State housing - Why do we have it?

[Winston001]

On the news yesterday it was announced that the government holds 62,000 state houses. I'm astonished. Is that right?

I can understand perhaps 10,000 at a stretch, for unfortunate people in difficult circumstances - mental, physical health, refugees, foster children, wards of state etc.

And there are 10,000 more people waiting for a state house...... In a fortunate nation like NZ that seems just wrong.....

[slimjim]

what you think the government is lying....:rolleyes:

can't always keep them in carvan parks...

those keep getting sold and high risers get built and they charge to much to live in..

but wait ..along will come about the second class people and how rough they are,

[Nasty]

http://www.hnzc.co.nz/hnzc/web/about-us/history-of-state-housing/history-of-state-housing_home.htm

How about you start looking here ... and remember not everyone is fortunate enough to not need help.

[Hitcher]

Here's the thing. The government doesn't need to own houses to fulfil its "obligations" as a landlord of last resort. It can lease properties of a required standard from the private sector, which is already the dominant low income rental housing provider. There is a lot of emotive claptrap and left-wing political dogma around this issue which needs to be challenged. Otherwise successive governments will continue to throw good money after bad.

[Winston001]

http://www.hnzc.co.nz/hnzc/web/about-us/history-of-state-housing/history-of-state-housing_home.htm

How about you start looking here ... and remember not everyone is fortunate enough to not need help.

But heck, we live in a social democracy. There is any amount of help available for disadvantaged people. Accomodation supplements for example, family support payments. It isn't as if we don't provide a social welfare net - the main arguments are over whether to increase it or not. Few people suggest no welfare at all.

Go to India and have a look at the housing there - then you'd really see disadvantaged people.

I'm interested in the rationale for the state owning such a huge level of houses.

[alanzs]

Go to India and have a look at the housing there - then you'd really see disadvantaged people.

I'm interested in the rationale for the state owning such a huge level of houses.

So that we aren't like India?

[Ixion]

Here's the thing. The government doesn't need to own houses to fulfil its "obligations" as a landlord of last resort. It can lease properties of a required standard from the private sector, which is already the dominant low income rental housing provider. There is a lot of emotive claptrap and left-wing political dogma around this issue which needs to be challenged. Otherwise successive governments will continue to throw good money after bad.

Which is precisely what it does at present.

[The Stranger]

I'm interested in the rationale for the state owning such a huge level of houses.

I'm interested in the rationale for the state NOT owning such a huge level of houses.

Also is it a huge level? what is the current housing stock of NZ?

[Ixion]

About 1.2 million total housing stock if I interpret the Stats Dept figures (http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/EACC97D2-04CC-461F-A7CA-7DDFBD7083A6/0/housingstocktable4.xls)correctly

So 62000 is not a big number by any means. Only about 5%

Moreover that number includes a significant number of what used to be local body owned pensioner houses. And I think some "tied" housing also.

Any why is it a problem, anyway ?

[MotoGirl]

I thought Housing New Zealand was the country's largest landlord/property owner?

[Morcs]

They should actually start making state housing ofr normal, hardworking people as we get raped so much, the high earners are getting richer and buying more and more houses just to rent out to get richer, and us younger generation dont stand a shit show in buying a property unless we are mortaged to the hilt.

No wonder everyones fucking off to Oz.

[Hitcher]

Which is precisely what it does at present.

Only for a limited percentage of HNZC's rental stock.

[Hitcher]

I thought Housing New Zealand was the country's largest landlord/property owner?

It is. HNZC's property portfolio, prior to the exponential growth of student loans, used to be the government's single-largest asset. Then and now the taxpayers of New Zealand would be materially better off if that money was in a basic interest-bearing account with a bank, such is the largely non-existent rate of return on a multi-billion-dollar "investment".

If owning 65,000 rental properties and running these at a loss is the answer, I'm not sure that I know what the question is.

