Homeless in NZ

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Homeless in NZ

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 15

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827647 23-Jul-2017 16:53

Sidestep:

Geektastic:

However, if the people truly do not want to live in houses etc (and to be honest, how would they pay rent etc?) I think we could throw up large dormitories based on industrial sheds (to keep the design simple and the cost reasonable) and then allow them to stay there. Even in NZ it ought to be possible to build such things relatively quickly.

Rather than 'industrial sheds' full of homeless people why not help fund new and modern Marae?

Existing Marae are often under resourced, and yet (with help from Social agencies) both Te Puea with "Manaaki Tangata" and Manurewa with "Whakapiki Ora" stepped up and began taking people off the streets.
But without continuing Ministry of Social Development support and with many other commitments they both got overwhelmed and gave up their programmes.

I think traditional charitable trusts such as City Mission, or lodges run by the Salvation Army - that still shoulder much of that role, are operating in the face of a decline - likely to continue in our more secular world – of religion based charities in general.
And even if religion is not foisted directly on you when using their facilities - it's still lurking in the background.

cadman:

Even if building these dormitories was a good idea, which I certainly don't believe it is, where could you even put them with the typical NZ NIMBY attitude?

Yes, surely a big part of the problem.
Look at what happened when Ngati Paoa tried to build 300 new houses - 40% of which were to be affordable, or social housing - and a marae.
The development - partly on underutilized sports fields - in what looked like (to me) a well though out and environmentally sensitive plan was slammed. NIMBY ism ruled.

Are you suggesting that all the homeless are Maori?

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1827699 23-Jul-2017 17:06

Geektastic:

Are you suggesting that all the homeless are Maori?

No..?
Are you suggesting that only Maori are welcome on marae?

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827772 23-Jul-2017 18:27

Rikkitic:

Wiggum:

My gut tells me that a vast percentage of "homeless" in NZ fall into the above category.

Your gut also seems to tell you there is little or no deprivation in New Zealand, that people sleeping rough want to, that parents who can't feed their kids are worthless layabouts spending their overgenerous benefits on grog and tobacco, that Maori are an overprivileged elite shamelessly exploiting an undemocratic political system and anyone who needs help just has to go out and get a job cleaning toilets. Maybe your gut needs a dose of reality.

Best post. Reality check for the respondee

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827788 23-Jul-2017 18:38

Geektastic:

cadman:

Geektastic:

I listened to something on RNZ the other day, an interview with a lady who works with the homeless. She said that quite a lot of them were 'intentionally' homeless and that when they were provided with alternatives they would often reappear on the streets within days.

I have no idea why that is.

However, if the people truly do not want to live in houses etc (and to be honest, how would they pay rent etc?) I think we could throw up large dormitories based on industrial sheds (to keep the design simple and the cost reasonable) and then allow them to stay there. Even in NZ it ought to be possible to build such things relatively quickly.

Mental health.

Even if building these dormitories was a good idea, which I certainly don't believe it is, where could you even put them with the typical NZ NIMBY attitude?

It may not be a permanent solution, but surely better than sleeping on a park bench in the rain?

Nailed it in reverse.

Homeless is not JUST the park bench brigade, and all sympathies to them. Its the many others who are homeless, and displaced but have a legitimate roof over their heads. Living a poor, unhappy life with no outcome.

Me. I could not care less if house prices halved, mortgage rates doubled. I can wear it. I am fortunate enough to be able to wear it. So, my ideal is the poor, to help them. I can vote as I have voted in the past, but I might not. I might vote for social gain. Even though its not my social gain.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827790 23-Jul-2017 18:43

cadman:

Geektastic:

cadman:

Geektastic:

I listened to something on RNZ the other day, an interview with a lady who works with the homeless. She said that quite a lot of them were 'intentionally' homeless and that when they were provided with alternatives they would often reappear on the streets within days.

I have no idea why that is.

However, if the people truly do not want to live in houses etc (and to be honest, how would they pay rent etc?) I think we could throw up large dormitories based on industrial sheds (to keep the design simple and the cost reasonable) and then allow them to stay there. Even in NZ it ought to be possible to build such things relatively quickly.

Mental health.

Even if building these dormitories was a good idea, which I certainly don't believe it is, where could you even put them with the typical NZ NIMBY attitude?

It may not be a permanent solution, but surely better than sleeping on a park bench in the rain? Could be used for overflow accommodation for international sports events or sold on as commercial buildings when no longer required.

