State house evictions

54 comments on “State house evictions ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bazar 1

   12 November 2011 at 6:12 pm

   Government evicts people from homes owned by the government to make way for improvements.
   Tenets angry they don’t get to veto the governments decision, even though not their house to decide.

   So remind me what this artical is about.
   That the government might be improving state homes in the long term, or that its not cow toeing to the tenets who think its their home for life, when its a state home?
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     12 November 2011 at 7:24 pm

     Knocking down 85, building 75 and only 15 of those 75 will be state owned. The rest will be cash cows for private owners courtesy of state subsidies.

     Seems like a good reason to stop this as it’s not for the benefit of those being booted out nor for the benefit of NZ.
     • Dan 1.1.1

       12 November 2011 at 7:46 pm

       This is in a completely different part of the country. The Tamaki Transformation project is turning 160 houses into 260.
       • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.1.1.1

         12 November 2011 at 8:17 pm

         78 of the 260 TTP houses will be state housing.
     • Bazar 1.1.2

       12 November 2011 at 8:04 pm

       “Knocking down 85, building 75 and only 15 of those 75 will be state owned.”

       And your point is what?
       That they are only rebuilding 15 out of 85 homes in the same location?

       Housing NZ have already stated that they want to sprinkle state owned houses around, rather then create ghettos. Sounds like this is a sound decision based on existing policy.

       Now how about we talk finances, how much money are they paying to maintain those houses.
       What condition are they in?
       How much money are they making selling it?

       Oh that’s right, this is a topic without substance, linking to articles without substance. Show us that this is a bad financial decision and you’ll have some actual weight to it.
       Otherwise all i see are people who were given a house to live in till they could find/manage better, and making a home out of it.

       One couple was in the house for 45 years, and is complaining because his fruit trees have grown up. Talk about long term plans on what was supposed to be a temporary home.

       How old are the homes?
       If its a state owned house, it wouldn’t surprise me if the thing was in a horrible state of disrepair .

       Perhaps its just time to move on and invest in the future?
       • Jackal 1.1.2.1

         12 November 2011 at 9:19 pm

         Here’s a novel approach… why don’t they make sure there are places for these people to go that they can afford before kicking them out Bazar?

         You might be interested to know that National are not releasing the information under the OIA concerning how many people have and are being evicted and how many houses they’re knocking down and building. Do you have a hypothesis for why they don’t want to release this info?

         You say that this is a topic without substance because you don’t care if poor people can afford a house or not. If you actually believed that it’s a bean counting argument, perhaps you should understand the social cost of having a large group of transient people on the health sector. Did you factor that into your purely financial decision?

         Arguing that people in need shouldn’t expect to have a home is about the stupidest thing I’ve heard all year. Likewise saying that you expect state houses to be in disrepair so just knock them down is moronic!

         Punishing tenants because Housing NZ hasn’t maintained houses properly is unacceptable!

         We can only move on by investing in the future. This includes ensuring people can afford a house. Your corporate welfare at the publics expense is disgusting!
         • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.1.2.1.1

           12 November 2011 at 11:59 pm

           Actually Jackal Housing NZ could easily have accomodated those 85 people just down the road- the fact that they were unable to see the obvious benefits of doing so simply reinforces the amazing incompetence of this organisation.

           The original Tamaki Transformation Project was set up to solve problems like this relocation and promote the wider social benefits of providing good employment, educational and community outcomes for Glen Innes. Of course this never had a chance of surviving the technocrats and bean counters in Wellington who are about as far removed from real people as you can get.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.2

         12 November 2011 at 10:13 pm

         Show us that this is a bad financial decision and you’ll have some actual weight to it.

         It’s a bad social decision that no amount of delusional financial wheeling and dealing will be able to correct for.
       • prism 1.1.2.3

         12 November 2011 at 11:17 pm

         Investing in the future! People are the future and if some are to be left out, then part of NZ’s future is affected negatively. It would be good to help people first by seeing they had a home, then showing them how it should be maintained, then how to get out of poverty by helping with the skills needed to get a job with reasonable pay. Then helping them to buy their own house if they were reliable mortgage prospects. That is the method of investment for state housing tenants.
       • Vicky32 1.1.2.4

         13 November 2011 at 4:35 pm

         How old are the homes?
         If its a state owned house, it wouldn’t surprise me if the thing was in a horrible state of disrepair

         Why do you assume that? (It may be true, as HNZ don’t like doing maintenance, and my experience has been that Tenancy Managers are all lazy blighters).
         You don’t seem to realise that it’s only been within the past 10 years that State Houses have been regarded by the public as “welfare” and that tenancies have been regarded as short-term and limited. My neighbours, who both died in their  late 80s about 6 years ago, had been in their state house for 40+ years. They never regarded their house as “temporary”. She was a war widow with a small child, when she married him, and when I knew them, they both had serious health problems. Possibly they could have moved out 25 years ago, but no one expected them to, and then, when state tenancies started being regarded as “welfare”, they qualified as OAPs and cancer survivors… They kept their house and garden immaculate! If only the huge family who moved in after they died, cared as much…
     • marco 1.1.3

       13 November 2011 at 9:56 am

       Knocking down the houses was always part of the plan in Tamaki. It was put forward under the last Government and National have actually scaled it back.

