Free houses?

Written By: - Date published: 9:22 am, February 17th, 2015 - 188 comments
Categories: housing, national - Tags: , , ,

Free houses? That may be what it takes to interest charities in becoming “social housing” providers:

Trust on state houses: We won’t buy unless they’re free

A community housing provider has told the Government that it won’t buy state houses when they’re put up for sale this year unless the price is zero.

Neil Binnie of the Bays Community Housing Trust on Auckland’s North Shore told Cabinet ministers Bill English and Paula Bennett at their first consultation meeting on state-house sales that a price of zero was the only way to fund both buying houses and redeveloping them. …

The government has had much the same reception from the Salvation Army. Did they do any consultation with charities before rolling out this “social housing” policy?

188 comments on “Free houses? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Clemgeopin 1
    17 February 2015 at 9:30 am

    This right wing rogue of a government, in spite of its pretensions, is a pro wealthy, pro corporate outfit that will squeeze the less privileged as much as possible with spin, lies, deception, BS and sweet talk, and quietly work in favour of the rich, particularly because that is where their votes, lobbying, influence, interests and donations are!

    • Gosman 1.1
      17 February 2015 at 11:31 am

      Then they wouldn’t be selling them to non governmental social housing providers but to the profit driven private sector.

      Are you abke to explain to me why someone receiving subsidized housing from a non governmental source is worse for the person than if they receive it from the State? I’m sure there is some sort of logic in your objections i just don’t know what it is.

      • vto 1.1.1
        17 February 2015 at 11:35 am

        These things have been explained countless times before gosman, why do you refuse to acknowledge the reasons?

        • Gosman 1.1.1.1
          17 February 2015 at 11:50 am

          The arguments have seemed to escaped the attention of not just myself but of people like Gareth Morgan. He seems to think the only objections being put forward are ideological based. Perhaps you could help Mr Morgan and myself by articulating the reasons why the State or local authorities are better than others on all cases at supplying social housing.

      • Clemgeopin 1.1.2
        17 February 2015 at 11:54 am

        “Then they wouldn’t be selling them to non governmental social housing providers but to the profit driven private sector”

        Watch the space. See what will REALLY happen over time.

        If you think that this RW government that has run on lies, BS, expensive spin and PR on behalf of the wealthy and the corporates is honest and altruistic in its intentions and policies in favour of the less privileged, the poor, the low waged, the ordinary workers and what Key calls ‘the ‘under class’, then either you are one of the privileged or just another gullible fool.

      • aerobubble 1.1.3
        17 February 2015 at 1:50 pm

        For one the state wont squeeze itself, but can private providers.

  2. miravox 2
    17 February 2015 at 9:44 am

    The thing is…. they’ll still be houses in the wrong places (according to the rationale for disposing of them). So why would the charities want them for their clients? As far as I can see, it’s just another layer in the process of selling them on to landlords and/or developers and absolving the government of blame for them ending up in the private housing market.

    Alternatively these houses are in the right places, so why sell anyway – except for redevelopment – which the charities have no money for.

    • Gosman 2.1
      17 February 2015 at 11:32 am

      Where is the detail behind which houses will be sold? I didn’t realize that had been released.

      • vto 2.1.1
        17 February 2015 at 11:37 am

        Oh, so there is no detail behind which houses will be sold?

        That’s hilarious. Typical right wing analysis these days – just run with ideology eh

        • Gosman 2.1.1.1
          17 February 2015 at 12:15 pm

          Funny considering the objections to increasing the role of non governmental social housing providers seem to be ideologically based or on hypothetical worse case scenarios that are dreamt up.

          • vto 2.1.1.1.1
            17 February 2015 at 12:19 pm

            Nope. Based on decades of experience starting with Savage and ending with the current market failure to supply housing.

            Can you not see that what Savage started significantly benefitted NZ and that the current market failure is causing nothing but anguish and hurt for huge chunks of the population?

            Why don’t you face the proven facts?

            • English Breakfast 2.1.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2015 at 5:13 pm

              There was a huge shortage of housing in the 1940’s not long after Savage’s death, particularly in Auckland. Was Savage to blame? The current shortage in Auckland has been brewing for 10-15 years, and most certainly isn’t a failure of the market. The market will meet demand, but it cannot do so when constrained by artificial and archaic development constraints.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                17 February 2015 at 5:16 pm

                Yes, you’re absolutely right: deregulation caused the problem, and obviously the solution is more deregulation.

                You people need some new lies.

              • vto …
                18 February 2015 at 8:48 am

                English breakfast “The current shortage in Auckland has been brewing for 10-15 years, and most certainly isn’t a failure of the market. The market will meet demand, but it cannot do so when constrained by artificial and archaic development constraints.”

                Wrong wrong wrong. I realise that this is what Nick Smith says, and Bill English, but they are liars and have a completely vested interest.

                Tell me how the numbers and demographics and geography stack up if you allowed carte blanche housing anywhere within 100km of central Auckland and canned all regulation. Come on English breakfast – spell out the detail.

                SHOW ME THE MONEY !

                • English Breakfast …
                  18 February 2015 at 3:11 pm

                  Your question is somewhat self defeating. It is the market that builds all houses. The public sector doesn’t build any houses. It may commission them, but it doesn’t build them.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    18 February 2015 at 3:19 pm

                    Yes, because clients have no role in the market, eh 🙄

                    PS: your ideology hasn’t grasped that government is an expression of demand. Have you? Pfft.

