Sit-in Occupation to Stop Niki’s Eviction Tuesday 24th January

Written By: - Date published: 8:33 pm, January 23rd, 2017 - 138 comments
Categories: class war, housing, human rights - Tags: , ,

Update: 

@95bFMNews

Won an adjournment to a later date in tenancy tribunal this morning, there will not be an eviction today.
We’ll be crossing live to on The Wire today. Tune in.

____________________________________________________

Tamaki Housing Group press release,

On Tuesday 24 January, the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company hopes to issue a Possession Order for 14 Taniwha Street, Glen Innes.

This will give them the ability to forcibly evict Ioela ‘Niki’ Rauti who has lived at 14 Taniwha Street for 21 years.

To prevent bailiffs and police from evicting Niki on Tuesday, a sit-in by supporters will be held from 9am onwards at 14 Taniwha Street.

Niki is a former truck driver and chef. She originally moved into the former state house to care for her ill mother. Niki has a heart condition that is not going to change. She has said she does not want to be a transient tenant. Some families in Glen Innes have already been relocated twice since the redevelopment began.

TRC will not be building social or affordable houses on Niki’s section. Niki says, “These will be mansions, they are not for the ordinary person.”

TRC have offered her another house which is up several flights of stairs that she cannot climb.

Last week on the 17 January, a March to Occupy demonstration drew hundreds from the community and supporters from other parts of the city in support of Niki. Organisers of this sit-in intend to do the same on Tuesday and will oppose Niki’s eviction by any means necessary.

 

 

Interview on BFM,

Monday, January 23, 2017

An occupation for the right to live in your own home is continuing in Glen Innes today. Niki has been in her state house for over 20 years and intends to stay there. A development company has issued an eviction notice which ran out last wednesday, we hear more from bFM reporter Lillian Hanly

 

https://twitter.com/bootstheory/status/823413683447435264

 

This Home is Already Occupied Facebook action page.

@defend_Niki

#NikisEviction

138 comments on “Sit-in Occupation to Stop Niki’s Eviction Tuesday 24th January ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carolyn_nth 1
    23 January 2017 at 8:42 pm

    Thanks, Weka.

    This ongoing cleansing of Glen Innes state housing is heart breaking.

    And Niki does not deserve this heartless treatment.

    Paula Bennett is gearing up to spin herself as caring conservatism. But this is what the Natz policies actually do to those with least power and money.

    • weka 1.1
      23 January 2017 at 8:53 pm

      I’m still trying to get my head around the mechanism. Is this the govt giving state houses to a corporation and that corporation is supposed to provide housing for x number of people, but they can develop the land how they want?

      • weka 1.1.1
        23 January 2017 at 9:05 pm

        Found this,

        Pacific Panthers ‏@PPNetwork16 4h
        ok some context for #NikisEviction … This is Niki

        .@defend_Niki Niki Rauti has lived in her home at 14 Taniwha St for 21 years. Now Tāmaki Redevelopment Company wants to sell it for profit #NikisEviction

        .@defend_Niki Glen Innes has been under attack since 2011, Tāmaki Housing Group fighting HNZ privatisation and gentrification since then #NikisEviction

        .@defend_Niki Your classic Gentrification 101 tearing down real, thriving community to privatise and build wealthy facsimile of community #NikisEviction

        .@defend_Niki But what they didn’t factor into their development was the incredible resilience and endurance of the people of Glen Innes #NikisEviction

        .@defend_Niki Govt still trying to hold up pretence that state housing is simply going to third (charity) sector *for management purposes* #nikiseviction

        It’s not. Yes, housing crises in Aotearoa but govt ‘solution’ is MASSIVE part of problem. But back to #NikisEviction

        Heres a question – what are we about? What are the things we stand for in this nation of ours? #NikisEviction

        Niki’s whole life spent working for this country. Former truck driver + chef and all round Glenn Innes community member. #NikisEviction

        Returned to the house to look after her sick mother. Ended up getting sick herself and staying in the house. #NikisEviction

        The substitute house that they have offered her is up stairs which she cannot walk up…. #NikisEviction

        The houses built on her property will not be social houses or those for first home buyers. These will be expensive houses. #NikisEviction

        real clear on this, this is not inevitable sacrifice for greater good this is for private interests and corporate greed #NikisEviction

        this means new houses brought up by property investors who will then speculate on the land keeping property prices up #NikisEviction

        Phase 2: renting them out and keep rental prices up. Development’s contributing to the housing crisis rather than solving it #NikisEviction

        Whats more they are no longer even offering token Glen Innes houses to HNZ tenants #NikisEviction

        Thats where we come in. Joining @defend_Niki and @defendGI drawing a line in the sand against social and ethnic cleansing #NikisEviction

        https://twitter.com/PPNetwork16/status/823380962469822467

      • HDCAFriendlyTroll 1.1.2
        23 January 2017 at 9:07 pm

        The thing about G.I. (and I grew up there) is that there are a lot of houses, state and non-state, with very large backyards. What the government is trying to do is instead of having one house on one block of land is have two or more houses on the same block of land.

        • weka 1.1.2.1
          23 January 2017 at 9:13 pm

          Can you please provide some evidence for that (govt intentions and actions), because that’s not what other people are saying who are involved in defending Niki.

