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....

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...using_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...using_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:Me]

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 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 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.

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.