                    • English Breakfast …
                      18 February 2015 at 3:26 pm

                      The Govt is a client of the market. So what? If there is less constraint, the market will build more houses. Whether for the Govt or for private clients. At the present there are too many constraints, amongst the worst of which is the current Mayor’s stupid refusal to let Auckland sprawl.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 February 2015 at 3:28 pm

                      Sprawling has worked so well, after all. 🙄

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 February 2015 at 4:41 pm

                      PS: “a client of the market”? Clients are constituent parts of a market, not some external entity.

                      For a master of the universe you sure are dim.

                    • vto …
                      18 February 2015 at 9:25 pm

                      Bullshit english breakfast.

                      Answer the question, don’t avoid it.. it is a very very simple question and it goes right to the core of your claim. Explain yourself.

                      Here is the question again;

                      “Tell me how the numbers and demographics and geography stack up if you allowed carte blanche housing anywhere within 100km of central Auckland and canned all regulation. Come on English breakfast – spell out the detail.

                      SHOW ME THE MONEY !”

                      Answer it

                    • English Breakfast …
                      19 February 2015 at 10:37 am

                      “Tell me how the numbers and demographics and geography stack up if you allowed carte blanche housing anywhere within 100km of central Auckland and canned all regulation. ”

                      Gee you’d have to cite where I actually said that. I’m not advocating carte blanche. I’m advocating letting Auckland sprawl, which is entirely sensible given the huge areas of land available North and South of Auckland to allow that to happen. The evidence? Visit Pokeno.

                    • vto …
                      20 February 2015 at 9:48 am

                      “Tell me how the numbers and demographics and geography stack up if you allowed carte blanche housing anywhere within 100km of central Auckland and canned all regulation. Come on English breakfast – spell out the detail.

                      SHOW ME THE MONEY !”

                      Swap the words “carte blanche” for “sprawl”.

                      Now, show me the money. Pokeno is a failed example – check the cost of housing there.

                      come on, break down the cost of a new house and land package and explain how this will change with sprawl and with less RMA involvement..

                      you made the claim, now back it up with detail

                      (tho I suspect you will attempt to wriggle out again)

                    • English Breakfast …
                      21 February 2015 at 7:39 pm

                      Pokeno failed???? Are you serious? The place is booming, and is a great example of how satellite towns could assist the housing issues.

                      As to sprawl, it’s simple. The further away from a city’s CBD, the generally the lower the cost of land. Let Auckland sprawl, and don’t condemn the city to suburbs of high cost boxes.

          • David 2.1.1.1.2
            17 February 2015 at 2:32 pm

            Yes, this country is having a massive ideological battle right now. Some of those people who are so wedded to their ideology they can’t see how it effects society as a whole. Can you see this Gosman? Why do you insist on acting stupid?

            • Murray Rawshark 2.1.1.1.2.1
              17 February 2015 at 3:01 pm

              He’s not acting, David. He really believes that adoration of profit is natural law and anything else is ideology.

            • English Breakfast 2.1.1.1.2.2
              17 February 2015 at 5:07 pm

              David are you suggesting private ownership of houses, indeed private ownership of any part of the social housing stocks, is somehow new or secret? Why do you suppose that only Govt. should own social housing?

              • marty mars …
                17 February 2015 at 5:27 pm

                how about to provide for the common societal good (sort of why it is called social housing) rather than private profit for fat-cat exploitative profiteers

                • McFlock …
                  17 February 2015 at 5:32 pm

                  Private enterprise has no interest, desire, or regard for a public good.

                • English Breakfast …
                  17 February 2015 at 5:37 pm

                  “how about to provide for the common societal good (sort of why it is called social housing) “…which can be perfectly adequately provided by the Govt contracting social housing from private owners. Just like they do with may other services.

                  • marty mars …
                    17 February 2015 at 6:11 pm

                    why should they contract it out if provides a societal good – it seems like you don’t think Government should provide any societal good services and that private owners can do it all – is that correct?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      17 February 2015 at 6:14 pm

                      Nah, it isn’t so much that Trash doesn’t think, more that he doesn’t question the lies he gets spoonfed.

                    • English Breakfast …
                      18 February 2015 at 8:42 am

                      “why should they contract it out if provides a societal good ”

                      Why shouldn’t they? After all that works with roading, education, banking, housing….

                      “it seems like you don’t think Government should provide any societal good services and that private owners can do it all – is that correct?”

                      No. But if the private sector can provide a service without the Govt having to fund large sums of capital outlay, then why not? It works in so many other areas of society.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 February 2015 at 8:47 am

                      “If”. 🙄

                      All you need now is somewhere in the world you can point to that supports your unoriginal delusions.

                  • McFlock …
                    17 February 2015 at 6:47 pm

                    lol yes, because all services are totes identical /sarc

                    • English Breakfast …
                      18 February 2015 at 3:15 pm

                      “All you need now is somewhere in the world you can point to that supports your unoriginal delusions.”

                      New Zealand. Roading, schools (both construction and operation), health services, transport, telecommunications, airports…all provided by the private sector.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 February 2015 at 3:29 pm

                      Most of those are provided inadequately by the private sector.

                      In fact, they not only provide examples as to why social housing shouldn’t be privatised, they provide examples as to why the respective products and services themselves should not be privatised.

                    • English Breakfast …
                      19 February 2015 at 10:40 am

                      Seriously? You do realise our roading contractors at so well regarded they secure overseas contracts from foreign Govts? As do our private health providers, private school operators….the list goes on. The private sector provides excellent value for money…just look at the funding model for Charter Schools, where the private sector is delivering more for less.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 February 2015 at 12:00 pm

                      If you want to check in with reality any time, feel free.

                      Charter schools delivering more for less – lol, you’re the sort of student a charter school would fob off onto the state system.