That's the problem - for some reason, every man and his dog in NZ thinks his opinion matters and there is far too little autocracy, so nothing gets done.

If the government decided to build such things, they just send Compulsory Purchase notices, acquire the land and start building. Of course, they won't do that - they'll "consult communities" for 10 years and then do SFA. If you want things done, then the 'communities' need to be told to suck it up and boil their heads if they don't agree.

Trouble is that putting too many of those people in one place along with their mental health, and in many cases addiction, issues is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, it becomes an area of the poor. A slum. Thats not progress.

Here is an idea. Affordable housing, not a slum. No deposit for those that cannot manage it. 60 year mortgage. The repayments are affordable, its "their" home, that they cannot afford to pay it off is irrelevant, its "their" home. They will will it to their family, but the bottom line is its "their" home

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827792 23-Jul-2017 18:45

Geektastic:

Sidestep:

Geektastic:

However, if the people truly do not want to live in houses etc (and to be honest, how would they pay rent etc?) I think we could throw up large dormitories based on industrial sheds (to keep the design simple and the cost reasonable) and then allow them to stay there. Even in NZ it ought to be possible to build such things relatively quickly.

Rather than 'industrial sheds' full of homeless people why not help fund new and modern Marae?

Existing Marae are often under resourced, and yet (with help from Social agencies) both Te Puea with "Manaaki Tangata" and Manurewa with "Whakapiki Ora" stepped up and began taking people off the streets.
But without continuing Ministry of Social Development support and with many other commitments they both got overwhelmed and gave up their programmes.

I think traditional charitable trusts such as City Mission, or lodges run by the Salvation Army - that still shoulder much of that role, are operating in the face of a decline - likely to continue in our more secular world – of religion based charities in general.
And even if religion is not foisted directly on you when using their facilities - it's still lurking in the background.

cadman:

Even if building these dormitories was a good idea, which I certainly don't believe it is, where could you even put them with the typical NZ NIMBY attitude?

Yes, surely a big part of the problem.
Look at what happened when Ngati Paoa tried to build 300 new houses - 40% of which were to be affordable, or social housing - and a marae.
The development - partly on underutilized sports fields - in what looked like (to me) a well though out and environmentally sensitive plan was slammed. NIMBY ism ruled.

Are you suggesting that all the homeless are Maori?

Thats is extremely insensitive. Explain.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1827795 23-Jul-2017 18:50

tdgeek:

Yes, it becomes an area of the poor. A slum. Thats not progress.

Here is an idea. Affordable housing, not a slum. No deposit for those that cannot manage it. 60 year mortgage. The repayments are affordable, its "their" home, that they cannot afford to pay it off is irrelevant, its "their" home. They will will it to their family, but the bottom line is its "their" home

Another option is the German one, where people have long term contracts to rent 'shells' . They basically furnish it all themselves and can live in it for as long as they want. It is affordable, and people can do what they want to the interior. So there is the same stability you get with owning your own house, with a higher quality 'house', but you are renting instead of owning it. When moving out they have to return it to a neutral state. Currently renting in NZ has very little stability for renters.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827798 23-Jul-2017 18:50

cadman:

mattwnz:

They are 1 million dollar houses, but more than half of that costs is for all the land regulations. Source http://www.interest.co.nz/property/88883/government-says-land-use-regulation-blame-56%C2%A0-cost-average-house-auckland

The government are blaming things such as rising rent costs for the problems, but that then shows a flaw with the current free market system.

Quite the opposite. It shows that the demand is there that could be met by the free market but we essentially don't have one - we have excessive local government interference and bureaucracy stifling the market and driving up costs needlessly.

National operates a free market policy. Thats what we have, we have less interference because of that.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827803 23-Jul-2017 19:00

mattwnz:

tdgeek:

Yes, it becomes an area of the poor. A slum. Thats not progress.

Here is an idea. Affordable housing, not a slum. No deposit for those that cannot manage it. 60 year mortgage. The repayments are affordable, its "their" home, that they cannot afford to pay it off is irrelevant, its "their" home. They will will it to their family, but the bottom line is its "their" home

Another option is the German one, where people have long term contracts to rent 'shells' . They basically furnish it all themselves and can live in it for as long as they want. It is affordable, and people can do what they want to the interior. So there is the same stability you get with owning your own house, with a higher quality 'house', but you are renting instead of owning it. When moving out they have to return it to a neutral state. Currently renting in NZ has very little stability for renters.

