State Housing.

Forums › Off topic › State Housing.

1 | 2

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1127089 12-Sep-2014 10:55

Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ: Government provided homes should available to those who meet the criteria for as long as they continue to meet the criteria

And presumably that applies even if say 3 million of us were to meet the criteria?!

thats absurd.

It's an exaggeration.

You cannot have a policy that entitles any number of people to something as a matter of right unless you can think how to pay for it.

It is unlikely that 3 million would ever need it but there are not enough houses to go around even now - so in order to allow what you suggest we will all have to pay for the building of plenty more of them. I do not get up and go to work so I can pay to house other people. I tolerate a small amount of it grudgingly but I think that the private sector can supply perfectly adequate amounts of housing to put a roof over the heads of these people without tax payer dollars needing to build more of them.

There has been the vehicle in which the private sector could provide and the tenants to receive assistance, that has been unsuccessful due to the private sector's inability to provide.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

graemeh

2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

#1127117 12-Sep-2014 11:36

KiwiNZ: There has been the vehicle in which the private sector could provide and the tenants to receive assistance, that has been unsuccessful due to the private sector's inability to provide.

I would say that the private sector has been unwilling to provide, not unable.

johntynz

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22

#1127173 12-Sep-2014 13:04

but surely $272 + accomodation supplement (due to lower earnings) would provide the same if not better housing than she is in?

i'm sure there is no lack of property around the $300 pricepoint for a 1-2 Bedroom place in the area, 10 listsings on trademe under $300 in the porirua area.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1127175 12-Sep-2014 13:09

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ: Government provided homes should available to those who meet the criteria for as long as they continue to meet the criteria

And presumably that applies even if say 3 million of us were to meet the criteria?!

thats absurd.

It's an exaggeration.

You cannot have a policy that entitles any number of people to something as a matter of right unless you can think how to pay for it.

It is unlikely that 3 million would ever need it but there are not enough houses to go around even now - so in order to allow what you suggest we will all have to pay for the building of plenty more of them. I do not get up and go to work so I can pay to house other people. I tolerate a small amount of it grudgingly but I think that the private sector can supply perfectly adequate amounts of housing to put a roof over the heads of these people without tax payer dollars needing to build more of them.

There has been the vehicle in which the private sector could provide and the tenants to receive assistance, that has been unsuccessful due to the private sector's inability to provide.

The problem is due to supply of houses not being completely in private sector control. What I mean is that councils limit what you can build and add in lots of extra costs that you can't do anything about. lets say I have an old farm or other empty land. I have to pay subdivision costs and hefty development contributions just to split the land up. Then for the actual building of houses, due to things like height to boundary rules. To build a large house on a small piece of land means it has to be a complex design. Which increases the per SqM building costs. And since each house design has to be customised to the site. Means you can't use a standard design or build the houses off site and truck them onto site prebuilt. There would be other costs that I have forgotten to mention also. Alot of these costs are also "fixed" costs in the sense that they are the same (or not much different). Regardless of if the house being built is a basic 2 bedroom. Or a 5 bedroom Mc mansion. This means that a property developer can make far larger profits building a Mc mansion compared to a small starter home.

And as for apartments they fail on the basic problem that it is only rarely cheaper on a per SqM basis to build apartments compared to building a house. So this means that the only way they are viable is to split the building up into the largest number of units possible. But this knocks out first home buyers as the banks require 50% deposit for buying small apartments. So this means you still have to save 80K just to buy a small apartment costing 160K. Yet the same 80K will allow you to buy a 500K house on a 15% deposit. Sure the mortgage payments will be higher. But you don't need to pay body corp fees.

And no im not saying that all land use or development controls need to be removed. But they need to be streamlined for building simple homes. If you have a look in the old areas of Auckland like Grey Lynn. There are houses that were originally workers cottages. They are small, packed tightly together, designed in a way that would have been cheap to build, wouldn't comply with today's land use rules like height to boundary requirements. Yet they are worth big money. Mainly because they don't waste much land at the front and sides of the houses. Which means they have usable sized back yards despite being on small sections.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1127269 12-Sep-2014 15:05

Aredwood:
KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ: Government provided homes should available to those who meet the criteria for as long as they continue to meet the criteria

And presumably that applies even if say 3 million of us were to meet the criteria?!

thats absurd.

It's an exaggeration.

