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?!!

[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?!!

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"