       Maryan Street took the proposal to Council in Feb 2008. The plan was to intensify the area by around 3000 new homes through land farming quarter acre sections owned by the state.

       Residents were always going to be moved. Nothing has changed.

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pt-england/news/article.cfm?l_id=360&objectid=10490870
       • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.1.3.1

         14 November 2011 at 10:50 am

         Except the entire public and community consultation program has been ditched. All that is left is a market reposnive community exclusive development agency.
   • prism 1.2

     12 November 2011 at 8:04 pm

     Bazar – Actually the article is just there for you to reply to and show off your superior ignorance, your lack of any concern about the deteriorating quality of our citizenship in our democracy in maintaining reasonable standards for those on lower incomes, and your pathetic lack of spelling ability and lack of attempt to even try to show you understand the language.
     • Bazar 1.2.1

       12 November 2011 at 8:25 pm

       “Bazar – Actually the article is just there for you to reply to and show off your superior ignorance,”

       So rather then actually discuss the topic at hand, you chose to attack me on a personal level. Such a constructive use of time. At least viper doesn’t waste my time when he wants to insult me.

       “your lack of any concern about the deteriorating … … standards for those on lower incomes”

       I’m concerned, but i don’t see how the standards for these families are affected. Unless i am mistaken, they are not being evicted into homelessness. They are just being forcefully moved from one home to another.

       And the government manages over 70,000 state homes, this is just 85 of them.
       Drawing a wide ranging conclusion over the state of housing or lower incomes in NZ based on just those 85 homes is foolishness in itself.

       Show me an article showing how those families are being moved into homes of lower value or weaker living standards and then you’ll have my attention. But this article does neither.

       “and your pathetic lack of spelling ability and lack of attempt to even try to show you understand the language”

       Truly, my poor spelling shows how evil these evictions are, and how my points are not worth contesting.
       It has nothing to do with the fact that i’m dyslexic, returning from a long day, only to realize that my comment couldn’t be edited or deleted after i noticed the mistakes.

       I truly applaud you and your observations, your incredible wit, and impeccable debating skill.
       • Jackal 1.2.1.1

         12 November 2011 at 9:28 pm

         Bazar

         So rather then actually discuss the topic at hand, you chose to attack me on a personal level.

         People are abusing you because you’re being a dick Bazar.

         Unless i am mistaken, they are not being evicted into homelessness.

         You’re mistaken.

         And the government manages over 70,000 state homes, this is just 85 of them.

         Wrong! National is doing the same thing around the entire country.

         But this article does neither.

         So you want an article written about information the Minister is not releasing? Only a troll throws up such a straw man argument.
         • Bazar 1.2.1.1.1

           12 November 2011 at 11:52 pm

           “People are abusing you because you’re being a dick Bazar.”

           That i am, but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m raising valid points of discussion in the process as a result.

           Prism’s reply however was him being a dick, and not even slightly being constructive. He probably felt good and vindicated hitting the submit button, but progressed the debate not one iota.

           Moving on, you state they are being evicted into homelessness. Care to show us some evidence. You cite nothing and i’ve found not one article mentioning it.

           I think you’re misinformed at best.

           “So you want an article written about information the Minister is not releasing? Only a troll throws up such a straw man argument.”

           I want articles written from a verifiable source.
           Do you think it would be so hard to find one of these 85 families and ask them if they have been offered alternate housing?

           I’d of expected at least 1 paragraph from any of these articles mentioning the homelessness if that was the case.
           • Jackal 1.2.1.1.1.1

             13 November 2011 at 9:52 am

             Care to show us some evidence. You cite nothing and i’ve found not one article mentioning it.

             If people are evicted, the houses are demolished with a lot less state houses being built, this pushes people into paying market rents… fitting nicely into National’s free market ethos.

             Benefits no longer cover market rents and thanks to National there are no jobs, what do you think is the end result Bazar? We already have a lack of houses in New Zealand… we should be building more before contemplating demolishing. An unmaintained house is better than no house at all.