[MadDuck]

I wonder if the reason the State Housing was introduced no longer exists.

Was it not Michael Savage who had the idea to help low income earners find their feet? The houses were respected by the first owners and looked after.

My grandparents lived in there in Grey Lynn for 50 odd years and my mother and I stayed in ours for 22 years. So it wasnt actually a way for people to get back on their feet really.

Now people see it as a right and the horror stories about the clean ups (and the costs) are quite sickening. With housing supplements from WINZ let the greedy land owners deal with them not my taxes.

[Winston001]

About 1.2 million total housing stock if I interpret the Stats Dept figures (http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/EACC97D2-04CC-461F-A7CA-7DDFBD7083A6/0/housingstocktable4.xls)correctly

So 62000 is not a big number by any means. Only about 5%

Moreover that number includes a significant number of what used to be local body owned pensioner houses. And I think some "tied" housing also.

Any why is it a problem, anyway ?

Obviously it isn't a problem judging by the general tenor of posts. :D

I suppose I don't see the point really. I'd much rather the government put resources into developing affordable efficent housing for private ownership. There is something badly wrong with our house construction methods that the cost is so high. Admittedly that is currently a result of shoddy private housing design and the resulting tough new building requirements.

It simply seems a hurrer of a lot of houses. :buggerd:

[Dave Lobster]

In a country where unemployment is SO low, how can anyone be SO poor, that they can't afford their own rent?
Why should the government house some people, but not help others?

Are we to believe that some of the population is too stupid to make their own way in life, and will need subsiding until they die? I don't believe anyone is THAT stupid.

How about people in the subsidised housing are given one for two years? That's enough time to put a deposit together, surely?

(Unless they've pissed all their money on booze/fags/drugs/etc.)

[Motu]

I'd much rather the government put resources into developing affordable efficent housing for private ownership. :

We had that with State loans....Housing Corp as it was at the time.That's how I got my first house - and it wasn't easy.My parents got their first house on a State loan too....and hundreds of thousands of others too.When I got my loan interest rates were 17%,our Housing Corp loan was 13%...pretty damn good we thought at the time.

Then National sold all the loans....and all the money they would earn to Fay Ritchbuggers....and the nation lost.

[SARGE]

Here's the thing. The government doesn't need to own houses to fulfil its "obligations" as a landlord of last resort. It can lease properties of a required standard from the private sector, which is already the dominant low income rental housing provider.

i had a 2 unit duplex back home that i rented straight to the military base near where i lived.. i never touched it.. i told them NCO's and above and thats all they put in there..they came in .. did an inspection before and after occupancy.. they handled the maintenance.. they did the placements.. all i did was collect the check..

[MadDuck]

We had that with State loans....Housing Corp as it was at the time.That's how I got my first house - and it wasn't easy.My parents got their first house on a State loan too....and hundreds of thousands of others too.When I got my loan interest rates were 17%,our Housing Corp loan was 13%...pretty damn good we thought at the time.

Then National sold all the loans....and all the money they would earn to Fay Ritchbuggers....and the nation lost.

Yep I hear what you are saying Motu. It was Housing Corp back then for us to. They offered a buy back to long term residents in the early 90s. it was tough but I was able to buy our State Home and give my mum a secure future. The rate was 14.5% and we didnt eat much.

It broke the cycle of reliance on the state for our family. I doubt very much that would happen these days.

[Motu]

I own an ex State house,and all the houses in the area are ex State,and a few still State rentals.The option to buy was a good one too....although it allowed a lot of speculators in as well.You can tell the privatley owned rentals around here - they are shit boxes.Housing NZ homes are in much better condition.

I work with a guy who just built a brand new home - State Tenants moved in a week after it was finished.Like Sarge....all he has to do is watch the bank balance rise every month.

[Chisanga]

Social Housing makes up about 5% of the total dwelligns in NZ (according to census 2006) owner-occupiers 67% and private renters 25%. About 3% is unknown for various reasons. Although 66,000 properties operted and managed by HNZC seems like a lot they have over 5000 families on a waiting list for a state home.

