What's the purpose of state housing?

[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?

[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.