             I’d of expected at least 1 paragraph from any of these articles mentioning the homelessness if that was the case.

             Once again you expect people to write articles when there is no data. National has made sure Statistics NZ has updated very little information since 2008. National delayed the census so that we wouldn’t know the extent of social damage they’ve caused.

             They also refuse to release information under the Official Information Act concerning this matter. I’ve answered your questions… why don’t you let me know why National wont release the information?
           • ropata 1.2.1.1.1.2

             14 November 2011 at 10:57 pm

             Bazar, have you not heard there is a severe housing shortage in Auckland?
             If people are being evicted then homelessness is pretty likely.
       • felix 1.2.1.2

         12 November 2011 at 9:50 pm

         I like it when the rightie troll says “evil” as if people on the left use that term all the time.

         Cute.
       • prism 1.2.1.3

         12 November 2011 at 9:53 pm

         bazar We all have our problems. Your spelling was just an extra. What I am concerned about with your comment is how you are prepared for the government to cut down on state housing which is so necessary, particularly now that they have so mismanaged the economy with housing being left to inflate in value while everything else has been under close scrutiny.

         You think your dyslexia should be taken into account, it is a condition you have that is difficult to master. I know that it took years of campaigning to get the NZ authorities to take dyslexia seriously and caused much unhappiness because of the lack of concern for those affected. Now that it is recognised perhaps you could try and understand how others who have difficulties of other kinds feel.

         This is an excerpt from a piece on English housing in the time of Edwin Chadwick. “Disease among the poor was caused mainly by unhealthy housing and living conditions and by malnutrition….Often seven to ten used one sleeping room…this led to promiscuity, quarrels, delinquency, immorality and rapid spread of contagious diseases…At his insistence, free public vaccination against cholera, typhus, and smallpox was introduced in 1840.’

         We already have problems such as this in NZ in the 21st century, and casting doubt on the value of poor people being able to access stable, decent homes doesn’t help. Just because there are private landlords who might have alternative houses which could be rented does not mean that these will be suitable, reasonably priced, or maintained. And that takes for granted that the state should be providing good housing, plain and practical, affordable and properly serviced, fenced etc.

         Affordable, good housing is so important it is not an appropriate subject for objective analysis that ignores the human need for it.
         • Bazar 1.2.1.3.1

           13 November 2011 at 12:11 am

           “What I am concerned about with your comment is how you are prepared for the government to cut down on state housing”

           I never said i was prepared for it.
           Just because I’m defending the decision for housing nz to evict tenets doesn’t mean i support housing NZ decreasing the overall number of houses available.

           Those are two separate issues, the latter not having been raised till now.

           “You think your dyslexia should be taken into account”
           No, I believe my argument should be taken for what it’s worth. Not dismissed because 2 words were misspelled.

           “We already have problems such as this in NZ in the 21st century, and casting doubt on the value of poor people being able to access stable, decent homes doesn’t help.”

           The availability of affordable housing vs the ability for tenants to squat houses are different issues.

           If you raise the issue of creating more affordable housing, i’d be cautionary supportive.
           If you raise the issue of tenants getting final say on what happens to the state home they are provided with, I’d be dismissive.
           • Jackal 1.2.1.3.1.1

             13 November 2011 at 9:59 am

             So now the tenants are squatting and should have no say in what happens to the houses they live in? You really are a twisted little troll.
           • prism 1.2.1.3.1.2

             13 November 2011 at 7:44 pm

             Bazar

             I think that people don’t have an automatic right to a state house if they are destructive or really anti-social. But it is serious matter to evict. Where are the people going to live? Have you ideas beyond private landlords? Perhaps they could put their name down for a sweat equity type – sort of Habitat if they could get their heads around it. Or a trailer camp which would be under some control but not with heavy police action and possible closure as they did some years ago I think in Auckland.

             What ideas have you?
             • Bazar …

               13 November 2011 at 11:44 pm

               From: http://www.hnzc.co.nz/councils-and-community-organisations/community-groups/tamaki-transformation-programme/glen-innes-redevelopment/faqs

               Affected families will be transferred to another state house that meets their needs.
               Families wishing to move into a private rental property or buy their own home, will be offered advice and support to do so.

               So costs are covered, alternative housing has been offered to those affected.
               • Adele …

                 14 November 2011 at 5:35 am

                 Bazar,

                 Generally when a government agency offers “advice and support” it usually means a pamphlet and a list of NGO social sector agencies to call upon. Not only is this forced eviction detrimental to the lives of the families concerned it also has a serious impact on community cohesion as a whole,

                 Glen Innes has been ignored by politicians mai ranoo, yet the people living there have managed to establish for themselves a relatively stable and secure environment surrounded by friends built up over many years.

