State Housing.

Forums › Off topic › State Housing.

johntynz

119 posts

Master Geek

#151976 11-Sep-2014 20:21

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.

1 | 2

2759 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1126777 11-Sep-2014 20:55

Should be capped at 5 years, imo.

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

johntynz

119 posts

Master Geek

#1126781 11-Sep-2014 21:01

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

Inphinity

2759 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1126793 11-Sep-2014 21:17

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

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1126797 11-Sep-2014 21:27

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

15221 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1126800 11-Sep-2014 21:37

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

JimmyH

2820 posts

Uber Geek

#1126822 11-Sep-2014 22:04

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

15221 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1126844 11-Sep-2014 22:26

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

johntynz

119 posts

Master Geek

#1126979 12-Sep-2014 08:40

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.

pctek

807 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1127023 12-Sep-2014 09:37

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.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1127041 12-Sep-2014 09:53

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.

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1127051 12-Sep-2014 10:10

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

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1127060 12-Sep-2014 10:27

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?!

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1127065 12-Sep-2014 10:38

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.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1127070 12-Sep-2014 10:43

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.

johntynz

119 posts

Master Geek

#1127074 12-Sep-2014 10:45

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