                    • English Breakfast …
                      19 February 2015 at 4:50 pm

                      Charter Schools cost approximately $1million to set up and then are funded at decile 3. The then educate youth that are often on the absolute fringes of society, and thus far the evidence is that they are doing so very well. As time goes on you’ll understand that Charter Schools are just another successful interaction between the state and private enterprise. Just like private schools, private health providers, private roading contractors, private builders, private stationery providers, private printers………..

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 February 2015 at 4:55 pm

                      That’s right Trash: when in doubt, tell lies.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 February 2015 at 4:59 pm

                      Like I said, if you want to check in with reality at any time, feel free.

                    • English Breakfast …
                      20 February 2015 at 9:25 am

                      …or you could cite the other Charter schools that are successfully delivering, or the non-Charter schools that are failing.

                    • Clemgeopin []
                      22 February 2015 at 1:18 am

                      Have YOU and other RW politicians in ACT and National enrolled your own kids in any of the Charter schools ?

                    • McFlock …
                      20 February 2015 at 12:04 pm

                      yes, because a 20% failure rate is totally acceptable when talking about schools or parachutes 🙄

                    • English Breakfast …
                      21 February 2015 at 7:44 pm

                      Where do you get the 20% from? There is no such stat in the real world. In NZ we have established 5 Charter Schools and none have failed to date. Meanwhile…what do you think these people do?? http://www.educationgroup.co.nz/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=6&cntnt01returnid=57

                    • McFlock …
                      22 February 2015 at 5:43 pm

                      Yes, one of those five has failed.
                      Even if it suddenly turns itself around (which looks doubtfu), achieving an acceptable standard after a couple of years is still unacceptable for the students in those years.

                      Meanwhile, you’re welcome to develop a point with your (so far irrelevant) link.

  3. Sabine 3
    17 February 2015 at 9:46 am

    the charities are not to buy them. They are to refuse the houses as to expensive which they are doing.
    now the government can sell them to whom ever has the money, all they have to do is create a Housing Charity…and voila problem solved.

    did really anyone think that the sally army was going to get the statehouses in New Lynn? Or Grey Lynn, or any of the other million dollar suburbs?

    Here, come here, i have a bridge to sell to you.

    • Gosman 3.1
      17 February 2015 at 11:34 am

      Who will set up a housing charity? The Government? I thought they already essentially ran something similar. Do you mean private people? In which case surely more housing charities are a good thing.

      • vto 3.1.1
        17 February 2015 at 11:39 am

        Sabine clearly meant the government.

        carry on with your meaninglessness

      • tricledrown 3.1.2
        17 February 2015 at 11:48 am

        Gooseman charities are overworked and underfunded.
        This is a copout.
        From the man who grew up in a state house.

        • Gosman 3.1.2.1
          17 February 2015 at 11:52 am

          Then they obviously won’t take on the extra work if they can’t do it. If they feel like they can then why would you object?

      • Lanthanide 3.1.3
        17 February 2015 at 1:03 pm

        “In which case surely more housing charities are a good thing.”

        No, not really. Economies of scale suggest that fewer, larger charities will be more effective.

  4. One Anonymous Bloke 4
    17 February 2015 at 9:57 am

    They’ll get a better offer.

    Who cares about the houses – the land will be free, the government will pay to clear the land for development, the National Party will get a big donation, and retiring MPs will be offered directorships.

    The usual National Party corruption, as detailed very kindly for us by Simon Lusk.

  5. dave 5
    17 February 2015 at 10:03 am

    This government is rotten to the core with lies there not this they do I want the whole housing market to crash because its the only way to bring the country back to reality not this ponzi fantasy land we are living in all this government has done is kick to can down the road just long enough to loot as much as they can
    While they still can

  6. Brendon Harre 6
    17 February 2015 at 10:05 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11403054
    The small end of town in Auckland is up 26.5% -rentiers are making a killing and more of the bottom end of the market are being rationed out of decent housing. What is the government doing about it? The government is trying to do a shell game of pretending that social housing involving only a few changes in the 60,000? state housing stock will improve the conditions for the wider market of over a 1 million homes.

    John Key in the following older video clearly states his government doesn’t want property prices to go down. He then says -correctly -that the problem is land supply – he focuses on Auckland (which is wrong -no part of NZ has affordable housing like some overseas markets), saying that Labour cannot build KiwiBuild-homes for $300,000 because that would involve getting sections at $50,000, which John Key said was impossible. I think section prices of under $100,000 and family sized houses for $300,000-$400,000 (smaller homes even cheaper) would be doable by either compulsory acquisition of rural land or removing rural urban boundaries. Both/either of these processes should be focused on breaking the monopoly stranglehold that land banking has on our urban areas.
    http://bcove.me/zkxxhi93

    Lets stop the pretence that nobody understands what is going on here. We all know what is going on, some people in positions of power feign ignorance and avoid discussing it. Lets not play there game.

    • b waghorn 6.1
      17 February 2015 at 12:34 pm

      “compulsory acquisition of rural land or removing rural urban boundaries.”
      The last thing this country needs is cities spreading wasting more productive land and adding to traffic problems is all it achieve s.

      • Brendon Harre 6.1.1
        17 February 2015 at 2:25 pm

        If the first Labour government had listened to the likes of you then state housing in places like the Hutt valley and Mangere would not have happened. Urban areas actually use very little land. The big waster of rural land is lifestyle blocks -but as rich people buy those they cannot be restricted.

  7. Tracey 7
    17 February 2015 at 10:29 am

    Sallies have not even been spoken to by this Government.

    Isn’t this obvious?