                 Now that land values have increased tenfold – Glen Innes is being systematically gentrified – bleached white and superficialised. The brown and poor being pushed further into the margins and away from eyes easily scandalised.

                 The policy of pepper-potting the brown and poor throughout neighbourhoods is a crap policy on many levels. The brown and poor remain stigmatised – the neighbourhood viewing then as corrupting of their sons, daughters, and property values. At the same time the pepper-potted are isolated from their own communities – based either in culture, ethnicity, socio-economic cirmcumstance and non-judgement.

                 The current politicians and policy makers are only looking at the dollar value of their decisions and not on the social impacts caused by their myopic view points.
       • anne 1.2.1.4

         13 November 2011 at 7:12 pm

         Read article 25 and article 30 of the the universal declaration of human rights of the United Nations,these houses are being sold with a view of building new ones for capital gains for key and his mates and business interests as this is typical national style politics.Key’s govt is negligent in social policy and economic policy and also light on the real truth of what they intend to do with regards to all of their policies.
2. Treetop 2

   12 November 2011 at 6:18 pm

   Not surprised one bit as National are unable to comprehend what is and what makes a community. Too removed from the real world of those on struggle street. Not good to put stress on students at exam time either. I heard some comments from children on the news item re Glen Innes.
3. Uturn 3

   12 November 2011 at 6:20 pm

   Government set to sell assests owned by the nation to subsidise the rich.

   Nation angry they don’t get to veto the government’s decision, even though their assest to decide.

   So remind me what this artical is about.
   That the government might be self seeking in the long term, or that its not cow toeing to the electorate who think its their nation for life, when its owned by them?
   • prism 3.1

     12 November 2011 at 8:11 pm

     Uturn
     If you are quoting Bazar why don’t you put quote marks? Just put blockquote with less and greater than brackets around quote at beginning and end with a forward slash in front at end.. Or are you Bazar under another name?
     • Uturn 3.1.1

       13 November 2011 at 8:30 am

       Tidy yourself, prism. Instead of asking me to explain parody, why not take 2 seconds to read the time each post was submitted. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that someone who frequents this blog could mistake me as anyone close to the personality behind BAZAR.
       • prism 3.1.1.1

         13 November 2011 at 7:36 pm

         U-turn – Why don’t you just use the blockquotes as I suggested and save your time making a meaningless hostile reply. Repeating what someone else said with a tag line at the end doesn’t seem like parody to me, merely parroting.
       • prism 3.1.1.2

         14 November 2011 at 9:36 am

         Uturn I have taken the time to look when the comments were submitted Bazar was first at 6.12 pm on 12 November, yours followed at 6.20 pm on 12 November. What’s your point? You repeated what he said without blockquotes, and then added your own thoughts. I think you could make your comment clearer by following the usual editing practices. That’s all.
4. George D 4

   12 November 2011 at 6:47 pm

   And the media got so precious about it last time – they even found one person who was upset. The game is ridiculous, the effects certainly aren’t.
5. infused 5

   12 November 2011 at 6:56 pm

   “Moepai Temata said she and her husband Michael had lived in their home for 47 years.”

   Uhhh, time to move out? Like maybe 30 years ago?

   “Mrs Temata said: “We raised five children underneath that roof, 14 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.”

   And I bet she never worked in that 47 years either.

   Can’t wait for National to clamp down on this shit. Lets keep pumping out kids, keep the bennie and state house.
   • millsy 5.1

     12 November 2011 at 7:12 pm

     So you would have them struggle in the private rental market, having to pay 70% of their income in rent and having to move every few months.

     People deserve some sort of security in where they live and a decent roof over their head. Fuckheads like you want them to live in a cardboard box.
     • Hami Shearlie 5.1.1

       12 November 2011 at 11:48 pm

       Check Red Alert to see what Carmel Sepuloni says about the candidates meeting in Waitakere! Nat supporters in Nat t-shirts are reported to have said some pretty vile things about some poor people, calling them rats! Paula must be livid! Image-wise, it’s awful for the Nats!
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 5.2

     12 November 2011 at 7:18 pm

     All those unemployed great grandmothers out there- get a job!!
   • Tombstone 5.3

     12 November 2011 at 7:29 pm

     A bit like the rest of us getting sick to death of the rich bastards fleecing everyone else but that’s ok isn’t it because rich bastards work hard and therefore have earned the right to fuck everyone else over eh?
   • prism 5.4

     12 November 2011 at 8:17 pm

     Infused

     And I bet she never worked in that 47 years either.