          • HDCAFriendlyTroll 1.1.2.1.1
            23 January 2017 at 9:26 pm

            Common knowledge. But for the record I grew up on the same street in a house with a massive backyard. Today a developer would build at least two or three houses on the same size block of land.

            • Muttonbird 1.1.2.1.1.1
              23 January 2017 at 9:30 pm

              Ah, yes. You benefitted from a big backyard in order to post anti-social posts on a massage forum. You don’t like the idea that underprivileged kids might get a bit of space like you did, and the stability growing up like you did.

              HDPAtroll is an anti community troll like all the other anti community National Party trolls.

              • HDCAFriendlyTroll …
                24 January 2017 at 7:34 am

                If it was today I’d be wondering why I had such a big backyard while there was a housing shortage.

                • weka …
                  24 January 2017 at 11:09 am

                  Yes, I’m sure you would. But I’m sure you wouldn’t be looking at the empty HNZ houses or the reasons for the housing crisis for people who rely on state housing. It’s all about what suits you.

                • Gabby …
                  24 January 2017 at 12:28 pm

                  Because you’re rich, obviously.

            • weka 1.1.2.1.1.2
              23 January 2017 at 10:20 pm

              Common knowledge. But for the record I grew up on the same street in a house with a massive backyard. Today a developer would build at least two or three houses on the same size block of land.

              Right, so the govt is letting the land be subdivided for profit instead of providing social housing.

              • HDCAFriendlyTroll …
                24 January 2017 at 7:33 am

                The government is letting the land be subdivided so more houses can be built. Whether it’s for social housing or profit I have not idea. I’m just giving you what I think is the reason, not the motive.

                • weka …
                  24 January 2017 at 11:10 am

                  right. So you are in a conversation about social housing and you are ignoring the central aspect of social housing in the conversation.

          • Bob 1.1.2.1.2
            24 January 2017 at 3:42 pm

            Google is your friend: http://www.hnzc.co.nz/about-our-properties/our-developments/auckland/northern-glen-innes-redevelopment/faqs-about-the-glen-innes-redevelopment/

            Synopsis:
            156 properties that are old and outdated to be redeveloped to create 260 new homes. 78 of these will be retained by HNZ, the other 78 to be sold 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.

            Yes, there will be some situations like Niki’s that are hard to listen too and in some cases heartbreaking, but there is also a massive housing shortage in this city, and adding 104 houses to the market is certainly a start to help fixing the supply side, stabilising rents, stabilising purchase prices, and if the profits made on the sales increase the overall HNZ housing supply in Auckland, how is this a bad thing?
            So often I hear people complain this is a do nothing Government that lacks the balls to make the tough decisions, then when they do (as they have in GI), the same people protest that they are making the hard decisions!

        • BM 1.1.2.2
          23 January 2017 at 9:22 pm

          Yeah I just google mapped this state house, 900 sq2 section, you could easily get another house on that section.

          Looks like all the surrounding houses are about the same size.

          Niki Rauti needs to be moved on pronto.

          • Muttonbird 1.1.2.2.1
            23 January 2017 at 9:27 pm

            You and your type have no idea about what community stability means.

            And it shows big time.

            • BM 1.1.2.2.1.1
              23 January 2017 at 9:33 pm

              This woman is being very selfish and I can’t believe people are enabling her.

              You could house two needy families on this bit of land yet you’ve got people out protesting for a single woman living in a 3 bedroom state house on a 900m2 bit of land,

              There seems to be a complete disconnect with reality going on here?

              • Muttonbird …
                23 January 2017 at 9:37 pm

                Breaking communities. That’s what you and Bill English are very good at.

                • BM …
                  23 January 2017 at 9:40 pm

                  They could build 6 two bedroom units on this site, she could live in one.

                  No break up of community and another 5-10 people have a house to live in.

                  • Muttonbird …
                    23 January 2017 at 9:46 pm

                    Has she been guaranteed one of those units yet to be built, and yet to be brought under government or social housing control?

                    I think not…

                  • mauī …
                    23 January 2017 at 9:47 pm

                    Not where I live they didn’t, from memory they only rebuilt about 20% of the state houses in my area. There are other areas nearby where there were once state houses that are now empty sections for two years or more. Waiting for a developer to come in and make money off them I suppose.

                  • Lloyd …
                    23 January 2017 at 10:47 pm

                    BM since you know how to develop this land to house more people and you are such a concerned citizen worried about the homeless I am sure you will provide Niki an adequate house in the neighbourhood at ground level at an equal or lesser rent or otherwise I am sure you will be down at Niki’s house defending her from the bailiffs. Any other action on your part would be hypocrisy.

                  • jcuknz …
                    24 January 2017 at 9:25 am

                    So much common sense by BM opposed by folk who encourage wasteful use of a scare resource….. what angers me in this situation that person is offered a new home accessed by stairs which are difficult for her to use. Have all these folk on both sides of the argument got no sense?

                • HDCAFriendlyTroll …
                  24 January 2017 at 7:41 am

                  G.I. is the Bronx. If you think there is any kind of benevolent community in G.I apart from booze, parties, and dope then you’ve never lived in the area. I sympathise with the tenant but at the end of the day she’s going to be much better off in a nicer area in more practical accommodation.

              • weka …
                23 January 2017 at 10:21 pm

                You could house two needy families on this bit of land yet you’ve got people out protesting for a single woman living in a 3 bedroom state house on a 900m2 bit of land,

                There seems to be a complete disconnect with reality going on here?

                How about you provide some evidence that there will be 2 houses built on this land for needy people. And by needy I don’t mean people buying homes.

                And if that’s true, why aren’t they offering her one of them?

              • HDCAFriendlyTroll …
                24 January 2017 at 7:38 am

                I want to know how come she was allowed to live in a 3 bedroom house for over 20 years as a State tenant. Surely it would’ve been better for her to live in a smaller accommodation with less maintenance. Also given the circumstances why hasn’t the government offered better accommodation
                that she can go to immediately?

                • BM …
                  24 January 2017 at 7:45 am


                  TRC housing general manager Neil Porteous said Rauti has been offered five properties over the past four months.

                  “We are currently holding a new warm, dry home nearby for her.

                  “We have not received any feedback from Ms Rauti on the houses we have offered her. We welcome her getting in touch with us to discuss her needs.”

                  http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/88498924/glen-innes-women-refuses-to-leave-her-home-of-37-years

                  • weka …
                    24 January 2017 at 11:22 am

                    the general manage of a profit-driven corporation says one thing. I notice that like RW James below you missed out the bit about what she said.

                    And get this BM, TRC are not the government.

                    Rauti said she understood TRC will relocate her to one of the new homes in its Glenn Innes development but after inspecting some options, she’s adamant that none of them are good enough.

                    She’d be willing to compromise if the the right house was found for her but all the ones TRC had shown her had problems, ranging from being cold and damp to poorly laid-out.

                    “I went to a house they had for me in Rowena Cres and the yard was flooded.

                    “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that it was in no living condition. And they offered me a two-storey home but I have a heart problem, I am old – how am I supposed to get around?

                    “It’s about the freedom to choose where you want to live – they are taking that freedom away from us.”

                    • JamieB …
                      24 January 2017 at 12:37 pm

                      TRC is half Govt, half Auck Council.

                    • weka …
                      24 January 2017 at 1:05 pm

                      I don’t care who owns the company TRC, they’re not government.

                    • JamieB []
                      24 January 2017 at 2:51 pm

                      It’s a public-public partnership, not an evil private profit driven corporation.

                    • weka …
                      24 January 2017 at 2:53 pm

                      Again, I don’t care who owns the business. What I care about is whether the government (local and national) are fulfilling their obligations to provide social housing. They’re not.

                    • JamieB []
                      24 January 2017 at 4:50 pm

                      Hmmm…maybe they could attempt to build a greater number of houses on existing scarce land, and earmark a whole lot of them for state housing?

                      Only an idiot would oppose that.

                    • weka …
                      24 January 2017 at 5:29 pm

                      If Auckland is running out of land, that’s a town planning issue, and yep they fucked it up. The more vulnerable people in society shouldn’t have to pay for that ahead of others.

                      If you think it’s ok to break up communities in order to fulfill housing quotas then you are basically calling poor NZ citizens stock units. Which was kind of my point. I don’t care who owns the business, the govt’s job is to protect vulnerable individuals and communities, not break them up.

                  • fisiani …
                    27 January 2017 at 11:38 am

                    The entitilitis mentality of the Extreme Left is clear to see in this thread, How dare a single person in a three bedroom state house that she does not own try to block the construction of 6 two bedroom units on the site. No wonder the left vote is plummeting. Reasonable voters are abandoning the extreme left.

                • DoublePlusGood …
                  24 January 2017 at 1:06 pm

                  She’s been in a state house for 20 years because she needed a house. That’s what state housing is for – people who need houses. It’s really not a hard concept, you just have to realise that governments are supposed to ensure that people have a decent standard of living.

            • JamieB 1.1.2.2.1.2
              24 January 2017 at 6:44 pm

              Seems like the NIMBYism holding back Auckland exisits across all demographics.

          • Muttonbird 1.1.2.2.2
            23 January 2017 at 9:34 pm

            Farrar-speak. You should be ashamed, BM.

          • mauī 1.1.2.2.3
            23 January 2017 at 9:36 pm

            Yeah a state house tenant shouldn’t be allowed a reasonably sized section eh? Because that land is worth too much now. I can just see the Nat supporters start having a turn over the lost revenue.

          • weka 1.1.2.2.4
            23 January 2017 at 10:28 pm

            “Yeah I just google mapped this state house, 900 sq2 section, you could easily get another house on that section.

            Looks like all the surrounding houses are about the same size.

            Niki Rauti needs to be moved on pronto.”

            So why not build another house on it and let her carry on living in the one she is in?

        • Muttonbird 1.1.2.3
          23 January 2017 at 9:24 pm

          As if kids growing up don’t need backyards.

          Typical ladder kicker – I had a back yard when I grew up but you shall not because you are not as worthy as I was.

          This is the thought process of Bill English sucker-uppers.

          • HDCAFriendlyTroll 1.1.2.3.1
            23 January 2017 at 9:31 pm

            Well it may or may not be the best way to free up land for development and build more housing but it’s what the government is doing. Alternatively the government could be building up and putting people in high rise apartments. Personally though I don’t have an opinion on what approach is better.

            • Muttonbird 1.1.2.3.1.1
              23 January 2017 at 9:43 pm

              Ok: ‘It’s just the way it is’.

              A decent government building program would consider long term community tenants. This government however sells, kicks vulnerable tenants out then asked them to reapply on the open market.

              Really odd behaviour for a PM who is supposedly promoting so called ‘social investment’.

              • HDCAFriendlyTroll …
                24 January 2017 at 1:26 pm

                Ideally there shouldn’t be long term community tenants. Ideally State housing should be temporary and give people in need a chance to go from State tenants to home owners. If this was the case then instead of Mrs Rauti being evicted she might be looking at a very attractive buy offer from some developers.

            • DoublePlusGood 1.1.2.3.1.2
              24 January 2017 at 1:06 pm

              “why not both” – taco ad.

          • Bob 1.1.2.3.2
            24 January 2017 at 3:51 pm

            So your suggestion for Auckland’s housing issue is to give everyone quarter acre sections? Or just HNZ tenants?
            Or is this faux outrage because it is the National Party that has made the hard (right) decision to redevelop old, cold, run down state houses on massive sections, and develop them into warm, new houses and more of them?
            Would you rather have kids growing up with backyards and suffering from respiratory illness, or kids growing up near parks that promote community, and have good health?

      • Carolyn_nth 1.1.3
        23 January 2017 at 9:09 pm

        This long article from Metro 2014 explains the background.

        The houses are sold to developers who build a mix of social and private housing. then they sell some houses back to HNZ. They are breaking up communities and aiming to replace them with pepper potted state houses. this will likely see the state house tenants stigmatised by the upmarket private home owning neighbours – thus squeezing out the state house tenants.

        The number of state house replacements in the area, and NZ generally will be shrinking.

        • weka 1.1.3.1
          23 January 2017 at 9:15 pm

          How are the state house rents set?

          • Carolyn_nth 1.1.3.1.1
            23 January 2017 at 9:17 pm

            Don’t know. need to do some chores right now.

          • Carolyn_nth 1.1.3.1.2
            23 January 2017 at 9:54 pm

            State house rents depends on a person’s income. Those whose income is below a certain level is income-related. From HNZ website.

            A low income is considered to be an income below the “single, living alone (external link) ” rate as determined by New Zealand Superannuation. If you qualify for income-related rent, the Government pays the difference between the rent you can pay and the normal market rates.

            The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is responsible for assessing eligibility for income-related rents.

            Followed a link to MSD and got this.

            The transfer of Housing New Zealand (HNZ) properties to community housing providers is part of the Government’s Social Housing Reform Programme which, amongst other things, aims to grow a more diverse social housing market and to improve services for social housing tenants in Tauranga and Tāmaki.
            …
            From 1 April 2016, Tāmaki Housing Association (Tāmaki Housing) became the new landlord for approximately 2,800 properties in Tamaki transferring from Housing New Zealand.

            On 1 April 2016, all Housing New Zealand’s properties in the Tāmaki area were transferred to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company. Its subsidiary, the Tāmaki Housing Association, is now the landlord to residents in those properties.

            To talk to your tenancy manager or report any maintenance issues please call the Tāmaki Housing Association on 0800 521 555.

            The Ministry of Social Development will continue to assess your eligibility for social housing.

            And on that page I got this link to the Tāmaki Housing Association AKA Tāmaki Regeneration, which is full of newspeak/double speak. it also sounds such a glossy place to live [looks over shoulder for Stepford Wives]

          • DH 1.1.3.1.3
            24 January 2017 at 9:01 am

            “How are the state house rents set?”

            I’m not having a go at you here weka, but I find it quite frustrating that so few people understand how the social housing scam works.

            State (social) houses are always charged out at full market rents. It’s the tenant who has their rent subsidised, not the house. The govt pays the social housing landlord a portion of the rent, the amount the Govt pays determined by the individual tenants need.

            Over two thirds of Housing NZ’s rental income is from the Govt; last year $739 million versus $337 million from tenants. When the state houses are sold that money will go to private landlords.

            This is one of the reasons the privatisation of state houses is so outrageous. Private providers pull in full market rents and each year they can raise their rents in line with inflation, changing market conditions etc. It’s a goldmine for them, they get a Govt guaranteed income, long term tenancy and free risk cover.

            • Carolyn_nth 1.1.3.1.3.1
              24 January 2017 at 9:09 am

              Ah, yes. thanks, DH.

              I should have realised the implications when I looked at the relevant HNZ and MSD web pages last night.

              That is indeed what the info on those sites point to: the state subsidising social housing, which gets funneled off into private landlords accounts, as they keep increasing the rents charged to we the people.

              • DH …
                24 January 2017 at 11:29 am

                Yes. A lot of commenting is misdirected through people having a misconception of how the state housing system works.

                Even Labour MPs seem a little confused, their demands for HCNZ’s dividends to be reinvested look a little silly when you consider that the Govt is just getting back a fraction of what it paid to HCNZ.

    • david 1.2
      25 January 2017 at 9:39 am

      I think the tenant is being a bit selfish. 3 bedrooms for one person? She should offer the other two rooms to those homeless, if she wants to stay. They should still subdivide and build a new house at the back. We need more houses.

      • Carolyn_nth 1.2.1
        25 January 2017 at 9:42 am

        Really? You think Niki has any say about opening up the rooms to other people, or what is built on the property?

        Also, keep in mind, she is not acting alone. She is part of an on-going, community agreed protest action. It’s a collaborative action by a group of people who have little power individually.

  2. Carolyn_nth 2
    23 January 2017 at 9:15 pm

    This Sept 2016 article says there are now hundreds of state houses in the area that are empty – some have been sitting empty for 5 years.

    And this 2015 article says Niki was fighting eviction since 2014, but was given a reprieve because it suited the developers to wait a bit.

  3. james 3
    23 January 2017 at 9:49 pm

    Reading the news on this it looks like that she is not being the most helpful:

    “TRC housing general manager Neil Porteous said Rauti has been offered five properties over the past four months.

    “We are currently holding a new warm, dry home nearby for her.

    “We have not received any feedback from Ms Rauti on the houses we have offered her. We welcome her getting in touch with us to discuss her needs.””

    So – she has been offered 5 homes in 4 months – and apparently have a new, warm and dry home waiting for her nearby – and she has not provided any feedback it seems other than she wants to stay where she is.

    It looks to me that the TRC is being very reasonable. They have plans for her land and she needs to move.

    But – as they say people see things differently – I hope that labour gets right behind her on this – because I think that most people will think her unreasonable.

    If Im proved wrong – then bloody good on them.

    [if you are going to cut and paste, or make claims, then you need to link or back them up. Count this as a moderator warning – weka]

    • weka 3.1
      23 January 2017 at 10:17 pm

      Funny how you missed the bit just before.


      Rauti said she understood TRC will relocate her to one of the new homes in its Glenn Innes development but after inspecting some options, she’s adamant that none of them are good enough.

      She’d be willing to compromise if the the right house was found for her but all the ones TRC had shown her had problems, ranging from being cold and damp to poorly laid-out.

      “I went to a house they had for me in Rowena Cres and the yard was flooded.

      “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that it was in no living condition. And they offered me a two-storey home but I have a heart problem, I am old – how am I supposed to get around?

      “It’s about the freedom to choose where you want to live – they are taking that freedom away from us.”

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/88498924/glen-innes-woman-refuses-to-leave-her-home-of-over-30-years

  4. tc 4
    24 January 2017 at 7:01 am

    How about some opposition OIA requests to establish how much pillage the Nats have got up to in GI/pt England/panmure with state houses using these corporate vehicles.

    I’m told what’s being built is quite cheap n nasty a la 90’s Nat legislated building practices but it’ll be another govts problem when the issues surface.

  5. saveNZ 5
    24 January 2017 at 8:21 am

    Shocking!

  6. Tarquin 6
    24 January 2017 at 8:45 am

    Is today flog a dead horse day? The woman is a bludger with an elevated sense of entitlement born from years of getting away with living in a house she should never have had. Chuck her out now.

    • Carolyn_nth 6.1
      24 January 2017 at 8:52 am

      Oh? So she should always have been homeless? And now, in her 60s, treat her like a piece of dirt to be thrown out on the street?

      She’s a woman whose done a lifetime of work – paid and unpaid, including carting for her mother.

      The real bludgers these days are developers: vulture capitalists who want to take our state assets at fire-sale prices, and enrich themselves – meanwhile gradually diminishing our state house stock, and increasing the numbers of people living on the street, in cars, garages, campsites, couch surfing, etc.

      Those state houses belong to us all. And we use them to house people on low incomes, who can’t find homes elsewhere because of the in-built inequalities in our financial system.

  7. Steve Wrathall 7
    24 January 2017 at 9:05 am

    So she’s occupied a large house she hasn’t needed since 1992, and is now preventing its replacement with modern houses that could house 2-3 families in need. How is this fair?

    • BM 7.1
      24 January 2017 at 9:10 am

      Yeah, the messaging is all over the place.

      It’s so bad I have to wonder if Labour isn’t running this behind the scenes.

    • Carolyn_nth 7.2
      24 January 2017 at 9:15 am

      Read DH @ 9.01am above. It’s not as straightforward as you suggest. The transfer of the state houses to a housing developement company, means we are all being scammed. There will be fewer low income people housed on the re-development; more low income people struggling to find housing in the ever-inflating private rental market; while the developers increase their profits by sucking more money out of the state coffers.

      Meanwhile Niki is being offered inadequate housing at the moment – and the chances are, low income people, including the elderly, will be increasingly pushed out of the increasingly gentrified area.

      No safe secure home for the future for Niki as the result of this “social housing” scam.

      How is that fair? And how is it the policy of a caring society?

      • james 7.2.1
        24 January 2017 at 9:34 am

        You know its not a ” a housing development company” like Fletchers right?

        Its a company joint between the Government and Auckland Council.

        • DoublePlusGood 7.2.1.1
          24 January 2017 at 1:09 pm

          Three guesses what happens once the housing development company owns the houses and the media attention quiets down…

    • weka 7.3
      24 January 2017 at 11:05 am

      good to know that you support the displacement of poor people and more homelessness for them, so that people on higher incomes can get housing.

      • james 7.3.1
        24 January 2017 at 12:13 pm

        Actually that is not their aim – read their statements on their website.

        • DoublePlusGood 7.3.1.1
          24 January 2017 at 1:12 pm

          Well they’re obviously not going to put “Fuck over the poor” as their mission statement on their website.
          That’s exactly what they are going to do though.

        • weka 7.3.1.2
          24 January 2017 at 1:13 pm

          How you link and cut and paste the bit you want me to read. Because if that’s not their aim, then why are they doing that?

  8. Paul 8
    24 January 2017 at 9:16 am

    The trolls are out in force on this issue.
    5 rwnjs have commented already to derail this thread.
    Homelessness is a touchy subject for this government, isn’t it?

    • Carolyn_nth 8.1
      24 January 2017 at 9:17 am

      Yep.

    • jcuknz 8.2
      24 January 2017 at 9:58 am

      You do not have to be a troll to see the stupidity of the arguments against moving.
      This is ‘state property’ provided to somebody in need. Why a single person needs a three bedroom property is completely beyond me and I have attacked Nat policy frequently here at TS.
      What about the ‘rights’ of us the owners in ensuring that folk are housed according to their needs. One bit of common sense was to build a retirement cottage in the backyard for her.
      I built and own outright my retirement home of 26 years now. But age 85yo now makes it difficult to climb the stairs which I sprinted up years ago so I think the sensible solution was to move essential living downstairs and now I have a one room pensioner flat….if I can do that why cannot a renter accept they need to free up three bedrooms for a deserving family or development as appears to be this case.
      After all it is NOT her house but OURS and I for one expect responsibility from tenants …. but responsibility seems a missing concept in these days of RIGHTs.

      • Carolyn_nth 8.2.1
        24 January 2017 at 10:06 am

        Niki has been reported to have said she will move if an offered an appropriate home nearby – see link posted by weka @ 3.1 above, from which this is quoted:

        She’d be willing to compromise if the the right house was found for her but all the ones TRC had shown her had problems, ranging from being cold and damp to poorly laid-out.

        And, it’s necessary to look at the shoddy way the HNZ tenants in the area have been treated and the overall MO: this involves decreasing the amount of HNZ homes; subsidising developers providing “social housing”; and the situation with such social housing where developers/landlords siphon off increasing amounts of state funds to enrich themselves.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 8.2.2
        24 January 2017 at 7:26 pm

        She’s a taxpayer. She’s paid rent for over 20 years. It’s her home.

        • Jabrone 8.2.2.1
          24 January 2017 at 10:17 pm

          You mean, the taxpayer has paid her rent for 20 years.
          Auckland need more houses, real labour would support better use of this scarce resource to benefit more people in need

    • Alan 8.3
      24 January 2017 at 10:30 am

      No, the application of common sense is the issue here Paul

  9. james 9
    24 January 2017 at 9:41 am

    As for people calling them a “Development Company” –

    its important to acknowledge that this approach would not be the same as if development was undertaken by a
    private company who would seek to maximise the financial return. It is recognised that to maximise the economic and social returns likely requires trading off some financial return for TRC.

    – from their Statement of intent.

    I suggest a lot of the uninformed go read the docs on their website.

  10. Puckish Rogue 10
    24 January 2017 at 9:43 am

    20 years of cheap rent, what a benevolent country we live in, makes you proud to be a Kiwi 🙂

    • jcuknz 10.1
      24 January 2017 at 10:26 am

      It is only a ‘cheap rent’ because the income is also small and I gather the owner gets the full rental thanks to the taxpayer.
      So the landlord gets our generosity not the tenant .
      I believe in ‘The Responsible Society’ but appreciate that the people need to be responsible also for it to work … else we have the current situation. In this case a woman hogging a three bedroom property when a single, on the flat, pensioner flat would be completely adequate for her. [As close to the current property as possible to preserve her circle of friends]

      • Carolyn_nth 10.1.1
        24 January 2017 at 10:32 am

        Agree with you on your first points but, see comments above, jcknz. Niki has been reported to say she is willing to move nearby if an appropriate home is offered. So far only poor standard and inappropriate places have been offered to her. So she is not “hogging” the home.

        Also, there are reports of hundreds of houses, previously HNZ homes, standing empty for a long time after people have been evicted.

        • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1
          24 January 2017 at 11:31 am

          She says only poor and inappropriate houses have been offered, they say they’re not…

          We need an independent arbiter to check out the properties

          • weka 10.1.1.1.1
            24 January 2017 at 11:47 am

            Or we need a government that lets its social housing department do its job properly. This is what happens when you put corporations in charge of social housing.

            I also don’t think that TRC should be talking to the media about one of their clients, which is another reason to not trust them and to understand they are not a social housing agency.

            • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1.1.1
              24 January 2017 at 11:53 am

              No I think in this instance, especially in this age of manufactured outrage, we need someone to confirm whether the houses are up to her personal standard or not

              • weka …
                24 January 2017 at 11:58 am

                You don’t think the govt should let HNZ do its job properly as a social housing dept?

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  24 January 2017 at 12:11 pm

                  I think they’re doing a reasonable job, in this instance you have one lady living in a two/three bedroom house on a large parcel of land

                  Another house might be able to be put on the land, the lady has been offered options but has refused them all because they’re not up to her standard and everyone naturally believes her

                  This is why it would probably be cheaper and more efficient to have someone independent to check out the houses offered

                  • weka …
                    24 January 2017 at 1:15 pm

                    If the govt department responsible for this is incompetent and can’t do its job properly, how can they choose/appoint an independent assessor? And do we really want the govt to run its depts so badly that independent assessors are needed to oversee them? What’s the point of that?

              • fender …
                24 January 2017 at 12:25 pm

                “Manufactured outrage”

                You must be so proud that your arseholeness is anything but manufactured.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  24 January 2017 at 12:36 pm

                  Like there aren’t people there who protest for the sake of protesting

                  • weka …
                    24 January 2017 at 1:16 pm

                    I’m a leftie with a long history of activism included protesting back in the day and I’d have to say I don’t know any. Maybe we move in different circles.

                    • adam …
                      24 January 2017 at 1:28 pm

                      Nah he off snorting the white stuff. Woops sorry Puckish, made the assumption you were white and privileged.

            • BM 10.1.1.1.1.2
              24 January 2017 at 12:11 pm

              http://www.tamakiregeneration.co.nz/faqs

              Q: What does Tāmaki Housing do?

              A: Tāmaki Housing provides tenancy and property management services in Glen Innes, Panmure and Point England for Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Government and Auckland Council.

              • Rosemary McDonald …
                24 January 2017 at 12:28 pm

                And…and they are offering what they term…”Intensive Support Service”

                “TRC will be supporting families as they are moved into new homes across Tamaki, including working with them on ways to improve their quality of life outcomes. For many of our tenants this might mean a combination of better ways to access support for affordable housing options, financial capability training, healthy living advice or employment skills.

                This intensive support is intended to be delivered through a service provider that can connect with each family and build strong relationships with existing social service providers to identify and prioritise the delivery of the right mix of services for each family. The service provider will also need to be able to generate learnings and insights from this and share practices and innovations that will improve the way that this and similar services are delivered to these families.”

                Oh, my goodness…sounds so, so, so, socially supportive.

                A pity you have to click on the “market opportunities” heading to find out all about it.
                http://www.tamakiregeneration.co.nz/market-opportunities/intensive-support-services

                They can’t just ‘help people’, or even ‘do good’…oh no sirree…they have to be able to turn a profit while they’re doing it.

                • BM …
                  24 January 2017 at 12:40 pm

                  I see no problem, they want local organisations to be involved in the rehoming process.

                  That’s a good thing.

                  It costs money if the government runs it or local organisations are brought in to run it , it comes down to who will do a better job.

                  • Rosemary McDonald …
                    24 January 2017 at 1:01 pm

                    No BM.

                    You would not see a problem with profiting from the misery of others.

                    Because the problem is one of morals.

                    • BM …
                      24 January 2017 at 1:15 pm

                      Who’s profiting off the misery of others?

                      Where is the misery? people that are currently living in shitty old states houses will eventually end up living in new houses.

              • weka …
                24 January 2017 at 1:19 pm

                “A: Tāmaki Housing provides tenancy and property management services in Glen Innes, Panmure and Point England for Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Government and Auckland Council.”

                Nice one. Thanks for showing evidence that this is a business venture.

          • Gabby 10.1.1.1.2
            24 January 2017 at 12:41 pm

            Why not trot round and have a look?

            • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1.2.1
              24 January 2017 at 4:05 pm

              A little busy down here in the South Island at the moment but when I get time I’ll pop up and let you know

    • adam 10.2
      24 January 2017 at 12:19 pm

      Puckish you are just a dope some times. You say cheap, when the reality was affordable, and secure. You cheapen yourself.

      • Puckish Rogue 10.2.1
        24 January 2017 at 12:28 pm

        No, I think you mean I afford myself

        • adam 10.2.1.1
          24 January 2017 at 12:33 pm

          So you go for cheap laughs, at the price of the elderly and disabled – wow puck, that even low for you.

          • Puckish Rogue 10.2.1.1.1
            24 January 2017 at 12:39 pm

            I always go for cheap laughs but in this case shes been offered, is it five houses so far and after 20 years of affordable housing so that seems like a pretty good deal to me

            Go NZ!

            • adam 10.2.1.1.1.1
              24 January 2017 at 12:43 pm

              If they worked for her, sure I’d agree. But they don’t, it shows that private enterprise is just as useless as the state. Actually worse, they have no excuses in being so dullard in offering her so few houses to look at.

              So you exceptionalism over such a low number is mind numbing. But then again, tribalism is all you lot have left.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                24 January 2017 at 12:57 pm

                Shes says they don’t work for her, either because they don’t or she doesn’t want to leave “her” house

                Five houses is few?

                • adam …
                  24 January 2017 at 1:12 pm

                  You don’t live in Auckland do you, by that last comment. When you brought a home, how many did you look at?

                  OK out of the 5, one was decent in that ‘Stuff’ could find. But two stories, so not good for her. So yeah the other 4 were poor, not unusual for Auckland, and not unusual for private business to offer people substandard properties.

                  On the hunt for a home last year, I saw some truly awful properties. Ask anyone in Auckland about some of the places they looked at when looking for a rental, and most will tell a similar story.

                  ‘her’ house on one level sure, the law says that by the way – when you rent. But leaving that aside, why should she be put in a house which is not fit?

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    24 January 2017 at 3:11 pm

                    Shes not buying a home, if she was we wouldn’t be having this discussion

                    She says they’re poor, she may also be saying that because she doesn’t want to leave “her” home

                    • adam …
                      24 January 2017 at 4:21 pm

                      So one rule for home buyers and bugger renters?

                      Like I said you and yours are just picking on the elderly and infirm – it’s a sad day for NZ, especially when you crow over it.

  11. james 11
    24 January 2017 at 12:18 pm

    Here is the hell hole they have offered her.

    its a 4 min drive from her current loction.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/88536471/Tamaki-Regeneration-Company-files-legal-proceedings-to-evict-tenant

    • adam 11.1
      24 January 2017 at 12:25 pm

      ah james, again with the cheap shots I see, however good to see you can follow direction. But once again you spin to get your lie across. The lady in question has a heart condition, she said this property was fine, just that with her health 2 stories was a nightmare.

      But sure keep the parade of lies running, if it makes you feel better. Why do you have to lie about this, feeling guilty that you punishing a retired worker, someone who looked after aging parent? Feeling guilt that people have died over these eviction? Feeling guilty that greed is on such public display?

      • james 11.1.1
        24 January 2017 at 12:32 pm

        I said – “Here is the hell hole they have offered her.

        its a 4 min drive from her current loction.”

        Its a statement of fact and not a lie.

        • adam 11.1.1.1
          24 January 2017 at 12:34 pm

          And I said she never said it was a hell hole. So you are lying.

          • james 11.1.1.1.1
            24 January 2017 at 12:50 pm

            I dont want to start a flame way – so I will leave it with this comment.

            My comment was not in reply to anybody but was simply pointing to the link and a small) comment.

            I made a post with a comment – you accused me of telling lies.

            I didnt quote anyone as calling it a hell hole.

            If you are going to call people liars – best that you have some evidence because it makes you look pathetic and desperate. Again – thats not quoting anybody – its just my perception of your comments and behaviour.

            • adam 11.1.1.1.1.1
              24 January 2017 at 1:22 pm

              You said “Here is the hell hole they have offered her.

              its a 4 min drive from her current loction.” (location)

              I said she did not call that place a hell hole. Just once, point to the place anywhere were she said that house you put up is a hell hole. No can’t do it, thus you are a fabricator of half truths, or as the old English put’s it, a liar.

              No amount of spin is going to stop that lie james, admit you got it wrong once again by lying. Yes some of the homes she did describe as hell holes, but not that one. So james, you are a liar. You understand what that word means right. A person who tells falsehoods.

              • james …
                24 January 2017 at 2:50 pm

                Are you delusional – I never said she said it was a hell hole. Wasn’t a quote – wasn’t in speach marks.

                The only person attributing that to her is yourself. I sure wasn’t.

                You are coming off a bit crazed at the moment – go have a lie down.

                • adam …
                  24 January 2017 at 4:12 pm

                  Oh dear poor poppet. Did I offend you? Well build a bridge. You said

                  “Here is the hell hole they have offered her.

                  its a 4 min drive from her current loction.”

                  She used the word hell hole to describe one property in one piece you failed to offer proper referencing too earlier.

                  Then miraculously you use the same words to denigrate her.

                  Now you twist and turn like weasel, and go into personal abuse because you have been caught out lying. A lie is a person who tells a falsehood and in this case you have told two.

                  Worst troll ever, can’t even connect the dots of their lying.

        • jcuknz 11.1.1.2
          24 January 2017 at 1:40 pm

          Sorry James but I can still drive and four minutes is a heck of a long way to be removed from her circle of friends. On the other hand I am not impressed by her reasons for turning offers down .. sounds superficial to me … and changing house normally means some adjustments to be made.
          My yard always floods after heavy rain, hardly a reason to move.
          Does she have a car anyway … took me best part of twenty minutes to walk with my ‘walker’ and heart condition just half a block awhile back, stopping every hundred metres to use my spray and stop my heart playing up 🙂

    • Rosemary McDonald 11.2
      24 January 2017 at 12:34 pm

      Found myself singing this while driving down the Southern Motorway this morning…

  12. Brutus Iscariot 12
    24 January 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Ungrateful to be so picky about a house, when you’ve been living off the public teat for 21 years.

    The sense of entitlement is enormous.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 12.1
      24 January 2017 at 6:19 pm

      Some commenters here come across as envious of a woman of very modest financial means who has had her accommodation costs on now valuable land subsidised for decades. And apparently this sort of thing (“Down with this sort of thing!”) isn’t an isolated incident – disgraceful (There ought to be a law against it!)
      Meanwhile, how much tax has been diverted from Government coffers over the same period? Break it down by legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion; wouldn’t mind betting that both of those categories would dwarf the subsidies to State Housing ‘bludgers’. It’s a sad situation, and needs to be considered with compassion and from a balanced financial perspective.
      How much more wealth do the 1% need? The sense of entitlement is enormous.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 12.2
      24 January 2017 at 7:28 pm

      Yes, how dare people feel “entitled” to basic human rights like housing 🙄

      The selfish people here are the ones acting like anyone who’s old, poor, brown and female isn’t worthy of basic dignity and support from her community.

      • Brutus Iscariot 12.2.1
        25 January 2017 at 9:27 am

        It’s more about manners – when you’re living in someone else’s home and/or living off someone else’s goodwill, you play by their rules and show gratitude.

        • Leftie 12.2.1.1
          25 January 2017 at 11:46 am

          Rubbish Brutus. State housing, paid for by generations of Kiwis, is an asset, and belongs to the people, just like Ioela Ana Rauti, that these homes are intended for. State houses most certainly were not intended for the National government to flog off to their developer mates in a privatization exercise. It’s yet another promise broken by the Gnats and their co partners.

      • Leftie 12.2.2
        25 January 2017 at 11:38 am

        +1000 Drowsy and Stephanie

  13. Leftie 13
    25 January 2017 at 11:57 am

    Good on you Ioela Ana Rauti and your supporters for fighting this and standing your ground. Hang in there. We have an opportunity, in months to come, to kick National and Co out, that will put an end to this madness.

Links to post