    Offer them to the charities. Charities can’t afford them. Can’t give them away! Open to tender to private “providers”.

    CF

    Offer shares to “mums and dads” first. Very few can afford them, but you tried. Now you can sell them to institutional investors and overseas destined shareholdings…

    • Sabine 7.1
      17 February 2015 at 10:34 am

      ding ding ding

      we have a winner

    • Gosman 7.2
      17 February 2015 at 11:37 am

      If that happens then you have a valid objection. Until that time though it is pure conjecture. You may as well claim they are planning on rounding up social housing tenants and place them in giant work or “concentration” camps. It is equally baseless at this time.

      • vto 7.2.1
        17 February 2015 at 11:41 am

        Nope it is not. There is a pattern to the deception of the right wing, which Tracey has identified.

        Obviously logic dictates that this deception must countered immediately, not sit around and wait until the horse has bolted. Silly egg. Anyone would think you have a particular barrow to push…

        • Gosman 7.2.1.1
          17 February 2015 at 11:56 am

          What evidence do you have that it pays to counter immediately? Take the Sky City example. Following the same logic it would have been better to counter when the deal was first proposed yet when changes were mooted the opposition to them seems to have altered the plans. In that case countering later worked fine. Have you evidence of countering early working with this government?

          • vto 7.2.1.1.1
            17 February 2015 at 12:03 pm

            Your example about skycity is wrong. The plans were not altered, the plans were sent back to the original, thereby reinforcing my point that changes must be countered early.

            Why would you think that countering after the event works? It is virtually impossible to reverse the electricity sell-off now, after the event, for example.

            • Gosman 7.2.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2015 at 12:10 pm

              I never stated you should counter AFTER a policy is implemented. I agree that would be silly if you wanted to stop it. I am arguing that you should counter WHEN a policy is proposed and not BEFORE.

              • vto …
                17 February 2015 at 12:13 pm

                Nope absolutely not. Especially when there is a track record of certain behaviour and operation, which Tracey identifies.

          • McFlock 7.2.1.1.2
            17 February 2015 at 12:05 pm

            Worked fine?

            So we didn’t give them 500 extra pokies so private enterprise would build a for-profit convention centre?

            But as soon as it looked like we might be paying skycity up to $120mil for the privilege, as well as the extra pokies, the immediate counters made key backtrack pretty quickly and stick to his promise.

            • Gosman 7.2.1.1.2.1
              17 February 2015 at 12:13 pm

              Yep. People are generally happier with government working with Skycity on the first proposal rather than the second. Personally i wouldn’t want government doing this sort of thing at all. However the left i suspect would want the State to do the whole thing on its own which i object to even more.

              • McFlock …
                17 February 2015 at 12:33 pm

                Stop wriggling.

                By countering early, before there was a specific proposal to pay skycity a dime, key wasn’t as locked into the idea as a matter of pride.

                Sure, he takes a hit for even foreshadowing the possibility, but if people had waited until there was a plan on the table then opposition would have been more difficult.

          • tricledrown 7.2.1.1.3
            17 February 2015 at 12:45 pm

            Goosestepper their were plenty of protests against the sky city deal right from the outset.
            The latest revelations were the last straw.

      • adam 7.2.2
        17 February 2015 at 11:56 am

        OMG Gossy you did a Godwin…

      • Sabine 7.2.3
        17 February 2015 at 12:31 pm

        day dream much?

      • Tracey 7.2.4
        17 February 2015 at 12:52 pm

        this govt has a pattern of behaviour. past performance is a good indicator of future behaviour.

        your statement makes all analysis redundant with everything being dealt with only after the fuck up has happened.

        • Gosman 7.2.4.1
          17 February 2015 at 12:57 pm

          Have you evidence that the government has stated it will sell certain assets but has gone on to sell more than they claimed they would? As far as I can tell they have done the opposite, sold less than they stated they would.

        • The Murphey 7.2.4.2
          17 February 2015 at 2:36 pm

          Form Motive Probable Cause

      • David 7.2.5
        17 February 2015 at 2:35 pm

        When that happens it is too bloody late you numpty.

    • English Breakfast 7.3
      17 February 2015 at 5:22 pm

      You’re wrong. The policy was discussed in detail with the SA. As with many issues, the SA and the Govt aren’t entirely on the same page, but there will be other charities who are.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.1
        17 February 2015 at 6:20 pm

        “There will be other charities…”

        And there it is. If the National Party can’t corrupt existing charities, its owners will set some up.

        Come to think of it, the lying Prime Minister that Trash worships says the National Party is a charity already. Trash approves of this.

        • English Breakfast 7.3.1.1
          18 February 2015 at 8:43 am

          Why does anyone need to set new ones up? There amy be existing charities interested. Let’s wait and see.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.1.1.1
            19 February 2015 at 5:01 pm

            Then they should be stripped of charitable status: political dogma peddlers don’t make the grade, as Family sadists First recently discovered.

            • English Breakfast 7.3.1.1.1.1
              20 February 2015 at 9:29 am

              Well if your concerned about charities peddling political dogma, don’t forget Corso, Greenpeace, War on Want….

  8. Ron 8
    17 February 2015 at 10:34 am

    Why do we suddenly seem to have so many Housing trusts. We need then like a hole in the head. The only Housing organisation we need is Housing New Zealand. It should buy or preferably build enough houses that the need for social housing is fulfilled throughout New Zealand. If in the process it drives private institutions out of social housing then that will be very good. We do not need churches or NGO’s trying to run social housing. That is a governments job I hope that Labour will radically overhaul Housing NZ and return it to a department of the crown who will have a clearly designated purpose to ensure there is a supply of good quality housing to those that need it.

  9. greywarshark 9
    17 February 2015 at 10:49 am

    Local councils could charge high rates on empty unused housing land bought in suitable areas to encourage building by developers? Offer incentives if suitable houses are built to suitable standards. Take a firm hand with these people turning them from hoarders of essential goods for their own advantage, to the useful business people in the community that they like to promote themselves as. And stop giving them a platform in the media. I’ll gag next time I hear that Hugh whatsisname spouting about greenfields developments.

    The point is in his very words ‘green’ fields. That is farm land and we have talked for decades about the need to conserve our good growing land and we used to with sensible zoning. It leads to pre-emptive land banking sure, so do other things, but a change in rating for land not effectively used for its purpose would help. That would ensure if they did buy farms near to towns, they were being run as farms.

    At present in Christchurch there is a large piece of land near the airport sitting vacant. I don’t know if it is even grazed much. The Council and the owner have been at odds for years while, I think, the developer tries to get it passed for light industrial though the Council want that to go elsewhere.

    Neither Councils nor developers should be rigid unless – for good practical or environmental reasons. Having land sitting vacant when it is in a very suitable place for a needed purpose is part of the problem. (Unless it is Maori land and council would have to confer as to the iwi or hapu opinion of what is right and appropriate.) Council might then work with them in turning it into a lovely green tree area, around any urupa. Or use it for papakainga housing that the iwi or hapu might borrow to build while Council could assist and underwrite the mortgage, one house at a time so the project did not become large and unwieldy. It could even include Council assisting with supervisors and skills coaches and sweat-equity family working project for each building.
    edited

  10. vto 10
    17 February 2015 at 11:06 am

    And this morning we have Christchurch City Councillor, rich-lister inheritee Jamie Gough parroting the National Party line saying that the Council has no place providing housing for the city’s residents…….

    No reasons advanced for this.

    Just parroting.

    Goughie want a cracker?

    (sorry cant find link)

  11. vto 11
    17 February 2015 at 11:08 am

    Both central government and local councils are the ideal provider of housing for those who struggle to get the “free market” to meet their needs…

    By the way, where is the “free market” in providing housing for the market? Surely its non-existence is yet more evidence of the failure of the free market.

    • Gosman 11.1
      17 February 2015 at 11:39 am

      Did you not read Gareth Morgan’s take on this topic? He points out why governmental provision of social housing may not be the best option.

      • vto 11.1.1
        17 February 2015 at 11:44 am

        Have you not been able to see how the free market has failed to supply a demand?

        Free market failure gosman. And in one of our most used ‘products’ – our homes.

        Total failure of your ideology

        • English Breakfast 11.1.1.1
          17 February 2015 at 5:23 pm

          No, it isn’t. The market cannot supply what it cannot produce. There are laws in place limiting the supply of housing. When they are addressed, the market will meet the demand. The current problems are a failure of intervention in the market, not a failure of the market.

          • marty mars 11.1.1.1.1
            17 February 2015 at 5:34 pm

            themarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemandthemarketwillmeetdemand… soon, very soon

            • English Breakfast 11.1.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2015 at 5:39 pm

              No, only when the barriers are fixed. Starting with the RMA, and our nutty mayors obsession with public transport and making us live like residents of Hong Kong.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                17 February 2015 at 7:07 pm

                Said no evidence from any country ever.

                Tell your idol to spoonfeed you some more zombie lies. The limbs are falling off these ones.

                • English Breakfast …
                  18 February 2015 at 8:46 am

                  It’s evidenced and self evident. If there is no land available, there will be no houses built. I’m sure which part of this you don’t understand?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    18 February 2015 at 8:52 am

                    Said no evidence from any country ever. You just can’t comprehend that everywhere people are stupid enough to fall for your spoonfed dogma, it fails.

                    Didn’t Alan Greenspan’s humiliation teach you anything?

                    • English Breakfast …
                      18 February 2015 at 3:16 pm

                      So you’re suggesting that houses can be built with no land?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 February 2015 at 1:19 pm

                      Am I? Then you must be pashing Ayn Rand’s zombie corpse.

                      PS: you really don’t understand McFlock’s comment at 11.1.1.1.2 just below, do you. Is it all a bit challenging?

                    • McFlock …
                      19 February 2015 at 1:25 pm

                      Ayn Rand’s zombie corpse on a houseboat, Batman!

                    • English Breakfast …
                      20 February 2015 at 9:31 am

                      Clearly you’re struggling to keep up. You disagreed with this comment “If there is no land available, there will be no houses built.” and now you’re trying to recover. Supply and Demand is a simple concept, surely.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 February 2015 at 9:44 am

                      No, I rejected your proven lies about regulations, and then I rejected your argument entirely.

                      Respond to McFlock at 11.1.1.1.2 or fuck off.

                    • English Breakfast …
                      21 February 2015 at 7:45 pm

                      I did. Now explain why you think houses can be built without land?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 February 2015 at 7:35 am

                      I don’t. You didn’t.

          • McFlock 11.1.1.1.2
            17 February 2015 at 5:44 pm

            and that’s a good example of why economics is a pseudoscience, a cult, and a sham.

            Categorical statements have inconvenient facts retconned in around them, rather than there being any chance of refutation of the theory.

      • Clemgeopin 11.1.2
        17 February 2015 at 12:01 pm

        If you think that Gareth Morgan knows the theory of everything and is correct all the time, you are being silly again.

