangi claims, and should only be used for public housing, such as council housing or housing New Zealand

Yes, as long as you’re not pushing anyone out or off their land, it’s not stolen or a land grab, if it’s not put into govt coffers, if the people benefit from it, if it’s not used for food production. Prob a couple other reasons but can’t think of them.

It is of no concern to me

Yes but only for land that cannot be used for future farming of fruits and vegetables to support population growth. Grade A soil should not be built over but reserved and not zoned as residential.

government should not be involved in the housing sector at all. leave it between party A (land seller) and party B (land Buyer)

only small Cities and towns

Yes, But there should be heavier punitive measures on property investors. The current law doesn't go far enough

No, New Zealand should face the reality that an entire section is not the future. Look to existing methods used abroad of high-density high rises in Australia, Europe and North America. Keep our green spaces green and build high-density high-rises that can look out onto green fields.

Yes, but preferably unproductive land and with plenty of green spaces to accompany intensification.

Yes, but affordable non packed town house options

Yes, but make affordable, clean housing that doesn't get snatched up by the rental monopoly

Have shipping container homes built and give businesses that help build the container homes some incentives

Only if the land does not hold cultural or environmental significance or affect ecosystems. With global populations growing we should be focusing on building up rather than out

yes but leave the Maori land alone it will cause more problems

No, not until it commits to better strategic planning and fixing existing problems and the impact of environmental issues.

No, do something to change housing costs and work on making the houses that are empty healthy and liveable

Yes, but only if it is “unproductive land”, depending on the definition.

Yes, but it should be done in an environmentally conscious

send them to Palmerston North.

Yes, but productive land should be prioritised and this should be for overall population growth but with investment and thought given to attracting people away from the biggest cities and back to smaller towns.

They should repurpose empty buildings

As long as it doesn’t cut down native forests