Great option. We all talk about salaries and goals and so on. Latest Audi, next trip. Many will never get that far. Having the ability to provide a home instead of a house gives pride and a sense of being. Imagine off ex crims had these options? Turn their life around as there IS an opportunity.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1827810 23-Jul-2017 19:09

A pity our government are looking at this type of option. Neither is the opposition from what I have seen so far, and many seem to just be making up the numbers. I suspect many voters of both parties are landlords, and any change like that would be unpopular.

The only problem I see with this type of option is that it does make as more of a country of renters in our own country. But as the gap between rich and poor is only growing, and the government has said that renting is the only option for many, then they should really be looking at providing stability and a sense of pride to these renters.<

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827856 23-Jul-2017 19:35

mattwnz:

A pity our government are looking at this type of option. Neither is the opposition from what I have seen so far, and many seem to just be making up the numbers. I suspect many voters of both parties are landlords, and any change like that would be unpopular.

The only problem I see with this type of option is that it does make as more of a country of renters in our own country. But as the gap between rich and poor is only growing, and the government has said that renting is the only option for many, then they should really be looking at providing stability and a sense of pride to these renters.<

You could ask them.

"Hi voters, Kiwis have a proud tradition of home ownership, and our Govt will support that"

Thats probably too much in depth detail for a politicians speech.....

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827862 23-Jul-2017 19:45

mattwnz:

The only problem I see with this type of option is that it does make as more of a country of renters in our own country. But as the gap between rich and poor is only growing, and the government has said that renting is the only option for many,

This is a worldwide trend... It's not NZ... It's "capitalism" and the companies in charge.

The fact every govt in the "first world" listens to, and takes money from lobbyists is the biggest problem in the western world today.

It's also not going to change in a hurry.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1828036 23-Jul-2017 23:34

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

A pity our government are looking at this type of option. Neither is the opposition from what I have seen so far, and many seem to just be making up the numbers. I suspect many voters of both parties are landlords, and any change like that would be unpopular.

The only problem I see with this type of option is that it does make as more of a country of renters in our own country. But as the gap between rich and poor is only growing, and the government has said that renting is the only option for many, then they should really be looking at providing stability and a sense of pride to these renters.<

You could ask them.

"Hi voters, Kiwis have a proud tradition of home ownership, and our Govt will support that"

Thats probably too much in depth detail for a politicians speech.....

Do they ever really answer questions? Many politicians never get a straight answer.

I think a lot of the problem is due to cheap credit and low interest rates, and the greed that results. Although overseas buyers are also part of the problem. If you have noticed Auckland sales figures in recent months, they have dropped a lot, as have prices a bit, and apparently a lot of that has to do with foreign buyers holding off until after the election for certainty.

The government speaks of 'hosing affordability', rather than the actual price of housing. But affordability is all about whether a 2 working person family can afford to service the mortgage, and what that figure is. So ultra low interest rates like we have got now mean that many families can afford to buy and service the loan on a million dollar house. But people with low wages don't have a chance, as it is a huge amount to borrow and service. The question is should these people who can afford to service a million dollar house loan, be exposing themselves to that much debt, and the risk of rising rates. Even the PM recently warned about this risk very recently, which means he is concerned about some people i this situation.

I remember as a kid, a million dollars was a huge amount of money. It was an amount that could buy 5-10 houses in my area. Even though a millions is still the lotto first division prize amount (excluding powerball), the value of a million dollars has been eroded by the high housing prices.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1828086 24-Jul-2017 07:54

Building houses will not solve the problem at all, this issue is deeper, the solution is to get these people integrated back into society in a meaningful way.

It needs jobs, it needs the population to be spread through the country better and it needs beggars to not think they can be choosers.

Immigration is also not the absolute evil that the racists like Winston Peters are trying to make out it is.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1828121 24-Jul-2017 09:11

Do all the countries in that chart report homeless the same way? NZ's homeless figure of 24,000 has 771 sleeping rough, with other categories such as temporary accommodation, living in a motel, bunking on a mates couch etc also homeless.

There are many countries on that chart with suburban areas teeming with people sleeping rough, in shanties, tent communities etc.

So I am treating NZ's position on that chart with something between skepticism and suspicion.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 15