        • Gosman 11.1.2.1
          17 February 2015 at 12:06 pm

          I never claimed he did know everything. However he has analyzed this from an economic angle and seems to make a good case. Many nations follow the non governmental social housing policy such as the Netherlands. This doesn’t seem to lead to worse outcomes than nations going down a more governmental approach to this issue. Why is that do you think?

          • Sabine 11.1.2.1.1
            17 February 2015 at 12:56 pm

            in the Netherlands one does not sign 6 month rental contracts.
            in the Netherlands one does not buy a house, rent it for six month and then sells it.
            in the Netherlands on can rent houses from the free market, or building associations which are supported by the state.

            also, i can rent a small Flat (1 bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, cellar space) for about 500 euros or about 1000$ NZD. I don’t get to rent a dog kennel for 1000NZd in Auckland, Christchurch or Wellington.

            i lived in the Netherlands, I worked there, and I paid taxes there.
            You however on more than one occasion have proven that you know nothing about much. And you clearly know very little about the Netherlands, with its beautiful public transport, public schools, excellent public healthcare, generous sick leave, excellent worker rights etc. etc. etc.

            http://www.government.nl/issues/housing/housing-associations

            Dear National Party, please upgrade your troll. Gossman has shown that he clearly is not up to specs, he lacks humor, incentive and his creativity is sorely lacking.
            i suggest you might feed or pay him better.

            ta

            • tricledrown 11.1.2.1.1.1
              17 February 2015 at 1:26 pm

              Goosestepper the Nact leper educated in a private school for the ruling elite.
              Not very sharp on his feet.
              Brain washed into believing he is always Right.
              But this year so far he has not got 1 Fact right.
              Not even one fact time goosestepper to redact.
              Head back to Nact propaganda school you pathetic trool!

            • Incognito 11.1.2.1.1.2
              17 February 2015 at 9:31 pm

              That would be € 500 per month, wouldn’t it?

    • Gosman 11.2
      17 February 2015 at 11:47 am

      As previously stated – Noone that I am aware has ever claimed that markets provide goods and services to all who need them. Indeed a supply and demand curve highlights that there will be potentially more demand for something beyond what is supplied if the price was lower. Resolving this mismatch is the role of social policy not of the market on its own.

      • vto 11.2.1
        17 February 2015 at 11:55 am

        Well best you outline what else the free market is not capable of providing.. let me start you…

        1. housing for probably 25% of our population.

        2. non-leaky homes

        3. safe workplaces

        4. enough electricity to keep the elderly warm in winter

        5.

        please add as your knowledge allows. It will certainly help with the debate about the usefulness of the free market and other neoliberal / Act Party myths

        • Gosman 11.2.1.1
          17 February 2015 at 11:59 am

          You’ve created a strawman argument. Congrats on that. As stated if you are looking at providing everybody with affordable goods and services of whatever type that is not the purpose of the market. Over time the market can certainly provide cheaper goods and services better than other alternatives but never for all. If a society wants that it will have to do this via other means.

          • vto 11.2.1.1.1
            17 February 2015 at 12:09 pm

            I repeat the above post. It is not a strawman it is an answer to your claim that markets do not meet demands. I would like to know which other demands are not met.

            The last 30 years has seen people like yourself and with your ideology promoting the use of the free market and self-interest (i.e. greed) as a driver for pretty much every single aspect of our lives….. the experiment has been tried and it has failed.

            • Gosman 11.2.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2015 at 12:49 pm

              I contend you agree with me on this issue but don’t realise it. Unless you are stating that the housing market should be 100 percent supplied via governmental means then you accept the market plays a large part in satisfying demand for housing. The issue is that a number of people cannot afford housing provided by the market and hence the decision to help them via social policies. If that provision is done via the State or local government means or via other means seems irrelevant to me.

        • Once was Tim 11.2.1.2
          17 February 2015 at 2:32 pm

          5. Democracy
          (that is of course under ‘crony keptlism’ such as we have – as opposed to what was once preached by the keptlists: i.e. small buzznissizz r good; comptushin iz good; setra setra setra!)
          Natzis might be surprised when hobbits awaken and SME’s realise they’re pushing shit uphill.

      • tricledrown 11.2.2
        17 February 2015 at 1:11 pm

        Gooseman Dutch govt propaganda.
        The EU,s investigation into netherlands housing failure.
        Identifies several areas massive privatedebt required, govt subsidies forcing up prices etc etc.
        As usual gooseman undone by your own argument.

        • Gosman 11.2.2.1
          17 February 2015 at 2:38 pm

          Interestingly Sabine disagrees with your take on the Netherlands.

          • sabine 11.2.2.1.1
            17 February 2015 at 10:42 pm

            no i don’t.

            the largest assosiation has gambled and lost a few billions here and there and now needs bailing out. Does that sound like a deja vu?

            My comments point to what the netherlands are , social by nature, with the government interfering in a great many things. Like public transport, or how many cars a family can free of charge park on the roads in Utrecht (1 only, if they have other cars they must pay for parking due to land restrictions), how many carparks a new office block can have, how much public transport is subsidized and whom the building association have to house, what standards they have to maintain etc.

            You however gossman, without reading much and understanding even less, have pointed out that the Netherlands have Assosiations running social housing, which they do but not on their own but with much, much , much government interference.

            In nz however, our PM…the one who can’t remember ever having been elected to lead the coutry rahter than rule, would like to just simply wash his hands, hand over a few derelict buildings to some sorry arsed charity from the tamaki bishop or someone like him and be done with social welfare.

            again, you are a bore

  12. Steve Alfreds 12
    17 February 2015 at 11:39 am

    If the houses are sold to developers or landlords in the private sector then there will be an accompanying blow-out in the Accommodation Supplement and Working for Families paid out by the government. State house rentals are much cheaper than the private sector. It’s so obvious, but market disciples like Mr Gosman can’t see that.