     You obviously don’t do much housework and had to care and cook and clean for five children till they grew up on $20,000 a year or whatever the lady has had to manage on. And then helped with 14 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. You sure are a little jerk. There isn’t more important work than raising children to be able to manage in the mean society that you want to spread.. Many income earners are actually destructive to society.
     • infused 5.4.1

       13 November 2011 at 12:52 pm

       Funny, I do actually as the sole earner of my family, paying a mortgage. So cry me a river.
       • millsy 5.4.1.1

         13 November 2011 at 1:21 pm

         Do you want the poor to live out on the street. Yes, or no.
6. Zaphod Beeblebrox 6

   12 November 2011 at 7:20 pm

   Hey great views of the river and Rangitoto- when can I put down a deposit for my 700K yuppy villa?
7. Hilary 7

   12 November 2011 at 8:17 pm

   There is a similar scorched earth policy happening in Pomare in the Hutt Valley. State houses being bulldozed and tennants displaced. It is very unsettling particularly for the children of some of our poorest families.

   If only we could have a change of values and realise that the most important job in the world is caring for children, and then we would view policies as to how they can nurture children not make life harder for them and their parents. That is what Labour’s children’s policy is based on but it is too daring for many people who find it easier to blame.
   • Matilda 7.1

     12 November 2011 at 11:25 pm

     The state houses in Pomare that are being bulldozed were in dire need of being pulled down. They were in appalling condition. All the tenants have been offered relocation and yes, that does include the many gang families that reside there ( and in many cases ) terrify the neighbourhood. I think that the care of many of the affected children is unfortunately, the last thing on their families minds.
     • gareth 7.1.1

       13 November 2011 at 9:41 am

       Too right, the houses in Pomare were/are terrible, they are very cold and damp concrete block and weather board construction. They cost a fortune to heat and as the residents can’t afford the power they just stay cold, hardly something to bring up kids in. I suggest you take a look at the new ones in naenae, all insulated with solar hotwater. Much better all round and a standard we should be looking to get all state houses to.
       • Matilda 7.1.1.1

         13 November 2011 at 4:23 pm

         Agreed, the new state houses in Naenae are great, and many streets in Porirua are also benefitting from having/had new state houses built there.
         As for the unsettling time for the children in the affected properties, more unsettling i would have thought, would be living in close proximity to the murder that happenend there about 8 weeks ago. A young father walking home, was allegedly killed by a gang prospect. I would have thought that most sane people would be more that happy to be relocated out of that area,for their safety and for the sake of their children. But as I said previously , the needs of the children of these families are not a priority. Sad but true.
         • Adele 7.1.1.1.1

           14 November 2011 at 5:45 am

           Matilda

           How judgmental can you be? We don’t know the circumstances of these families lives nor can we assume that because they choose not to relocate that makes them bad parents or un-concerned for the welfare of their children. Pull your head in.
8. tc 8

   12 November 2011 at 8:40 pm

   See why heatley had to bought back after his time on the naughty step, had a real important job to do…mmmm property mmmm.
9. Irascible 9

   12 November 2011 at 10:57 pm

   Isn’t good to see Paul Holmes demonstrating what we all knew but hadn’t had confirmed till now that he is a completely biased, brought out troll employed by the NACTional party. He should not be allowed anywhere near a microphone or TV camera until after the election when he can be let out to Rupert Murdoch and posted to a remote radio station in the outback.
   • Hami Shearlie 9.1

     12 November 2011 at 11:52 pm

     It sure shows Paul Holmes’ lack of integrity. Obviously he lives his own life this way, telling Heatley to “just keep the truth from coming out till after the election! Then clobber the tenants with the “get out” letters”!
   • tc 9.2

     13 November 2011 at 8:23 am

     Holmes, mediawonks etc are simply extensions of the NACT PR machine…..Holmes was never a credible journo……cheeky darky anybody.
10. Bill 10

    13 November 2011 at 9:07 am

    So….

    occupy

    🙂
11. anne 11

    13 November 2011 at 6:19 pm

    I have a post in the ‘creating opportunities’ section it is a copy of the universal declaration
    of the human rights from the United Nations,Article 25,sections 1 & 2. Article 30 which
    shows that National are in breach of the United Nations declaration on Human Rights not only in their welfare policy but also their other policies.
12. In Vino Veritas 12

    15 November 2011 at 8:47 am

    “In 2005 Labour wrote to State House tenants with a warning “Don’t let National sell your house.” ”

    The really funny thing about this is, the houses are not theirs and Labour are only propounding the fallacy that they are for political gain. They are only tenants in houses owned by me and other NZ taxpayers.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS