Auckland: Stop Niki’s Eviction!

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, February 15th, 2017 - 82 comments
Categories: class war, housing, human rights, poverty - Tags: , ,

The Tāmaki Redevelopment Company is going back to court to evict Niki Rauti from her home of over 20 years. Time to take action against the destruction of communities and privatisation of social housing.

Here’s what’s happening and what you can do:

  • 18 February: attend the community meeting at Glen Innes School and hold TRC to account
  • 19 February: Meet at Niki’s house, bring some kai and your tent
  • 21 February: Niki’s court date

Get full details and sign up to the occupation on the Facebook page.

Niki is 62. She has a heart condition. She was promised a home for life and now she’s being offered unsafe properties away from her family and community with no security of tenancy. That’s not right. That’s not Kiwi. This home is occupied!

82 comments on “Auckland: Stop Niki’s Eviction! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    15 February 2017 at 8:39 am

    The sign in the photo is quite right: let them get away with human rights abuses? Why would we do that?

    Surely the most appropriate place for public meetings is inside the TRC offices. A “spontaneous unannounced drop-in-for-a-chat” sort of meeting. With loudhailers and lengths of chain and padlocks.

    And cameras.

    Perhaps serve a few extraordinary eviction notices. Take the solution to where the problem lives.

  2. jcuknz 2
    15 February 2017 at 9:14 am

    It is ridiculous that somebody is permitted to occupy a three bedroom house when there are families waiting months to be housed. On the other hand it shows the incompetence of the housing authorities they let it happen in the first place and have not organised a one bedroom place in close proximity to friends and family. Such as a self contained granny flat adjacent to family etc.

    • grumpystilskin 2.1
      15 February 2017 at 9:23 am

      She has been offered several other options but they didn’t suit for some reason.

      • jcuknz 2.1.1
        15 February 2017 at 9:29 am

        And she is right to reject them bearing in mind her health etc.
        But OAB’s stance is as ridiculous as any I’ve read recently.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          15 February 2017 at 10:02 am

          Human rights abuses are crimes. “I was just following orders” isn’t a defence. “I was just taking advantage of the government’s human rights abuse policy” isn’t either.

          Do you support human rights and the rule of law or not?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2
      15 February 2017 at 10:06 am

      the incompetence

      I suggest you acquaint yourself with the list of recent (over the last eight years, say) appointments to the HNZ board, and ask yourself who is responsible.

    • HDCAFriendlyTroll 2.3
      15 February 2017 at 10:23 am

      I bet she wouldn’t be getting this attention if she was white and male.

      Zing.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.1
        15 February 2017 at 11:18 am

        It wouldn’t surprise me if there were demonstrable gender and ethnic biases in HNZ’s approach to its tenants, so you might be right.

      • greywarshark 2.3.2
        15 February 2017 at 12:00 pm

        HD…………..
        That’s right, switch the attention from the travesty of human rights and neglect of the human need for housing, community and support for all.

        Referring to males and being white, shows that you don’t care about looking at either this case and the regular practice. And the eternal self-centredness of many males, white and any other shade, continues. Not ever putting others first, all left until ‘I’ get my desserts, and most of everyone else’s as well. Pure selfish RW, with the careless sweaty acidic pungent male pheromone over all.

    • Red Hand 2.4
      15 February 2017 at 6:48 pm

      Tell that to the decile 10 couples and singles whose children have left home. Some will have inherited the right to occupy their three bedroom plus house directly or as beneficiaries of a private trust. Nicki Rauti is in a similar position as a beneficiary, in her case, of a house and income provided, not by a private trust but by the state in the interests of social wellbeing.

  3. Bob 3
    15 February 2017 at 9:57 am

    I notice that nowhere in this post does it mention that she is holding up the addition of 104 houses to the Auckland housing market (154 being developed into 260). Nor does it mention that the funds raised from sale of properties in this development, are being used to increase the overall number of state houses in Auckland, with new houses, not the old, cold damp houses like the ones currently available:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tdGug3V66YgJ:www.hnzc.co.nz/about-our-properties/our-developments/auckland/northern-glen-innes-redevelopment/faqs-about-the-glen-innes-redevelopment/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

    Isn’t this exactly what so many of you are asking to have happen? Increase social housing numbers, get rid of cold damp social houses, increase housing density…just don’t put anyone out while you are doing it???

    • weka 3.1
      15 February 2017 at 10:47 am

      Don’t destroy communities.

      And fuck off with commercial profit-driven models that are designed to treat humans as stock units.

      How’s that for a summary of what we want?

      • Antoine 3.1.1
        15 February 2017 at 11:54 am

        To be clear, Weka, you are saying that social housing should not be profit-driven – rather than talking about housing more generally or the economy at large?

        A.

      • Bob 3.1.2
        15 February 2017 at 12:14 pm

        “Don’t destroy communities.”
        Fuck off with your emotive bullshit, this is creating a community! Removing massive wastes of space, such as individuals living on 1/4 acre sections, and replacing these with townhouses and parks where communities gather and share the space, rather than hide in their own backyards.

        “And fuck off with commercial profit-driven models that are designed to treat humans as stock units.”
        You mean like the one your beloved Green Party is proposing? https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/fairer-society/homes-not-cars
        Or is it different when they do it?

        • Antoine 3.1.2.1
          15 February 2017 at 12:32 pm

          Not necessarily disagreeing with you Bob, but How is the proposed Green Party approach profit-driven?

          When they allow Housing NZ to retain its dividend, that seems to me to be moving to a non-profit basis.

          A.

          • weka 3.1.2.1.1
            15 February 2017 at 12:40 pm

            The profit-driven model from National is in them selling state houses and selling some of them to private organisations that will require a dividend.

            • Bob 3.1.2.1.1.1
              15 February 2017 at 1:03 pm

              Again, you miss the part where they are using the profit from the sales to increase state housing across Auckland “This will mean a reduction in the number of state houses in the project area, however Housing New Zealand has plans to increase the total number of state houses across Auckland over the next five years to meet demand for housing from those in greatest need.”, ” based on current demand forecasts across the broader Auckland area, we anticipate an overall increase of the number of state homes across the city by around 1400 over the next five years to meet demand.”

              Of course that doesn’t fit your narrative so…

              • lprent …
                15 February 2017 at 1:23 pm

                The problem is that I haven’t seen any sign of it happening. What I see is housing being sold off and very little new stuff going in. Now of course there is a lag time. However they have been selling for nearly 8 years now and as far as I can see the housing corp housing stock is still falling.

                Now the ‘story’ from National has shifted to ‘social housing is coming from sources other than housing corp’. The problem is that doesn’t appear to be happening. Few reliable organisations have taken up the social housing, and the ones who have appear to have insufficient resources to do anything.

                For example the housing corp houses that were shifted to Northland from Glen Innes are (as far as I am aware) simply rotting away because the trust that took them doesn’t have the money to either site them or furbish them.

                So I simply think that National are lying. If they want to show some evidence that there is actually social housing going in, then they need to show some verifiable facts and statistics rather than just telling fools like you what lies that want you to repeat today.

          • Bob 3.1.2.1.2
            15 February 2017 at 12:56 pm

            That dividend is derived from profit, so no profit no increase in funding.
            That seems pretty profit driven to me.

            • Antoine 3.1.2.1.2.1
              15 February 2017 at 12:59 pm

              Well I suppose so, in the trivial sense that HNZ is still required to be self funding

            • weka 3.1.2.1.2.2
              15 February 2017 at 1:03 pm

              “That dividend is derived from profit, so no profit no increase in funding.
              That seems pretty profit driven to me.”

              There are two commonly understood meanings of profit. One is the amount of money left over after overheads are paid. This money can be put back into the business. The other is money that is inherently taken out of the system for other reasons e.g. to pay dividends or make someone rich. It is money over and above what is needed to run the system.

              National want the second. The Greens want the first, at least for a while. It’s pretty obvious from my original point that I was referring to the second when I criticised a profit-driven model at the expense of humans. As I’m sure you know full well.

              • Bob …
                15 February 2017 at 1:09 pm

                Either way, there is no dividend without profit, that profit is taken directly from the pockets of the HNZ tenants. You do realise that National don’t pocket that money themselves don’t you??? The “rich” that you speak of (emotively…again) above are the likes of Teachers, Doctors, Nurses, Police etc. who get paid out of taxes and dividends paid to the Government.
                They are both exactly the same thing with the money going to different Government funded programs, the only difference is in your own mind.

                • weka …
                  15 February 2017 at 1:27 pm

                  Mate, you’re the one putting scare quotes around words, might want to check your own emotion.

                  You’ve basically sidestepped my point. Yes, HNZ tenants pay rent. And yes, they pay enough that HNZ makes more money than it needs to run the department and services. But there is still a difference between taking that extra money and putting it back into the services for vulnerable NZers, and taking that money and using it to fund other parts of govt.

                  If a progressive govt wanted to address rent rates and the whole HNZ set up, I’d support that, but it’s not something I wold expect a first term govt to do. It would be something that would have to be done over the long term and taking into account a much bigger picture. So I don’t have a problem with the GP policy as such, and I will just point out again that in the context of my original point there are obvious differences between the GP and National. You implied there wasn’t. You’re wrong.

                  “The “rich” that you speak of (emotively…again) above are the likes of Teachers, Doctors, Nurses, Police etc. who get paid out of taxes and dividends paid to the Government.”

                  Nope. The rich I literally spoke of were people working in the private sector who expect a business to generate increasing capital for them personally. I gave that example to show the difference between the two kinds of profit. If you want to apply it to govt, it’s not teachers etc, it’s the irrigation companies, or the private companies running home help services, where the directors/CEOs are getting paid big bucks to do what the govt should be doing for much less cost. It’s not really my field, but the govt does try and run govt as a business and that includes money going into private hands i.e. profit-driven.

                  If the govt can’t run the country, including paying teachers, without fucking over poor communities, then it’s incompetent and needs to hand over the reins to someone who can.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 February 2017 at 4:34 pm

                    the directors/CEOs are getting paid big bucks to do what the govt should be doing for much less cost.

                    ^^^this.

                    Public service is not an enterprise.

        • weka 3.1.2.2
          15 February 2017 at 12:38 pm

          Communities aren’t made of infrastructure, they’re made of the relationships between people. We can see that in some of the most functional communities in the world that have third world infrastructure. You idea is treating humans as stock units. You can think they can just be shifted around so long as they’re fed, watered, and sheltered.

          “Or is it different when they do it?”

          Of course. Because they start from an ideological base that is ethical not monetarily driven. The reason why there is a state house housing crisis in Auckland is because the National govt is incompetent at running its own departments. Or it deliberately monkey wrenched HNZ. Probably both. The Greens want to do it substantially differently from what National are doing.

          I suggest you read the whole policy. What the Greens want to do is create state housing for people, not sell off state housing to private organisations to make money from. They’re also suggesting that the HNZ dividend goes into building more state houses instead of National’s the govt’s coffers.

          If the Greens also suggest evicting people from their communities so that money can be made, I’d like to see evidence of that, and then I will speak out against that too.

          • Antoine 3.1.2.2.1
            15 February 2017 at 12:53 pm

            You appreciate that foregoing the HNZ dividend will require higher taxes, more public debt, or less spending somewhere else?

            Also that stopping the sale of some social housing will remove one of the main funding sources for construction of new social housing?

            Further, if “the National govt is incompetent at running its own departments”, then how can we have confidence that the housing Minister under a Labour-Green government would be more competent? Like, who would it be?

            A.

            • Bob 3.1.2.2.1.1
              15 February 2017 at 1:14 pm

              Exactly, thank you Antoine.

            • weka 3.1.2.2.1.2
              15 February 2017 at 1:16 pm

              I have no problem with higher taxation on the top level incomes. Or a FTT. Or whatever. We don’t actually have a shortage of wealth in NZ.

              I also don’t have a problem with spending less in some other areas. Haven’t looked a where but subsidising diary farmers would probably be my first stop.

              I don’t support increasing public debt.

              “Also that stopping the sale of some social housing will remove one of the main funding sources for construction of new social housing?”

              Is that because the houses/land are worth so much now that it’s better to sell them and build somewhere cheaper? If so, that’s fucked up because it’s throwing petrol on the housing market fire.

              If it’s because the houses are run down, I still don’t buy it. Better to repair. Or is there a reason that existing communities can’t have their housing replace in situ?

              Further, if “the National govt is incompetent at running its own departments”, then how can we have confidence that the housing Minister under a Labour-Green government would be more competent? Like, who would it be?

              Which Minister? No idea. Personally I’d put the Greens in charge of everything, because they are the most competent at bringing in new people, and because their ideology is most based in ethics. HNZ should be the experts in this, so I would guess that restoring the culture there would be important. No idea how possible that is tbh, and it’s not just HNZ, many govt departments need substantial fixing.

              • Antoine …
                15 February 2017 at 1:24 pm

                > I have no problem with higher taxation on the top level incomes.

                Fair enough, that’s a straight answer

                >> “Also that stopping the sale of some social housing will remove one of the main funding sources for construction of new social housing?”
                > Is that because the houses/land are worth so much now that it’s better to sell them and build somewhere cheaper? If so, that’s fucked up because it’s throwing petrol on the housing market fire.
                > If it’s because the houses are run down, I still don’t buy it. Better to repair. Or is there a reason that existing communities can’t have their housing replace in situ?

                OK, so now you are coming to grips with the underlying approach of ‘selling some social housing to build new social housing’. At the end of the day you may not agree with it, but if we want to have an informed discussion I think we need to understand it.

                By the way, I think you are saying that selling state houses in expensive areas (like Auckland) will tend to raise house prices in those areas (your “throwing petrol on the housing market fire”). One would expect, if anything, that increasing the amount of properties available for sale would drive the price down. More supply -> lower price.

                > Personally I’d put the Greens in charge of everything

                Aha, yes, I think Andrew Little may have a different approach in mind.

                > because they are the most competent at bringing in new people

                wut? Please explain

                A.

                • weka …
                  15 February 2017 at 1:44 pm

                  “OK, so now you are coming to grips with the underlying approach of ‘selling some social housing to build new social housing’. At the end of the day you may not agree with it, but if we want to have an informed discussion I think we need to understand it.”

                  I agree. I don’t fully understand what National are trying to do, every time I look at it it just seems daft and falls into a predictable pattern of profit-driven ethics that we’ve seen in so many other parts of govt that end up failing the people that need the actual help. But see Lynn’s point below. If you believe that line that Niki’s house has to be sold in order to build other houses elsewhere, please show how that is working.

                  “By the way, I think you are saying that selling state houses in expensive areas (like Auckland) will tend to raise house prices in those areas (your “throwing petrol on the housing market fire”). One would expect, if anything, that increasing the amount of properties available for sale would drive the price down. More supply -> lower price.”

                  Yeah, that’s someone’s theory. More supply equalling lower price only works in a situation where you have actual more supply. That’s never going to be the case in Auckland. Me, I think the housing market crisis in NZ is a runaway train and the only thing that will stop it is a major GFC, or substantial government intervention. In the meantime, the govt selling houses at the highest price they can get is the petrol. Sorry for the mangled metaphors there.

                  “> Personally I’d put the Greens in charge of everything

                  Aha, yes, I think Andrew Little may have a different approach in mind.”

                  True, but you did ask me what I thought would work 🙂 (I actually think we should hand the whole country over to the kuia to run).

                  “> because they are the most competent at bringing in new people

                  wut? Please explain”

                  There’s a commonly held belief that the Greens have some of the most competent MPs in parliament. Even some on the right think this. They seem to be very good at bringing through the best people. They don’t have to rely on a Willie Jackson or Greg O’Connor for instance. Have a look at their selection process currently.

                  This is because they’re so clear in their ethics and values, but I think it’s also because the culture within the Greens is around valuing people. When you want change not power, things play out differently. So I *would trust them to know how to bring in the right people to say remedy the monkey wrenching of HNZ.

                  • Antoine …
                    15 February 2017 at 1:54 pm

                    > If you believe that line that Niki’s house has to be sold in order to build other houses elsewhere, please show how that is working.

                    Well, hold on, if you’re going to personalise it to Niki’s specific situation, then it’s more about progressing the Glen Innes redevelopment project (see Bob’s link above) than about needing money.

                    (Disclaimer, I have never lived in Auckland and have no idea where Glen Innes is)

                    > More supply equalling lower price only works in a situation where you have actual more supply

                    Right, so when you take a house that is not on the market, and you put it on the market, then you increase the amount of supply _on the market_ which should lower prices.

                    (However I don’t know enough about the HNZ sale process to know whether this is the case. If HNZ stock is being sold in bulk through a tender process then it may not really affect the price of the normal market at all)

                    > I think the housing market crisis in NZ is a runaway train and the only thing that will stop it is a major GFC, or substantial government intervention

                    We don’t have a housing market crisis in NZ, we have a crisis in Auckland. When you say “stop the crisis”, do you mean “lower the price of houses”? If so my observation would be that bubbles are quite capable of bursting themselves from time to time.

                    > There’s a commonly held belief that the Greens have some of the most competent MPs in parliament. Even some on the right think this.

                    To whom do you refer?

                    I think JA Genter is pretty good on the transport side for example

                    A.

                    • weka …
                      15 February 2017 at 2:19 pm

                      “> If you believe that line that Niki’s house has to be sold in order to build other houses elsewhere, please show how that is working.

                      Well, hold on, if you’re going to personalise it to Niki’s specific situation, then it’s more about progressing the Glen Innes redevelopment project (see Bob’s link above) than about needing money.”

                      Not sure what you are trying to say there. All state houses that have people in living in them have people with names. If it’s not Niki, it will be someone else. Not all people being moved will be harmed by the eviction but some will be. Of course it’s personal, that’s the point. We shouldn’t be treated tenants as stock units.

                      > More supply equalling lower price only works in a situation where you have actual more supply

                      Right, so when you take a house that is not on the market, and you put it on the market, then you increase the amount of supply _on the market_ which should lower prices.

                      (However I don’t know enough about the HNZ sale process to know whether this is the case. If HNZ stock is being sold in bulk through a tender process then it may not really affect the price of the normal market at all)

                      Can you give some examples in NZ of where house prices have lowered? Supply is only increased if it outstrips demand. That’s not what’s happening. There are people in Auckland being advised to leave second houses empty, wait a year or so and then sell them, because the money made on the increase in value is more than they would get any other way. Your theory is far too abstract for what is actually happening on the ground.

                      > I think the housing market crisis in NZ is a runaway train and the only thing that will stop it is a major GFC, or substantial government intervention

                      We don’t have a housing market crisis in NZ, we have a crisis in Auckland. When you say “stop the crisis”, do you mean “lower the price of houses”? If so my observation would be that bubbles are quite capable of bursting themselves from time to time

                      In the South Island there is a housing crisis in Nelson, Queenstown Lakes and Chch. I would expect it’s happening on other places too. A beneficiary could buy a house in NZ in the 80s and early 90s. Much more difficult now except in a few places where prices are still low. That’s a crisis in the market, across the country.

                      Again, when in NZ have house prices dropped?

                      > There’s a commonly held belief that the Greens have some of the most competent MPs in parliament. Even some on the right think this.

                      To whom do you refer?

                      I think JA Genter is pretty good on the transport side for example

                      Across the board (with a few exceptions). Myself I rate Genter too, Davidson, Turei, Shaw, Logie, Delahunty.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 February 2017 at 2:21 pm

                      Purely on the face of it I have difficulty understanding why or how a quarter acre section can stop 104 extra dwellings.

                      Unless they’re planning a tower block, it’s not like everything needs to be built at once. From a purely development perspective, wait another ten or twenty years and she’ll be in a home or dead. Exercising a little patience and humanity isn’t going to be the difference between an end to the auckland housing crisis and its continuation.

                    • Antoine …
                      15 February 2017 at 2:23 pm

                      > In the South Island there is a housing crisis in Nelson, Queenstown Lakes and Chch. I would expect it’s happening on other places too.

                      Uh yeah, I don’t mean to make light of the ChCh situation and of course the Queenstown area is going through a lot of change.

                      > A beneficiary could buy a house in NZ in the 80s and early 90s.

                      Are you sure that is right? (I wasn’t a beneficiary in NZ in the early 90s so don’t know)

                      A.

                    • Antoine …
                      15 February 2017 at 2:24 pm

                      > Purely on the face of it I have difficulty understanding why or how a quarter acre section can stop 104 extra dwellings.

                      I don’t know anything about the planned development so can’t comment, perhaps someone who knows more can chip in

                      A.

                    • weka …
                      15 February 2017 at 2:50 pm

                      Yes. I bought a house in the early 90s, couldn’t do that now. I also know many beneficiaries that bought houses in the 80s and early 90s. The govt even had a scheme in the 80s where if you had kids you could capitalise your family benefit to help with the deposit.

                    • mac1 …
                      15 February 2017 at 10:18 pm

                      To Antoine about beneficiaries being able to buy a house.

                      A woman I knew in the Seventies was able to buy a small and modest house as a solo mother with two childen, deserted by her husband. She was the first to take up the 72-75 Labour governments’ capitalisation of the family benefit, with Roger Douglas as Minister. The amount she had to find was contributed by her MP, who gave her the money under what terms I do not know, but without having met her in person!

                      She was then able to live in her own house and find her way into the work force as a teacher after studying and contribute back as a tax payer.

                      That was a compassionate and caring government, with policies that worked, and with one MP, still alive, who has had my hugest respect since then.

                  • Antoine …
                    15 February 2017 at 2:53 pm

                    Huh interesting.

                    Presumably the reduction in benefits hasn’t helped?

                    Would a bank even agree to make a home loan to a beneficiary in this day and age?

                    A.

                • Antoine …
                  15 February 2017 at 1:44 pm

                  > Personally I’d put the Greens in charge of everything

                  Afterthought, is there any Labour MP (or candidate) who you think would make a good Minister in a left-leaning Government? Who do you rate?

                  A.

                  • weka …
                    15 February 2017 at 2:05 pm

                    I like Little, and think he will make a good PM. Carmel Sepuloni and Kelvin Davis seem good in their areas. I don’t follow Labour MPs that much so don’t know about potential Ministerial competence.

                • weka …
                  15 February 2017 at 1:48 pm

                  I wasn’t pitting one party against another, I was saying that in an ideal world the Greens would be government.

                  • Antoine …
                    15 February 2017 at 1:55 pm

                    With Labour as a coalition partner? Do you think that would add value? What about other parties, Mana, MP etc?

                    A.

                    • weka …
                      15 February 2017 at 2:07 pm

                      I was talking ideally. In the real world, I think L/G or G/L is good for now. I had hoped that the Mp would support a left govt, no idea if that’s possible now. I rate Harawira and wish that Sykes was in parliament. As a party I suspect that Mana have had their day, but am open to being wrong. I hope lefties don’t waste their party vote there this election though.

                      In principle I support more diversity of parties not less.

            • lprent 3.1.2.2.1.3
              15 February 2017 at 1:26 pm

              Ok. Show me the thousands of new social housing that should have come over the last 8 years since National started selling it off again.

              Until you can point to some substantive details, I will assume that both you and National are simply lying. Because I know of only a teeny fraction of replacement social housing stock that is in use as social housing.

              • Antoine …
                15 February 2017 at 1:37 pm

                ‘Lying’ is a harsh word dude, I’m just a seeker for truth like the rest of us.

                I’m looking at http://www.hnzc.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Annual-Report-2016.pdf now and it shows 871 new HNZ homes in the year to 2016 as well as a large expenditure on maintaining and repairing homes (much of this in Canterbury). It also refers to “the rapidly accelerating pace
                of our redevelopment activity” which suggests more in the pipeline…

                A.

                • Siobhan …
                  15 February 2017 at 2:05 pm

                  871? Do you not realise what a ridiculously small number that is.
                  For some perspective..

                  there are around 4000+ house sales a month in NZ.

                  A flat in Wellington received almost 100 inquiries within hours of being listed, and 350 inquiries in a week

                  You can fit 800 houses on a 18 hectare block of land. http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11628888

                  Dr Smith ” noted that Housing New Zealand sold between 100 and 200 state houses on the open market every year.”

                  • Antoine …
                    15 February 2017 at 2:08 pm

                    Yeah we need to see some of that fabled acceleration fairly soon huh?

                    A.

                  • Antoine …
                    15 February 2017 at 2:11 pm

                    That 871 number, I wonder what it would have been with (a) no bulk sales of HNZ stock and (b) no HNZ dividend? More or less? Interesting to speculate…

                    A.

              • beatie …
                16 February 2017 at 8:55 pm

                In 1984 myself, hubbie and baby were able to get a WCC bedsitter. when baby was 1 we got a HC unit in Tawa. Then we got A HC Homestart loan which paid for the deposit on a (very) modest house in Porirua. Many years later after a marriage break-up, I had enough to buy a cheap (with a fabulous view) on the West Coast. If I had been renting all these years i would be totally impoverished. As a disabled person with limited means, having my own house is GOLD. Despite the maintenance, I can have pets, grow a long-term garden and be a part of my community. I am so sorry for my kids who have to live is crappy. cold, damp rentals.

      • Brutus Iscariot 3.1.3
        15 February 2017 at 1:04 pm

        What about need-driven?

      • JamieB 3.1.4
        16 February 2017 at 2:28 pm

        Do you also agree with the sentiment of don’t destroy the community of Auckland’s leafy suburbs with higher intensity and apartment buildings?

        NIMBYism comes in many forms it seems.

    • Molly 3.2
      15 February 2017 at 12:44 pm

      If you honestly believe that is what the result will be then you having been watching. Regardless of what they say they will do – the sale of state housing, does not usually result in the provision of more housing in that area for those communities. If ever.

      State tenants are entitled to security of tenancy, as are we all.

      This kind of “re-development” changes whole communities, and disrupts existsing support systems – many of which reduce the reliance on other state services.

      I believe that security of affordable, healthy homes in connected communities must be a priority for any NZers.

      Unless this is achieved, transience in communities and fear of loss of the same impact in many negative ways in our society, and cost us not only in lost opportunities but in quantifiable social and environmental costs as well.

    • jcuknz 3.3
      15 February 2017 at 2:01 pm

      Sorry Bob [3] but there is an alternative way …. by building extra stock along side existing houses THEN demolishing the older house …. but of course that requires extra capital. I gather this is what is being urged for existing homes of large Auckland properties. I have done this twice now, first the family house and my current place and dotted around you will find others doing it as they redevelop older parts of the city.

  4. jcuknz 4
    15 February 2017 at 1:29 pm

    I come back to my original point that this is grossly inefficient use of OUR resources. remembering that state houses do not belong to some nebulous entity but rather all NZders and funded by us, even though some are paying for the less fortunate or self reliant while building and/or owning their own property.

    A basic point I made here months ago of my belief that everybody who wants a state house should have one meeting their own needs …. hence my suggestion above for a granny flat within the persons social group. Not a three bedroom family home. I also noted from the photo that access is by steps, not ideal for somebody with a heart condition. Even a ramp can be a problem as we get older as I know from personal experience.

    To me this is a common sense meld of responsibility to the community and social justice. sadly missing by both sides of this dispute.

    .

    • weka 4.1
      15 February 2017 at 3:36 pm

      Pretty hard to argue for community responsibility when you are about to be evicted. I agree with your general points, but I think the onus is on the govt to manage HNZ in a social justice context, not for those of us that support Niki not being evicted to find impossible solutions for her.

      btw, I don’t know if a granny flat is the best solution for her. Maybe she needs a spare room or two for family to stay in? I get where you are coming from, and I would add that each situation needs to be judged individually and according to compassion as much as rationalisation.

      • Brutus Iscariot 4.1.1
        15 February 2017 at 4:28 pm

        And I need a swimming pool and garage workshop…

        What you’re basically doing is granting her extra rights over and above those enjoyed by the rest of us, simply due to the fact that she can’t support herself.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1
          15 February 2017 at 4:42 pm

          No. She has the same human rights to housing as everyone else. You cannot support yourself either:

          Your education was paid for before you were born. Since you’ve been earning you’ve contributed to physical and (well before you were earning) social infrastructure. Thanks for that. Be proud of it rather than whining.

          And stop pretending that you are an island. Support comes in many forms.

      • jcuknz 4.1.2
        16 February 2017 at 9:06 am

        I hope that Nicki is not in the hotel business at our expense …. I remember this was the excuse of another state tenant ‘needing’ three bedrooms awhile back.

        Living in a small house my way of repaying previous hospitality by family visitors was to organize and pay for a motel for them …. previously I had given up my bed and slept on a home made thing upstairs but with age [for comfort] I gave that away a couple of years ago.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2
      15 February 2017 at 4:07 pm

      What’s missing from this situation is compassion. The sort of compassion that comes from public service, as opposed to being an employee of a “state-owned-enterprise“.

      Words matter. The SOE model is broken and killing it would be an act of mercy.

      • jcuknz 4.2.1
        16 February 2017 at 9:12 am

        What is missing is also responsibility in return for a responsible society providing housing for you. One person one bedroom is answering ‘need’ but friends/family is beyond need.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1
          16 February 2017 at 12:25 pm

          Of course, the absence of compassion isn’t enough for some; they need judgement and blame to feel good about themselves, seemingly oblivious to the extra contempt they earn thereby.

  5. Siobhan 5
    15 February 2017 at 3:03 pm

    “Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.”

    “Property comes bound with duty. It must also be used to serve the public good.”

    I wonder if ‘public good’ is even a ‘thing’ with National? Or is it just about serving the immediate perception of ‘good’ of their voters??

    • jcuknz 5.1
      15 February 2017 at 3:26 pm

      Bearing in mind that both left and right wing folk own houses that is a pretty pointless comment Siobhan. It just shows the tax system is skewed and proper super levels along with tax on gains from property would be a better solution. but perhaps I am biased since when I was in position to join the multiple property owning clique I choose not to feed bank profits. [ not the reason at the time]
      Viewing the video I see I was wrong about ‘the step access’ but better is to have house closer to surrounding ground level. I would struggle with that ramp.

      • Siobhan 5.1.1
        15 February 2017 at 4:09 pm

        Actually I was going to include Labour in my comment…but I’ve been banging on about Labours being basically hijacked by the home owning and Landlord classes for so long I thought I better give it a rest.

        The comment was aimed at landlords (in this case the Government as Landlord…but private as well), not home owners.
        So, nope, not a pointless comment. And certainly not considered pointless in Germany, which could teach us a thing or two about how to arrange the laws around Rental accommodation.

  6. McFlock 6
    15 February 2017 at 4:42 pm

    Actually, by Bob’s link she’s “holding up” development of one house in addition to her own, if hers is one of the houses marked for subdivision.

    what a pointless exercise in dickish behaviour by HNZ.

    • Bob 6.1
      15 February 2017 at 5:13 pm

      Is her property on the very outskirt of the development? No proposed roads / water / power / fibre needs to be run through that property?
      Thanks for clearing that up McFlock, I hadn’t seen the full subdivision plans.

      I hope she won’t be too put out by having heavy machinery working right up to her boundary?

      As for you comment above “from a purely development perspective, wait another ten or twenty years and she’ll be in a home or dead”
      So your solution is to hold back the development of land that could hold 260 houses for 20 years so you can wait for one person to pass away?
      I really do wonder about your logic some times McFlock, you do realise that there is a housing shortage and no-one (apart from Ports of Auckland) is making new land!
      Would you have 259 families sleep in cars for 20 years, or would you do a half arsed development around existing stock rather than relocate one person and do the whole development properly?

      • McFlock 6.1.1
        15 February 2017 at 5:32 pm

        Where we dun drew the lines for the yoo-tilli-teez, we dun drew it, and we don’t ownz no erazers, eh?

        “We’d have to change the plumbing” is a stupid excuse for stupidly refusing to adapt to change that stupid idiots have been using for at least the last hundred years. For a few grand in architects’ fees HNZ could save themselves all sorts of ongoing bullshit and bad publicity. Not to mention that HNZ still have right of access to install their utilities across the property, anyway.

        Only 154 houses are being redeveloped, according to your link: 80-odd houses are being modernised or left untouched. Claiming that this one site will hold up the entire project is just plain fucked in the head.

        And if she agrees to move when the building starts, fair enough. Deal with it.

        Take your bullshit and shove it.

        • Bob 6.1.1.1
          15 February 2017 at 5:41 pm

          According to my link “The project proposes the redevelopment of 156 properties to create at least 260 new homes”
          Comprehension obviously not a strong point.

          “Not to mention that HNZ still have right of access to install their utilities across the property, anyway.”
          So stairs are out of the question, but go hard ripping the shit out of my land?

          • McFlock 6.1.1.1.1
            15 February 2017 at 10:21 pm

            lol, fair call on the numbers. The sheer enormity of your bullshit can be distracting: we’re still talking going from 1 to 1.6 residences on average per lot.

            Just to be clear, your premise that failing to evict her will “hold back the development of land that could hold 260 houses” is based on the concept that the utilities for all those homes must go through a ditch on her property, and the utilities and the road cannot possibly rerouted around it?

    • jcuknz 6.2
      16 February 2017 at 9:17 am

      There is or was a funny shaped building in Otago University as a result of a house owner refusing to move and Varsity built around it [ library building opposite Poppa’s pizza]…. likewise in Sydney I remember from years ago where the ‘new’ built around and OVER.

  7. jcuknz 7
    16 February 2017 at 2:16 pm

    I note that many are talking about HNZ when is it? or the organisation with a fancy Maori name [ TRC ] putting her out without proper and compassionate consideration for her needs.
    It simply illustrates the barreness of thinking on the subject which imagines that only a couple with children deserve a state house … a mentality which has sickened me ever since I was a tenant in the early sixties.
    The young and old NEED good housing and the government, if not staffed by dimwits, needs to look after them …Tempered by their NEEDS and pensioner flats, rather than granny-flats are needed by those who have not been fortunate, by good luck and endeavor, to own their own property …. while more youngsters would be able to make a start if not subject to rack renting extorting a large proportion of their income.

    Another subject but which impinges on this discussion and Siobhan’s comments about SOEs is a firm belief I have that if there where fewer bean-counters watching expenditure and more folk able to say “Fuck It! it is not my money, lets do something good for a change” the resulting wastage would be quite small and manageable. But then the reverse of that is what do all the sacked B-Cs do.
    Come in Soloman please …it is beyond me.