    • tricledrown 12.1
      17 February 2015 at 12:03 pm

      By not increasing supply to meet demand forces price out of reach of most.
      Increasing the the rent supplement is a subsidy for landlords forcing prices higher.
      Building more housing is the only answer.
      With a universal capital gains tax.
      That money could be used for building new building.
      Most new buildings mainly smaller 1 and 2 bedrooms because of our rapidly aging population.
      Freeing up larger houses for families.
      Chances of thisound happening Zero!
      To many vested vested interests!

    • Gosman 12.2
      17 February 2015 at 12:32 pm

      Noone is arguing that private sector rentals are generally higher than social housing. The question is whether the social housing is best provided by the government or via a combination of charities and government. If you argue the former what evidence do you have for that position beyond an ideological one?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1
        17 February 2015 at 12:37 pm

        The evidence.

        Some more.

        Where’s yours Gosman? Somalia?

        • Gosman 12.2.1.1
          17 February 2015 at 12:53 pm

          The Netherlands is a good example of a country where large amount of social housing is provided by the non government sector

          http://www.government.nl/issues/housing/housing-associations

          • Sabine 12.2.1.1.1
            17 February 2015 at 12:58 pm

            silly gosman

            * About 75% of them are owned by housing associations.
            * Social housing is cheaper because it is subsidised by the state.
            * The government sets the rules for the allocation of social housing.

            from here http://www.government.nl/issues/housing/housing-associations

            Housing associations are also responsible for:

            housing older people, people with a disability and those needing assisted housing;
            building and letting social property such as schools and sports facilities;
            appointing caretakers and neighbourhood managers;
            maintaining houses and the immediate surroundings, such as alleyways and parking spaces;
            selling rented properties to tenants and other house seekers.

            • tricledrown 12.2.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2015 at 1:07 pm

              Gooseman Dutch govt propaganda.
              The EU,s investigation into netherlands housing failure.
              Identifies several areas massive privatedebt required, govt subsidies forcing up prices etc etc.
              As usual goosestepper undone by your own arguments!

            • Gosman 12.2.1.1.1.2
              17 February 2015 at 3:16 pm

              What us the major difference between a housing association and a non governmental social housing provider?

          • McFlock 12.2.1.1.2
            17 February 2015 at 3:35 pm

            Indeed.
            And this is the result.

            Much more efficient for the government to provide it itself.

        • English Breakfast 12.2.1.2
          17 February 2015 at 5:27 pm

          What arrant nonsense. You have no evidence that the private sector cannot do just as good a job as Govt in providing social housing. On the other hand NZ has many home in private ownership currently deployed as social housing. It works, and just like Charter Schools it delivers great result. Get over it.

          • McFlock 12.2.1.2.1
            17 February 2015 at 5:48 pm

            lol

            You must have been educated by a charter school if you believe that shit.

            • tricledrown 12.2.1.2.1.1
              17 February 2015 at 6:37 pm

              Blinglishes state funded house he is talking about how double dipper Bill English gets $56,000 from the taxpayer for his private house!

          • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1.2.2
            17 February 2015 at 5:58 pm

            Great results should be easy to obtain when you spend three times the money, and on Earth, right wing failures fail at pedagogy just like they fail at everything else.

            We find that students make considerably smaller achievement gains in charter schools than they would have in public schools.

            Beluco & Ladd 2004

            The discussion highlights the potential for choice and competition to constrain opportunities for educational innovation and to impose pedagogical and curricular conformity.

            Lubiensky 2015.

            …charter competition has a negative impact on student achievement and school efficiency…

            Yongmei Ni 2007

            Get some new lies, trash.

      • tricledrown 12.2.2
        17 February 2015 at 12:51 pm

        From 1896 till 1975 various govts increased the housing supply since then homelessness has increased steadily!

    • Sabine 12.3
      17 February 2015 at 12:34 pm

      oh but the current government has no issues with welfare paid to them.

      it is with welfare to poor people they have an issue with.

      see accommodation benefits paid to landlords overcharging on rent – because clearly without the accommodation benefits these apartment/houses would be empty until a tenant that could afford them would show up? So renting them to people that can;t afford them and expecting the government to pay the difference is nothing else but social welfare for landlords. Without the accom benefit rents would have to be adjusted or …you know….the market would regulate itself 🙂

  13. Lindsey 13
    17 February 2015 at 12:22 pm

    The only reasons for Charity type groups to be providing social housing are for those persons who are so damaged (or damaging) that they need much more of a wrap around service than HNZ can provide. I have a friend in a HNZ place and HNZ put a violent racist drunk in the other part of the duplex, and then dragged the chain on doing anything about him as he terrorised her and most of the rest of the neighbourhood. My letters to the Minister remained unanswered.

    Eventually one of his drugged and drinking buddies hit him over the head with a spade and set fire to his body on the front lawn.

    He needed much more than affordable acommodation, and my friend did not need the trauma of coming home to find his body in flames. She is still frightened every time the tenancy changes that someone similar will be moved in.

    Fortuntely, there are not a lot of them.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      17 February 2015 at 12:30 pm

      Are you for real? When did providing a “wrap around service” stop being the government’s responsibility?

      Seriously, you think that volunteers are the ones who ought to be doing the heavy lifting?

      • Sabine 13.1.1
        17 February 2015 at 12:44 pm

        according to the current government yes.

