What's the purpose of state housing?

[JimO]

i see there is a kerfuffle amongst some state house tenants because they a being asked to move so the area can be redeveloped, one lady has been in the same house for 50 years, as i understand it these people rent at a cheaper level than private renters, these houses arnt theirs they belong to the taxpayer, is someone entitled to a state house for life???. I worked with a guy years ago who grew up in a 5 bedroom state house, his father was a wharfie earning good money and there were only the parents living in the house, they had been there for around 25 years surly they should have been moved on so a new family could get the benefit of the house

[jellywrestler]

The Government has made it so easy that they think it is their go given right. Even some of the kids are putting their names down as soon as they get old enough.
I say it's time to reveiw them particularly the ones who've had their families and ther accomadation requirements could be sorted with a smaller house.

[SMOKEU]

It's so niggers don't have to live under a bridge or in a cardboard box.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Was supposed to be cheap rental housing for low income earners. If your kids have grown up and now you only need a 2 bedroom house you should make way for a family that needs 4 bedrooms. Was meant to be a help up, not a lifelong choice. If you've lived in a cheap rental for 20 years, you should have saved some money over that time surely? Privilege, not an entitlement.

[steve_t]

Was there someone found living in a state house last year with an income of $130,000?!! :wacko:

[yod]

It's so niggers don't have to live under a bridge or in a cardboard box.

Are you just looking for an argument or are you genuinely just full of ignorance and hate? Judging by your avatar I'm going with the second option.....

[jellywrestler]

I met a woman last year who'd been in the same state house since 1943, even had to find somewhere else to live while it was being finished for her and her husband, and another twenty houses down the road who'd been there since 1946. When his parents died he stayed on in the same house.

[mashman]

Was there someone found living in a state house last year with an income of $130,000?!! :wacko:

So? It's a state house being rented out to a paying customer. Whereas a doley would be having their rent paid for. I woulda thought you guys woulda been rejoicing

[lone_slayer]

They really should bring in Annual aligability checks with these houses as they are always saying there are heaps of people waiting for them.

[RDJ]

The purpose used to be, to help people who through the vagaries of fate, couldn't afford to house themselves. The State house really helped those people.

These days, it's all too often a unit aimed at securing the vote of those who want the Government to spend other people's money for them.

[Hitcher]

The low income housing market in New Zealand is about 320,000 rental properties. Housing New Zealand (the taxpayer) owns about 60,000 of those.

We've got a situation now where people in identical family and financial positions can be renting identical properties next door to each other, yet the family in the taxpayer-owned property gets a better deal than the family in the private rental. Why?

Housing New Zealand should be New Zealand's landlord of last resort. If they're housing people who pay their rent on time and take good care of their rental property, they're probably housing the wrong people. Tenants who behave like that should be renting from private sector landlords.

Also as a landlord of last resort, Housing New Zealand doesn't need to own its own properties. It should be able to enter into longterm agreements with private sector investors to do that. Why should taxpayers' money be tied up in an "investment" that struggles to produce a return? Million dollar properties in prime parts of Auckland. Why?

Why should retired state tenants with no kids or dependents be allowed to keep living in the same four or five bedroom property they've always had, when they could move into a smaller property, releasing the big place for a needy family with kids? People who own their own property are happy to change their homes as their living situations change. Why should state tenants be any different?

Like any form of taxpayer assistance, subsidised housing is a priviledge, not a right.

[Howie]

The low income housing market in New Zealand is about 320,000 rental properties. Housing New Zealand (the taxpayer) owns about 60,000 of those.

We've got a situation now where people in identical family and financial positions can be renting identical properties next door to each other, yet the family in the taxpayer-owned property gets a better deal than the family in the private rental. Why?

I thought a man like you would see the obvious answers to that.

1. There are not enough Housing New Zealand rental properties in the areas they are required.
2. The private sector are too greedy in the amount of return wanted for the investment made.



Housing New Zealand should be New Zealand's landlord of last resort. If they're housing people who pay their rent on time and take good care of their rental property, they're probably housing the wrong people. Tenants who behave like that should be renting from private sector landlords.


Why should they be Renting from the private sector? Not all financially challenged familles can't budget!



Also as a landlord of last resort, Housing New Zealand doesn't need to own its own properties. It should be able to enter into longterm agreements with private sector investors to do that. Why should taxpayers' money be tied up in an "investment" that struggles to produce a return? Million dollar properties in prime parts of Auckland. Why?

I think you'll find Housing New Zealand already leases houses from private investors in the housing market.



Why should retired state tenants with no kids or dependents be allowed to keep living in the same four or five bedroom property they've always had, when they could move into a smaller property, releasing the big place for a needy family with kids? People who own their own property are happy to change their homes as their living situations change. Why should state tenants be any different?


This actually does happen in a lot of cases, How ever the challenge is find suitable smaller housing in the right area for people with limited means.




Like any form of taxpayer assistance, subsidised housing is a priviledge, not a right.

I tend to disagree on that Reasonable Housing at a affordable value is actually a Human rights issue in a lot of countries. Be thankful you live in New Zealand

[Virago]

It's so niggers don't have to live under a bridge or in a cardboard box.

Just out of interest, are you still sponging off the state or your parents...?

[jellywrestler]

I tend to disagree on that Reasonable Housing at a affordable value is actually a Human rights issue in a lot of countries. Be thankful you live in New Zealand
I wonder what proportion of NZers versus foreigners are in OUR state houses???? be interesting fact eh

[shafty]

i see there is a kerfuffle amongst some state house tenants because they a being asked to move so the area can be redeveloped, one lady has been in the same house for 50 years, as i understand it these people rent at a cheaper level than private renters, these houses arnt theirs they belong to the taxpayer, is someone entitled to a state house for life???. I worked with a guy years ago who grew up in a 5 bedroom state house, his father was a wharfie earning good money and there were only the parents living in the house, they had been there for around 25 years surly they should have been moved on so a new family could get the benefit of the house

Those were my thoughts as well Jim while watching the TV coverage.
In fact I said to the TV and the Wiff,"as someone was saying they will lose their house Äctually it's OUR house Loser"

[Hitcher]

I thought a man like you would see the obvious answers to that.

1. There are not enough Housing New Zealand rental properties in the areas they are required.
2. The private sector are too greedy in the amount of return wanted for the investment made.

1. Bullshit. There's a big difference between where people may want to live and where the taxpayer should be subsidising them to live.

2. Bullshit. Please read my original post and do the maths. Housing New Zealand accounts for less than a quarter of the low income rental housing market. The supply and demand model works pretty darned well for rental housing. Every cashed-up bogan aspires to own at least one rental property. Private sector landlords can only charge what people can afford to pay. If they can't afford their rent, tenants don't pay it. Go and have a chat with the Tenancy Tribunal, if you don't believe me.


Why should they be Renting from the private sector? Not all financially challenged familles can't budget!

I don't understand this line of argument at all. Poor people generally want all of the lifestyle enhancements that their more affluent neighbours have: a car, Sky TV, KFC, a big dog, booze, cigarettes, dac and tattoos. Unfortunately they also want kids. Where they rent their home and from whom doesn't appear to change any of that.


I think you'll find Housing New Zealand already leases houses from private investors in the housing market.

They do but not many as a total percentage of their rental stocks, and only in Auckland to any significant extent.


This actually does happen in a lot of cases, How ever the challenge is find suitable smaller housing in the right area for people with limited means.

Build it and they will come? HNZ has a mix of property types.


I tend to disagree on that Reasonable Housing at a affordable value is actually a Human rights issue in a lot of countries. Be thankful you live in New Zealand

Housing isn't unaffordable in New Zealand when the Government stumps up with the cash to pay for it. The people for whom it is unaffordable are generally people who are more well off than those targeted by taxpayer funded income support.

[SMOKEU]

Just out of interest, are you still sponging off the state or your parents...?

Both. I'm a student.

[pete376403]

We (Wife, 2 kids, me) were state house tenants about 30 years ago when it was called Housing Corporation.. The tenancy agreement then was that the tenancy was limited to a certain number of years maximum (can't recall exact term) and that a portion of the rental was in the fom of compulsory saving, to be used as a suspensory loan to go toward purchase of a house (not necessarily the state house we were renting). As a result the rental amount was pretty close to private market rates.

Wonder when that policy stopped being applied

As it happened we moved out of the house after about a year to buy another place and Housing Corp wouldn't allow us to take the suspensory loan. That was about $1800 that I could have really done with.

[Hitcher]

We (Wife, 2 kids, me) were state house tenants about 30 years ago when it was called Housing Corporation.. The tenancy agreement then was that the tenancy was limited to a certain number of years maximum (can't recall exact term) and that a portion of the rental was in the fom of compulsory saving, to be used as a suspensory loan to go toward purchase of a house (not necessarily the state house we were renting). As a result the rental amount was pretty close to private market rates.

Wonder when that policy stopped being applied

As it happened we moved out of the house after about a year to buy another place and Housing Corp wouldn't allow us to take the suspensory loan. That was about $1800 that I could have really done with.

State house tenants are too often used as political pawns. One party promises something, another promises something else.

[Spearfish]

A few houses down is a state house recently rented to a family of five, it one of those 10 year lease contracts housing nz does with private home owners.
both adults in one room
daughter in one room
two teenagers bunking in one room
Harley in the fourth with a parts bike.

They lasted two years before being tipped out, I'm not sure if it was the bikes, oil stains on the carpet or what was under the grow lamps in the garage?:shutup:

[Hinny]

State house rentals are at market rates. Introduced in 1991. The tenant of the first State house paid 1/3rd of his income for rent. The current tenant pays 3/4 of his income leaving the family of five $77 a week to live on.

I think there is a case to be made for Housing NZ to have houses for a wide range of income brackets.
Why should the rental market be dominated by the private sector. It has been a rort on society for years with investors offsetting income for tax reduction purposes. Most I would suggest are purchased with at least a majority of borrowed money. Interest payments flowing out of the country - part of the 15 Billion dollars that flow offshore each year. And these are tax deductible.
No capital gains tax, no estate duties and now no gift duties.
House prices rise and the overseas owned money lenders rub their hands with glee.
Question: is the private ownership model really the best?
I suggest not.
I think there are probably plenty of alternative models which would work better.
Previously mentioned suspensory loans, Rent to buy, low rate mortgage finance etc.
Houses of all sorts of value for rent not just low cost housing. Other models from the past were Railways and Maori affairs houses.
Years ago when State Advances were operating people got loans of two and a quarter percent. Would have that again probably if Rob Muldoon hadn't got in.
A friend who lived in Hong Kong for many years was bemused by the kiwi imperative of owning your own home. It is not like that there according to her.
One other compelling advantage for the State ownership model is that we all benefit from the capital gains achieved.
The Auckland Housing Collective model seems to work well.
Don Brash nearly had an apoplectic fit on the leaders debate when he thought someone suggested something similar. This would tend to indicate that it is probably a pretty good idea.
I laughed when he, as Deb Coddington noted 'stepped in a cow pat'; suggested that nobody believes the govt. can run business better than the private sector. How many years out of date is he?
It's time for innovative policy.
In 1905, alarmed by growing reports of extortionate rents and squalid living conditions in the working-class districts of New Zealand cities, Seddon introduced the Workers' Dwellings Act. Its purpose was to provide urban workers with low-cost suburban housing, far removed from city slums and grasping landlords. Although several hundred workers' dwellings were constructed the scheme never prospered, and it wasn't until the first Labour government came to power in 1935 that state housing entered its first boom period.
From then on construction and sales have shown the diametrically opposed views of Labour and National. Labour build houses and National sell them.

[SS90]

I fail to understand why State Housing should be "Market rates"

State housing should be for lower income families, at lower rates.

After all, there are no mortgages on the properties, any maintenance (should) be done by state employees...........

It seems like a self sustaining model to me.... No?

[Owl]

State house rentals are at market rates. Introduced in 1991. The tenant of the first State house paid 1/3rd of his income for rent. The current tenant pays 3/4 of his income leaving the family of five $77 a week to live on.

How accurate and current is that?

I know my partner was paying a 1/3 of her income back in 2001. It wasn't a lot of money!

[avgas]

I fail to understand why State Housing should be "Market rates"

State housing should be for lower income families, at lower rates.

After all, there are no mortgages on the properties, any maintenance (should) be done by state employees...........

It seems like a self sustaining model to me.... No?
Problem is that the govt rarely sells the houses in the good areas and builds new ones in the 'cheaper' areas.
It is a sustainable model (when run properly), and a good model but it requires the tenants to be flexible on where they life.

If they don't like that situation we may as well setup "projects" and be done with it.
I prefer the situation where the tenants face the facts that if they want cheap rent - they need to shut the fuck up and move where the cheap rent is.
Its called the real world.

Sell the Pamure houses and move em all to Papakura. Who knows might end up with twice as many houses for people.......

[Hinny]

Problem is that the govt rarely sells the houses in the good areas and builds new ones in the 'cheaper' areas.

Sell the Pamure houses and move em all to Papakura. Who knows might end up with twice as many houses for people.......

This is half-pie National policy.
They sell off the houses in good areas.

[Hinny]

I prefer the situation where the tenants face the facts that if they want cheap rent -
Its called the real world.


The real world situation is that it's not cheap rent, because it is at market rates.
Market rates are determined largely by interest rates.
Interest rates are the biggest expense, I would suggest, for most landlords. They expect a return on their money plus windfall, tax-free, profits when they sell.
If we weren't held by the throat by the avaricious Aussie money men then the oft stated goal of govts. of providing affordable housing might more easily be met.
Speculative housing markets are a disaster, in the real world. Prices go up - for buyers and sellers - in a fair market these would equal each other. As the prices go up, so do interest expenses, rates and insurance.
Who wins? No wonder we are all so time-poor. Fecking ridiculous situation. With all our labour saving devices etc. we end up worse off.
Those Mainland cheese ads were so insightful. The destruction of the landscape portrayed in the 'time-poor' ad is the result we will get with the adoption of the proposed Nat. policies.
Strip mine Southland lignite coal.
This was a policy advocated by Muldoon back when Adam was playing half back for the All Blacks. And his adulator is proposing the same dipshit idea 25 years down the track.
Russel Norman walked over to Don Brash during the leaders debate recess to explain global warming to his dumb ass. Another hollow man.
Values people. It is time to wake up and think!

[avgas]

The real world situation is that it's not cheap rent, because it is at market rates.
Market rates are determined largely by interest rates.

Even I know that is bullshit. Whoever sold that concept to you, you need to demand a refund.
If "interest rates" were market rates would that mean by definition people are better off now, when the interest rates are LOW.
Or is there some kind of sub-clause in what your trying to say.

I start you off

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT......

Fact of the matter is if HNZ rates are market rates.......people would simply rent houses off someone else. You are clearly missing the key (excuse the pun its not actually intended), element as to why people use HNZ.
They don't want to pay high rent. <_<

This is irrelevant of who's the boss, or what color they are. If HNZ didn't offer cheaper rent or rent that is EASIER to pay for......then people would rent elsewhere, no?

[Brett]

Both. I'm a student.

Editted. 10 Chars.

[SMOKEU]

Based on your stupid comments (not just this thread)...you're also a knob end.

Do you now feel really awesome after your lame attempt at insulting me?

[scumdog]

Are you just looking for an argument or are you genuinely just full of ignorance and hate? Judging by your avatar I'm going with the second option.....

No, he's just misunderstood, he actually luffs the poh-leece.

[Hitcher]

I fail to understand why State Housing should be "Market rates"

State housing should be for lower income families, at lower rates.

After all, there are no mortgages on the properties, any maintenance (should) be done by state employees...........

It seems like a self sustaining model to me.... No?

State housing isn't at "market rates". It should be. Why should families of identical means or need be treated differently based on who their landlord is?

Remember that the actual rent on a state rental property is subsidised through taxpayer funded benefits. The taxpayer is picking up the difference between what the tenants actually pay and what it costs to provide the rental property. All of this nonsense about rents being income related is tablets-of-stone dogma that is unthinkingly sicked up by the wet middle classes who are all in favour of state housing, as long as it's not anywhere near where they live.

And since when have "state employees" picked up a hammer or a mop? And back in the day when they may have, how was that any cheaper than an enforceable performance-based contract?

[Hitcher]

Strip mine Southland lignite coal.

A topic probably worthy of a discussion in another thread. Lignite can't be mined by any other method than strip mining, but I suspect from your tone that you possibly weren't recommending such a practice.

[Brett]

Do you now feel really awesome after your lame attempt at insulting me?

No, your comment just annoyed me, stupid response on my behalf, I apologise. (Genuine)

[SMOKEU]

No, your comment just annoyed me, stupid response on my behalf, I apologise. (Genuine)

That's all good, no harm done.

[Hinny]

State housing isn't at "market rates". It should be. Why should families of identical means or need be treated differently based on who their landlord is?

Remember that the actual rent on a state rental property is subsidised through taxpayer funded benefits. The taxpayer is picking up the difference between what the tenants actually pay and what it costs to provide the rental property. All of this nonsense about rents being income related is tablets-of-stone dogma that is unthinkingly sicked up by the wet middle classes who are all in favour of state housing, as long as it's not anywhere near where they live.




And since when have "state employees" picked up a hammer or a mop? And back in the day when they may have, how was that any cheaper than an enforceable performance-based contract?

Well this comment is 20 years out of date.

[Hitcher]

Well this comment is 20 years out of date.

Really? When Labour became the government in 1999 they discontinued the previous National government's market rents system. Since then National has lost interest in that particular line of endeavour and state house tenants pay rents based on their "incomes". If you think that's an out of date perspective, I'd appreciate some clarification.

[geoffm]

Having done some work on Housing NZ projects, they are an education. Some of the losers there had it sweet - no need to work, start drinking Stienies at 10am, sitting on the steps and laugh at the workers who paid for it...
Reason why there a housing shortage of budget housing - it is simple. Look at the no hopers and druggies in the HNZ ghettos. Would you loan them quarter of a million bucks and rely on them for your retirement plans? That is what you are talking about. I would not rent to a long term beneficiary (genuine invalids possibly excepted) - if you can't be bothered getting a job, how are you going to pay the rent?

[Hinny]

Really? When Labour became the government in 1999 they discontinued the previous National government's market rents system. Since then National has lost interest in that particular line of endeavour and state house tenants pay rents based on their "incomes". If you think that's an out of date perspective, I'd appreciate some clarification.

They pay market rents. No reference to income.
The accommodation supplement is available to all and determined by income testing. It is not administered by H. Corp. and is not H. Corps area of responsibility.
The accommodation supplement is available to eligible tenants whether they are renting from H. Corp. or privately.