If I recall correctly at least 10% of these (500 people) if not more have a critical. urgent housing need that needs to be filled immediately.... meanwhile a little girl waits....

[Lucy]

We had that with State loans....Housing Corp as it was at the time.That's how I got my first house - and it wasn't easy.My parents got their first house on a State loan too....and hundreds of thousands of others too.When I got my loan interest rates were 17%,our Housing Corp loan was 13%...pretty damn good we thought at the time.

Then National sold all the loans....and all the money they would earn to Fay Ritchbuggers....and the nation lost.

Ssshhhhh! Dontcha know you aren't allowed to badmouth National anymore?

Everything that is wrong with the country is because of Helen Clark being ugly and childless. From what I read on the 'net anyway.....

:Playnice:

[davereid]

Everything that is wrong with the country is because of Helen Clark being ugly and childless....:Playnice:

Fuck, I didn't know she was Childless !

[Hitcher]

Although 66,000 properties operted and managed by HNZC seems like a lot they have over 5000 families on a waiting list for a state home.

Most of the 5,000 families on that waiting list will currently be adequately housed. There's part of the nonsense about a "demand" for housing purely because people think they can get something for lower cost than through other suppliers.

HNZC's role should be as a landlord of last resort -- for individuals and families whose rental housing needs are not met by the private sector -- rather than providing rental properties for low-income people.

[Chisanga]

Most of the 5,000 families on that waiting list will currently be adequately housed. There's part of the nonsense about a "demand" for housing purely because people think they can get something for lower cost than through other suppliers.

HNZC's role should be as a landlord of last resort -- for individuals and families whose rental housing needs are not met by the private sector -- rather than providing rental properties for low-income people.

I guess it depends on what you call "adequate" there are plenty of people currently housed but in overcrowded and unhealthy conditions, there are also a large number in sub-standard boarding houses and lodges as well as a large shortfall in housing for single people and especially women who have domestic violence concerns.

Emergency housing is oversubscribed because there is no place to move their clients through to and anecdotally, even HNZC are referring high need people to private landlords as they know they don't have a chance to house them themselves. For example in November 2003 there were 2,300 families listed as high-need in the Auckland region - however during that month HNZC had only 213 houses that became available.

And this is just state homes... then you could get into the quagmire that is homelessness, the vulnerably housed and emergency housing.

P.S. I am currently doing some research into this topic hence why I have some info at my fingertips.

[Finn]

1) How many state houses have sky dishes on them?
2) How many state houses have large screen tv's, playstations, arse kicking stereo's yet there's food in the fridge? There sure is beer though.
3) How many tenants in state houses are actually able bodied people that choose state houses and welfare as a lifestyle choice?
4) Why is it that a young married hard working couple can't afford to buy a house yet bludgers get given them?
5) Since the (previous) government handed out states houses like lolipops, why didn't they supply them with condoms as well?
6) How many tenants of state houses have known criminals in them?
7) How many tenants are not looking after our state houses?

Sure there are some people that are in real need of shelter but come on, our welfare system is in overdrive here.

[The Stranger]

Fuck, I didn't know she was Childless !

Yeah, she admited she only got married for political expediency, children weren't going to help her career.

Has she ever had a real job?

[Winston001]

I guess it depends on what you call "adequate" there are plenty of people currently housed but in overcrowded and unhealthy conditions, there are also a large number in sub-standard boarding houses and lodges as well as a large shortfall in housing for single people and especially women who have domestic violence concerns.

Emergency housing is oversubscribed because there is no place to move their clients through to and anecdotally, even HNZC are referring high need people to private landlords as they know they don't have a chance to house them themselves. For example in November 2003 there were 2,300 families listed as high-need in the Auckland region - however during that month HNZC had only 213 houses that became available.

