Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


116 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 24


Topic # 151976 11-Sep-2014 20:21
3 people support this post
Send private message

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.

View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
2520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 937

Subscriber

  Reply # 1126777 11-Sep-2014 20:55
Send private message

Should be capped at 5 years, imo.




Windows 7 x64 // i5-3570K // 16GB DDR3-1600 // GTX660Ti 2GB // Samsung 830 120GB SSD // OCZ Agility4 120GB SSD // Samsung U28D590D @ 3840x2160 & Asus PB278Q @ 2560x1440
Samsung Galaxy S5 SM-G900I w/Spark



116 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 24


  Reply # 1126781 11-Sep-2014 21:01
Send private message

Thats what i was thinking, 5 years is more than enough time to better your situation, or move to a house and get a housemate to help subsidise the rent


2520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 937

Subscriber

  Reply # 1126793 11-Sep-2014 21:17
Send private message

Yup, and means houses more readily available for those who need it, rather than those who've just become accustomed to it.




Windows 7 x64 // i5-3570K // 16GB DDR3-1600 // GTX660Ti 2GB // Samsung 830 120GB SSD // OCZ Agility4 120GB SSD // Samsung U28D590D @ 3840x2160 & Asus PB278Q @ 2560x1440
Samsung Galaxy S5 SM-G900I w/Spark

Aussie
4232 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1203

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1126797 11-Sep-2014 21:27
Send private message

Surely, at the age of 59, their kids have left home... and rent in that part of the world would probably only be $280 a week anyway.
5 years unless they're disabled... in which case, if they're paying $272, they can afford $280.

gzt

10129 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1543


  Reply # 1126800 11-Sep-2014 21:37
Send private message

I don't see anything wrong with it. They are paying a market rent. Ideally they would have an opportunity to buy also.

2536 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1198


  Reply # 1126822 11-Sep-2014 22:04
2 people support this post
Send private message

I suspect that at 59 buying wouldn't be feasible - they would never repay the mortgage.

As to how long someone should be entitled to stay in a state house, it kind of depends on their individual circumstances. In general it should be for a shortish period, and once someone is in a position where it is reasonable to expect them to pay market rent (income, circumstances, options etc) then they should be expected/encouraged to move out and free up the unit for someone in need. For some people this might mean it's reasonable for them to stay in a state house for months or years. For others, such the severely disabled who can't work, it might mean decades or forever.

Similarly, people should be expected to move when their circumstances and needs change dramatically. For example, a couple who got a large state house when they had seven kids might still not be able to house themselves at market rates when all the kids have left home, and may need to stay in a state house. However, it's reasonable to expect them to move to a smaller 1 or 2 bedroom place now that they no longer realistically need the huge house - esp if there are large families in desperate need of a suitable house.

So horses for courses. But only for as long as your circumstances dictate that you can't reasonably be expected to house yourself at market rates (with help from the Accommodation Supplement as appropriate).

gzt

10129 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1543


  Reply # 1126844 11-Sep-2014 22:26
Send private message

The government has similar views. There is now a system of regular reviews in place.



116 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 24


  Reply # 1126979 12-Sep-2014 08:40
Send private message

gzt: The government has similar views. There is now a system of regular reviews in place.


Yea I was looking at the housing NZ website, and they say they are putting it in place, but will it stop those manipulating it?

the thing about the article tho, is that she could probably get a better place as while in state housing you dont get the accomodation supplement, and given she has state housing would probably qualify for a decent chunk.

616 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 102


  Reply # 1127023 12-Sep-2014 09:37
Send private message

29 years does seem a long time.
I knew a solo mum, she had one, she used to work for PO back when it was a SOA...as a telephone operator.....she bought hers after a few years.
Still lives in it.



And you have this sort of thing:
https://www.givealittle.co.nz/cause/Spouting

Don't qualify for a WINZ loan.

11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1127041 12-Sep-2014 09:53
Send private message

Housing NZ is a basket case - my wife worked in head office for a while as a contractor and it was so dysfunctional it amazed me that they managed to do anything at all. The usual sort of things - incompetent 'managers' whose only qualifications for being a manager was that they had been there 20 years and it was Buggins' Turn.

IMO such housing should ALWAYS be a temporary stop gap measure. The aim should always be to get people out of them and into private sector rented accommodation as soon as feasible.







12886 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6081

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1127051 12-Sep-2014 10:10
5 people support this post
Send private message

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




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1127060 12-Sep-2014 10:27
Send private message

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?!





12886 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6081

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1127065 12-Sep-2014 10:38
Send private message

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. 




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1127070 12-Sep-2014 10:43
Send private message

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.







116 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 24


  Reply # 1127074 12-Sep-2014 10:45
Send private message

well given that the person in the article can afford $272 and that is what just over 50% of the persons income based on a 30hr week at min wage? I know people in private rentals spending more than that. that don't qualify somehow.

so the criteria.... hmm new question I geuss

 1 | 2
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.