You cannot have a policy that entitles any number of people to something as a matter of right unless you can think how to pay for it.

It is unlikely that 3 million would ever need it but there are not enough houses to go around even now - so in order to allow what you suggest we will all have to pay for the building of plenty more of them. I do not get up and go to work so I can pay to house other people. I tolerate a small amount of it grudgingly but I think that the private sector can supply perfectly adequate amounts of housing to put a roof over the heads of these people without tax payer dollars needing to build more of them.

There has been the vehicle in which the private sector could provide and the tenants to receive assistance, that has been unsuccessful due to the private sector's inability to provide.

The problem is due to supply of houses not being completely in private sector control. What I mean is that councils limit what you can build and add in lots of extra costs that you can't do anything about. lets say I have an old farm or other empty land. I have to pay subdivision costs and hefty development contributions just to split the land up. Then for the actual building of houses, due to things like height to boundary rules. To build a large house on a small piece of land means it has to be a complex design. Which increases the per SqM building costs. And since each house design has to be customised to the site. Means you can't use a standard design or build the houses off site and truck them onto site prebuilt. There would be other costs that I have forgotten to mention also. Alot of these costs are also "fixed" costs in the sense that they are the same (or not much different). Regardless of if the house being built is a basic 2 bedroom. Or a 5 bedroom Mc mansion. This means that a property developer can make far larger profits building a Mc mansion compared to a small starter home.

And as for apartments they fail on the basic problem that it is only rarely cheaper on a per SqM basis to build apartments compared to building a house. So this means that the only way they are viable is to split the building up into the largest number of units possible. But this knocks out first home buyers as the banks require 50% deposit for buying small apartments. So this means you still have to save 80K just to buy a small apartment costing 160K. Yet the same 80K will allow you to buy a 500K house on a 15% deposit. Sure the mortgage payments will be higher. But you don't need to pay body corp fees.

And no im not saying that all land use or development controls need to be removed. But they need to be streamlined for building simple homes. If you have a look in the old areas of Auckland like Grey Lynn. There are houses that were originally workers cottages. They are small, packed tightly together, designed in a way that would have been cheap to build, wouldn't comply with today's land use rules like height to boundary requirements. Yet they are worth big money. Mainly because they don't waste much land at the front and sides of the houses. Which means they have usable sized back yards despite being on small sections.

I agree. I have consent to subdivide our 18 acres into 10 acres with our house and two 4 acre blocks for 2 new houses.

The sticking point is the requirement for me to fund $100,000 worth of work before the council will grant title.

A better way would be 'provisional title' that I could sell to someone else NOW, who then has the obligation to carry out that work (e.g. a housing developer or new owner).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1127373 12-Sep-2014 18:05

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ: Government provided homes should available to those who meet the criteria for as long as they continue to meet the criteria

And presumably that applies even if say 3 million of us were to meet the criteria?!

thats absurd.

It's an exaggeration.

You cannot have a policy that entitles any number of people to something as a matter of right unless you can think how to pay for it.

It is unlikely that 3 million would ever need it but there are not enough houses to go around even now - so in order to allow what you suggest we will all have to pay for the building of plenty more of them. I do not get up and go to work so I can pay to house other people. I tolerate a small amount of it grudgingly but I think that the private sector can supply perfectly adequate amounts of housing to put a roof over the heads of these people without tax payer dollars needing to build more of them.

There has been the vehicle in which the private sector could provide and the tenants to receive assistance, that has been unsuccessful due to the private sector's inability to provide.

Actually the Government by removing various tax deductions has made being a landlord a poor investment opportunity.
The government can't have it both ways, expect the private sector to invest and then remove all incentives to invest.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

matisyahu

1641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 355

Trusted

#1127440 12-Sep-2014 19:49

johntynz: ok, So i read the story, and read roughly 50 of the comments
and the majority on stuff (terrible i know) are asking the question - How does someone end up staying in state housing for 29 years?

Income tested rent, paying $272 per week, could she not find somewhere else in that time to live at the same cost within that 29yrs?
I understand housing shortage i'm living in Christchurch in a terrible rental which i consider overpriced

Personally i've tried to get a housing NZ house when I was struggling to find employment/accomodation so I had my own place to look after my daughter in the weekends, to be told nope nothing available, and then see an article like this when I know there are people with less living in worse

what are other peoples thoughts here?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10483959/Rent-letter-mistake-shocks-tenants - Article
tl;dr version - MSD accidentally sent a letter stating stupid charging coming for state house rental, woman that went to media in the same house for 29years on income tested rent.