And this is just state homes... then you could get into the quagmire that is homelessness, the vulnerably housed and emergency housing.

P.S. I am currently doing some research into this topic hence why I have some info at my fingertips.

Good man. :Punk: Nice to have some accurate info.

I'm involved with Habitat For Humanity which helps people at the bottom end build and purchase their own homes. This isn't a gift process, they buy, but on affordable terms. Habitat's main achievement is to break the cycle of generational instabilty through renting and moving all the time.

What frustrates me is the cost of building a house. It is far lower in Oz and the USA. There must be ways to make this efficent.

[Chisanga]

What frustrates me is the cost of building a house. It is far lower in Oz and the USA. There must be ways to make this efficent.

We have a far higher proportionof compliance costs built into the house building process than other countries do. I believe it may be around 30% not totally sure.

Habitat for Humanity do a great job - go the sweat equity!

[Finn]

What frustrates me is the cost of building a house. It is far lower in Oz and the USA. There must be ways to make this efficent.

There's a lady up north who has come up with a fantastic and very cheap way of building good quality homes. She has come up with a system of building bricks yourself. The houses are great - I have seen one myself.

PM for details if you're interested.

[The Stranger]

Obviously it isn't a problem judging by the general tenor of posts. :D

I suppose I don't see the point really. I'd much rather the government put resources into developing affordable efficent housing for private ownership. There is something badly wrong with our house construction methods that the cost is so high. Admittedly that is currently a result of shoddy private housing design and the resulting tough new building requirements.

It simply seems a hurrer of a lot of houses. :buggerd:

I am generally opposed to the state owning a business and believe that it should stick to dealing with essentail services. However, I fail to see that the state owning so many houses is a great problem, the issue is more how they are managed, and this often becomes a political football.
One thing is for sure, I would be more concerned right now were they considering quitting large numbers of them in the current market.

As to the "shoddy private housing design and the resulting tough new building requirements" comment. I feel that this is a load of bullshit.

For 200yrs we haven't needed the new laws and houses have generally been stable and reasonably watertight. What happened to change all that?
Hmm, treating timber with arsenic and boron is not very environmentally friendly is it? Do we really need to treat timer at all? Well not according to the BIA we don't. Timber treatment is but one, various systems were approved for use by the BIA and tested and approved by BRANZ which quite frankly were stupid. You will note that these aren't private enterprises.

NOT saying there were no rough jobs done by builders, or that there is no blame to apportion to builders, however much of it rests with the govt in reality.

The laws are being enacted as an arse covering exercise only. The govt realised when they fucked up that they had to disband the BIA in a hurry and needed laws to push blame onto someone else in future.

[Hitcher]

P.S. I am currently doing some research into this topic hence why I have some info at my fingertips.

Good luck with that. I refer you to (in case you don't have it already) John Luxton's "yellow paper", written in the early 1990s when he was Minister of Housing. It is the only comprehensive and reasoned discussion of this matter ever undertaken by any government in New Zealand.

The current "state housing" model doesn't work. Building more rental properties is only part of a solution, and having those owned and operated by a state agency is a particularly clumsy and ponderous mechanism. So too is incentivising low-income people to live in Auckland.

[alanzs]

What frustrates me is the cost of building a house. It is far lower in Oz and the USA. There must be ways to make this efficent.

I don't know about OZ, but the fees on building a home in many states of the US are astronomical. Oh yeah, in California they have had water restricted shower heads for years and it's no big deal.

[Swoop]

Fuck, I didn't know she was Childless !
You cannot seriously imagine a male "going there", can you?

[Paul in NZ]

Pfft...

State houses exist so rich politicians can come from them and grim faced socialists can stand in front of them for photo ops...

Also - there is a LOT of brown carpet left over from the 70's and it has to go someplace...

Also also - they are cheap to buy - as my excellent daughter found out - good job - paid her own way through uni and at 23 they have purchased a run down state house as a do er upperer...