        2001[edit]
        I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
        Interview on NPR’s Morning Edition, May 25, 2001

        Grover Northquist. http://www.atr.org/about-grover

        a lot more quotes of the man who is against all tax increases. 🙂

        http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

        none of this shit was grown on the PMs lawn, i don’t think that this geezer ever actually had an individual creative thought in his live, but I think he follows the Grover Northquist hand book to the t.
        starve every service until it can not perform anymore. Complain about the service not performing well, and promote the idea that privatized services would perform better…and would be cheaper.
        sell, outsource and sell all the services that used to be provided by the government to private service companies, wash your hands of responsibilities and laugh all the way to the bank.

        I sure hope, that the current cheerleaders in the short skirts with the revealing cleavages realize that once they are old and decrepit that there will be no one looking after them other then some volunteers…and they can but hope that these volunteers be kind.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1
          17 February 2015 at 12:57 pm

          I’ve come to the realisation that National Party attacks on the unfortunate are motivated more by sadism than dogma: the dogma is just a smokescreen.

          What else explains the fact that they’ve been harbouring Sabin since before the 2011 election?

      • English Breakfast 13.1.2
        17 February 2015 at 5:29 pm

        ‘Wrap around services’ is often a euphemism for stopping no-hopers hurting themselves and others. Yes the public purse ends up paying, but it sucks.

      • weka 13.1.3
        17 February 2015 at 6:23 pm

        “Are you for real? When did providing a “wrap around service” stop being the government’s responsibility?

        Seriously, you think that volunteers are the ones who ought to be doing the heavy lifting?”

        OAB, you do realise that large amounts of social services are provided by NGOs, right? And have been for quite some time. And they’re not volunteers.

  14. hoom 14
    17 February 2015 at 4:02 pm

    <- Willing to setup a charity to provide Social housing (ie personally for me) if it gets me a free State House or several.

    This whole thing is an obvious forced attempt to create an artificial Market where Govt/Local Govt can, should & has historically provided primary service.
    Meanwhile the Private providers have shown essentially 0 interest in having such a Market foisted upon them.

    If there were say some large Corporate landlords/wannabe Slumlords out there with masses of Capital, demanding something like reduced minimum standards/RMA bypass to build suburbs of cheap small tenement blocks or something, or the Govt were actively ramping up Housing NZ as a profitable Corporate Landlord/Slumlord to then sell off it would maybe make some sense that the NACTs are be pushing it.

    Arguably even *might* be a good idea if they were actually willing to be putting the large numbers of new affordable housing needed into actual physical existence.

    • English Breakfast 14.1
      17 February 2015 at 5:33 pm

      There’s nothing ‘artificial’ about it. Social housing is required. This service can either be provided by the state or by private providers contracted to the state. Just like private schools, private roading contractors, private construction companies who build Govt buildings etc etc etc. Private/Public engagement is a long standing tradition in this country, as with many others. Your objection is simply irrational.

      • Clemgeopin 14.1.1
        17 February 2015 at 6:26 pm

        If the right wing rogues are opposed to state housing, then why don’t the same wealthy RW private corporations and the wealthy RW private individuals build on their own steam, good modern houses with all amenities for the socially deprived people and rent it out to the ‘underclass’ and the poor, at cheap rents? What is stopping them?

        Why should that be the work of charity organisations such as the Salvation Army?

        Had Michael Joseph Savage and the Labour party not built the thousands of state houses around the country to care for the less wealthy, and left it all to the greed of the ‘market’ or to the whims of the charity organisations, imagine what would have been the state of NZ housing today!

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.1.1
          17 February 2015 at 6:31 pm

          Why should that be the work of charity organisations such as the Salvation Army?

          Inadequate social services provide a steady supply of victims for authoritarian sadists. That’s why the National Party underfunds them.

        • English Breakfast 14.1.1.2
          18 February 2015 at 3:19 pm

          I’m not sure I’ve read any comments that indicate any opposition to state housing. I’m certainly not opposed to the state providing social housing, but where is the rule that says the Govt has to own all the houses? They don’t own all the schools, all the bus companies, all the hospitals…

          • Clemgeopin 14.1.1.2.1
            18 February 2015 at 11:22 pm

            Tell me what is the INCENTIVE for the private free market ‘landlords’ to become ‘social housing’ providers? …to siphon some or lots of money from the government/taxpayers to enrich themselves? Do you think you can fool all of us?

            • English Breakfast 14.1.1.2.1.1
              19 February 2015 at 10:46 am

              Siphon? The money is either paid out in the cost of ownership by the state or as rent to private landlords. Explain to me why this model has worked so well in housing, health, education, roading etc etc for decades yet you can’t accept it? Is it wilful ideological blindness?

              • Clemgeopin …
                20 February 2015 at 12:58 am

                Tell me what is the INCENTIVE for the private free market ‘landlords’ to become ‘social housing’ providers?

                • English Breakfast …
                  20 February 2015 at 9:47 am

                  Money. The Govt. pays the rent, and provides a long term tenancy. In return the Govt gets a social house for no capital outlay. Win, win. Just like in health, roading, printing, education…..

                  It’s a very simple and highly successful model, one that’s been in place in NZ for decades.

  15. English Breakfast 15
    18 February 2015 at 3:22 pm

    “…why don’t the same wealthy RW private corporations and the wealthy RW private individuals build on their own steam, good modern houses with all amenities for the socially deprived people and rent it out to the ‘underclass’ and the poor, at cheap rents? What is stopping them?”

    Nothing. But you clearly don’t understand the way social housing works. The Govt contracts social housing to private sector landlords and pays a market (or close to it) rental. In exchange the landlord signs up to a long term commitment (usually 10 years). What may come as a surprise to you is that this system has been successfully in place for many, many years.