Personally I support state housing, I support the building of more state houses and apartments (specifically apartments close near the city to cut down on travelling cost) but with that being said it is very difficult to 'keep the faith' when so many tenants wreck and destroy their homes. I'm all for helping people but when they go out of their way to destroy their home then I really have to ask myself whether some tough love is required for the said tenants.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1127836 13-Sep-2014 14:03

Geektastic: I have consent to subdivide our 18 acres into 10 acres with our house and two 4 acre blocks for 2 new houses. The sticking point is the requirement for me to fund $100,000 worth of work before the council will grant title. A better way would be 'provisional title' that I could sell to someone else NOW, who then has the obligation to carry out that work (e.g. a housing developer or new owner).

I expect if it was a large subdivision the developer would be responsible for the initial provision of amenities like electric/sewage/road/lighting. What is actually required in your much smaller case?

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1128055 13-Sep-2014 20:28

kawaii: Personally I support state housing, I support the building of more state houses and apartments (specifically apartments close near the city to cut down on travelling cost) but with that being said it is very difficult to 'keep the faith' when so many tenants wreck and destroy their homes. I'm all for helping people but when they go out of their way to destroy their home then I really have to ask myself whether some tough love is required for the said tenants.

I agree here... State housing is a vital part of our society. Since we all like a civil society here don't we?

How you treat your most disadvantages members of society is how you want your society to be. If we don't want state housing 'cause everyone is much worse off in India and other 3rd world countries then we all just have to accept there will be more beggars on the street and all the joys of a 3rd world country. If we want to live in a 1st world country then we should strive for first world housing.

We should probably abolish state healthcare since the poor are making insanely poor choices which then turn up as a hefty bill at the hospitals to put a band-aid on the problem.

Living in Wellington I have noticed an increase of beggars from Willis st down to the train station. Sign of the times really.

But if we really want a different society perhaps we should all take a look around and see where things are going wrong and try to make them better. Instead of pretending it's all rosy in the land of the long white cloud.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1128115 13-Sep-2014 22:57

BarTender:
kawaii: Personally I support state housing, I support the building of more state houses and apartments (specifically apartments close near the city to cut down on travelling cost) but with that being said it is very difficult to 'keep the faith' when so many tenants wreck and destroy their homes. I'm all for helping people but when they go out of their way to destroy their home then I really have to ask myself whether some tough love is required for the said tenants.

I agree here... State housing is a vital part of our society. Since we all like a civil society here don't we?

How you treat your most disadvantages members of society is how you want your society to be. If we don't want state housing 'cause everyone is much worse off in India and other 3rd world countries then we all just have to accept there will be more beggars on the street and all the joys of a 3rd world country. If we want to live in a 1st world country then we should strive for first world housing.

We should probably abolish state healthcare since the poor are making insanely poor choices which then turn up as a hefty bill at the hospitals to put a band-aid on the problem.

Living in Wellington I have noticed an increase of beggars from Willis st down to the train station. Sign of the times really.

But if we really want a different society perhaps we should all take a look around and see where things are going wrong and try to make them better. Instead of pretending it's all rosy in the land of the long white cloud.

Personally I would collect them up and remove them to somewhere out of sight instead. Like the Chathams.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1128315 14-Sep-2014 14:36

Geektastic: Personally I would collect them up and remove them to somewhere out of sight instead. Like the Chathams.

Fantastic, lets take on the approach the Israeli government has taken to the Palestinian's. We had better build a really tall concrete wall around ourselves as that is the best way to quell any disharmony. Or perhaps we should use the the Australians have used against the boat people and ship them to Nauru. Since both of those are working out so well for the governments.

Gated communities FTW!

Let us not concern ourselves with the fact they are New Zealand citizens. That's all far too inconvenient.

The sad fact of the matter is we pay double if not triple or more in our tax dollars in the health and justice systems as the result rather than dealing with the issue upfront.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1128380 14-Sep-2014 16:08

BarTender:
Geektastic: Personally I would collect them up and remove them to somewhere out of sight instead. Like the Chathams.

