- #1683308lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 1965lilith7 June 10, 2018 at 11:11 am
“The fact of this matter is simply that National believes utterly in private and individual enterprise and does not believe in a strong public service or social equity.”
Yes exactly Arandar;that is what it comes down to. I believe their long term plan was to privatise housing here – there’s money to be made & nothing must be permitted to stand in the way – being the attitude. The very last thing thing the previous govt was concerned with was the well being of their fellow Kiwis;they were interested only in how much money could be made from them.
“In the middle of a massive housing crisis, National used this to reduce the social housing stock … evicting tenants, leaving houses empty, demolishing others, refurbishing few and building almost none … they grew the housing crisis in fact, while at the same time denying there even was one.”
Indeed – & so very obvious is that,that all but their most dyed-in-the-wool supporters have no other course but to admit that.
When you have the leader of a political party who gave a speech in 2007 on the housing crisis,but who later steadfastly denied there was a crisis,then its crystal clear that there was a good deal of skullduggery going on during their time in govt.#1683372jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7593jens June 10, 2018 at 5:40 pm
Yes lilith7, what you say is true, and National paid the price for its blind faith in free market “neoliberalism” by believing freely consumable tax reductions may somehow generate more capital for house construction than the same money converted directly into long term (retirement) investment capital ownership reserves creation.
But since no government without huge oil reserves has unlimited resources for economically unprofitable investments –
the permanent housing of people at a permanent loss may end up in a worse situation than what we have now, when people begin not to care about the need for profitability, or even prefer to stay poor for continuing to qualify – or planning to qualify – for below cost housing.
The latter is not “ideological demagoguery”, but it took our welfare state of 70 years ago into non-sustainability, and actually there still are cases today where people refuse to work full time in order to remain qualified for some benefits.#1683373mommabear70 June 10, 2018 at 6:04 pm
You got all that 100 per cent spot on jens.#1683427lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 1965lilith7 June 11, 2018 at 11:38 am
There’s a clear & long established precedent for govt housing here. It is not impossible.
Though of course,attitudes towards those needing govt. housing was once very different.
“Those conditions gave the Labour Government – elected in 1935 – a mandate to make the provision of state housing a top priority. Then Minister of Housing Walter Nash told New Zealand it could not prosper or progress with a population that “lack
the conditions necessary for a ‘home’ and ‘home life’, in the best and fullest meaning of those words“.
The Great Depression of the 1920s and ’30s in New Zealand gave rise to desperate living conditions for many – widespread destitution led to people living in shacks and other substandard shelter; disease spread, and inner-city slums flourished.
We again have children and their parents living in cars and sheds. We have thousands of homeless; old diseases and ingrained misery have returned as sections of the population struggle to keep pace with the rising cost of living.
And at this critical juncture in our history, our Government is looking, instead, to offload state housing.
It is hard to understand how reverting to the Victorian solution of seeing churches and social agencies haphazardly tackle this gaping social wound will work
They are also not plugged into the bigger picture – the social needs of the tenants, the transport and logistics needs of new housing and so forth, all things a clever, committed government can oversee. Not ours then, which is trying desperately to shift the immediate costs of social housing elsewhere, and the benefits to a crony cohort.
One method they’ve used is to seed the idea with the public that state housing is all let to gang members and chronic social misfits who trash their properties and refuse to move out. Of course, that does describe a percentage of state house tenants – or any tenants.
Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to think that housing is one of the core concerns of Government, and that the provision of state housing – as well as its proper management and upkeep – is fundamental. It is astonishing that a Prime Minister who grew up in a state house, and has gained huge political advantage from being able to trumpet that fact, can’t see why it is wrong to pull up the ladder after him.”#1683444jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7593jens June 11, 2018 at 3:24 pm
lilith7 – I cannot find anything wrong in your elaborate posting above –
except that regardless of all the rights and wrongs – you (seem to?) ignore the reality, that substantial state investments to house the poor in an economically unprofitable way –
becomes an increasingly impoverishing burden to the whole nation the more such houses are being built.
If you accept that, we could discuss about what could be done to avoid that.#1683450Hero42 June 11, 2018 at 4:38 pm
In relation to your post 1683250 we are talking about he same report but if you read my post carefully you will note I was referring to the number in Auckland whereas you are talking about the national average.
It is important to make sure we are talking about the same thing to be accurate.
In my opinion there is no point in viewing the national average when talking about foreign investment in housing as they will be interested in the prime real estate and not the low value rural real estate.
Cheers 🙂#1683453Hero42 June 11, 2018 at 4:56 pm
I am not sure why you think the build at McLennon is not a Kiwbuild project unless you have overlooked the fact that the site became available for KiwiBuild after private developers were unable to finance purchasing the land and the development is now a Housing New Zealand led project.
Any reference back to the earlier project is irrelevant as the plans for the new houses are different and the housing being built is affordable whereas the previous plans were for houses that were not affordable.
Cheers 🙂#1683576mommabear70 June 12, 2018 at 2:10 pm
hero42, I don’t know where you get your info from but the link on the McLennan development clearly says it was a Housing New Zealand from the outset, not later as you say.
“A Housing New Zealand-led housing development in Auckland has ensured that home owners rather than investors get first dibs on its new homes.
Work is about to begin on the second stage of 255 houses, where about 15 per cent will be social housing, either sold back to Housing New Zealand or to a community provider.
Another 100 will be “affordable,” under $650,000. Those using the Government’s HomeStart Grant must stay in the house for a longer period of three years and be either a citizen or permanent resident.”
If you have a look at https://www.hnzc.co.nz/housing-developments-and-programmes/auckland-housing-programme/auckland-housing-programme-homes/ it says of the around 600 new units, of which 150 will be affordable.
I also have a recollection of Phil Twyford saying any houses built by or for HNZ would be over and above the 100,000 Kiwibuild units. Furthermore, elsewhere on the HNZ website it states “KiwiBuild programme is a separate Government initiative” which reiterates what I’ve said.#1683577mommabear70 June 12, 2018 at 2:42 pm
hero42, “In my opinion there is no point in viewing the national average when talking about foreign investment in housing as they will be interested in the prime real estate and not the low value rural real estate.”
I’m pretty sure the foreigners living in Queenstown, Hamilton, Canterbury, Wellington, Bay of Plenty, Invercargill, New Plymouth to name a few, would disagree with you.#1683613Hero42 June 12, 2018 at 4:46 pm
The point about the McLennan development is that under the previous government the McLennan project failed to get any private investors, then under the new government the government used Kiwibuild funds to restart the project.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.