Fantastic, lets take on the approach the Israeli government has taken to the Palestinian's. We had better build a really tall concrete wall around ourselves as that is the best way to quell any disharmony. Or perhaps we should use the the Australians have used against the boat people and ship them to Nauru. Since both of those are working out so well for the governments.

Gated communities FTW!

Let us not concern ourselves with the fact they are New Zealand citizens. That's all far too inconvenient.

The sad fact of the matter is we pay double if not triple or more in our tax dollars in the health and justice systems as the result rather than dealing with the issue upfront.

Its always amusing that those who begrudge the poor $100 are more than willing to see $100,000 to put them in prison.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1128382 14-Sep-2014 16:11

Geektastic:
BarTender:
kawaii: Personally I support state housing, I support the building of more state houses and apartments (specifically apartments close near the city to cut down on travelling cost) but with that being said it is very difficult to 'keep the faith' when so many tenants wreck and destroy their homes. I'm all for helping people but when they go out of their way to destroy their home then I really have to ask myself whether some tough love is required for the said tenants.

I agree here... State housing is a vital part of our society. Since we all like a civil society here don't we?

How you treat your most disadvantages members of society is how you want your society to be. If we don't want state housing 'cause everyone is much worse off in India and other 3rd world countries then we all just have to accept there will be more beggars on the street and all the joys of a 3rd world country. If we want to live in a 1st world country then we should strive for first world housing.

We should probably abolish state healthcare since the poor are making insanely poor choices which then turn up as a hefty bill at the hospitals to put a band-aid on the problem.

Living in Wellington I have noticed an increase of beggars from Willis st down to the train station. Sign of the times really.

But if we really want a different society perhaps we should all take a look around and see where things are going wrong and try to make them better. Instead of pretending it's all rosy in the land of the long white cloud.

Personally I would collect them up and remove them to somewhere out of sight instead. Like the Chathams.

Whose next... jews, gypsies, hey why note create "Work Camps" and "Re-education Centres", perhaps we could send them to North Korea instead of the Chatams ?

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1128415 14-Sep-2014 17:35

sir1963:
Geektastic:
BarTender:
kawaii: Personally I support state housing, I support the building of more state houses and apartments (specifically apartments close near the city to cut down on travelling cost) but with that being said it is very difficult to 'keep the faith' when so many tenants wreck and destroy their homes. I'm all for helping people but when they go out of their way to destroy their home then I really have to ask myself whether some tough love is required for the said tenants.

I agree here... State housing is a vital part of our society. Since we all like a civil society here don't we?

How you treat your most disadvantages members of society is how you want your society to be. If we don't want state housing 'cause everyone is much worse off in India and other 3rd world countries then we all just have to accept there will be more beggars on the street and all the joys of a 3rd world country. If we want to live in a 1st world country then we should strive for first world housing.

We should probably abolish state healthcare since the poor are making insanely poor choices which then turn up as a hefty bill at the hospitals to put a band-aid on the problem.

Living in Wellington I have noticed an increase of beggars from Willis st down to the train station. Sign of the times really.

But if we really want a different society perhaps we should all take a look around and see where things are going wrong and try to make them better. Instead of pretending it's all rosy in the land of the long white cloud.

Personally I would collect them up and remove them to somewhere out of sight instead. Like the Chathams.

Whose next... jews, gypsies, hey why note create "Work Camps" and "Re-education Centres", perhaps we could send them to North Korea instead of the Chatams ?

Fortunately - speaking as one who has suffered from the criminal and social problems of gypsies - we don't have any here AFAIK. A wise administration would keep it that way, believe me!

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1128437 14-Sep-2014 17:59

Geektastic:
sir1963:
Geektastic: Personally I would collect them up and remove them to somewhere out of sight instead. Like the Chathams.

Whose next... jews, gypsies, hey why note create "Work Camps" and "Re-education Centres", perhaps we could send them to North Korea instead of the Chatams ?

Fortunately - speaking as one who has suffered from the criminal and social problems of gypsies - we don't have any here AFAIK. A wise administration would keep it that way, believe me!

So work camps it is then? If only we could bring back capital punishment. Then much like jury service we should all have a go. Perhaps we should take on Saudi's approach? That's taking a pretty tough stance on law and order isn't it.

Just hope the justice system holds up to scrutiny under the light of day. Since you can't really un-kill someone when you get it wrong.

1 | 2