The Nation on housing

57 comments on “The Nation on housing ”

• Comments are now closed

1. millsy 1

   18 June 2017 at 8:17 am

   This was happening long before now, in 2008 the Listener did an expose on Kotuku Lodge, a boarding house in Mangere.
2. Ed 2

   18 June 2017 at 8:25 am

   And from last year.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLjVc-zNcNQ
   • Ed 2.1

     18 June 2017 at 8:26 am

     and more….

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ_Fopka524
     • Ed 2.1.1

       18 June 2017 at 8:26 am

       And more.

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dA7KJZ2t1U
3. greg 3

   18 June 2017 at 9:29 am

   well until people decide to vote there not much can be done nacts have had a decade to make a mess nact needs to fix the problem now that they created
   • Draco T Bastard 3.1

     18 June 2017 at 11:51 am

     National can’t fix the mess they’ve made because it’s a direct result of their ideology and the policies that they ram through.

     The real problem is that Labour probably can’t either as they’re still following the same failed ideology.

     That failed ideology is capitalism.
     • Red 3.1.1

       18 June 2017 at 3:34 pm

       Don’t be rediculous Draco, the so called capitalist system houses 99pc plus of nz adequately with choice and diversity, you don’t break the system, you simply tweak it at the boundaries that’s all national and labour are competing on? The only one stuck in an idealogicsl bubble is yourself
4. AsleepWhileWalking 4

   18 June 2017 at 10:06 am

   Can someone mathematically prove that the welfare policies of having “cash assets” + the way the Social Securities Act is set up actually create a situation where in order to get out of the system you need significant assets or a very high income to begin with?

   I don’t mean the piss poor definition of “success” that MSD currently have where the target is to get you off a core benefit (despite still needing extensive state help in other regards).

   I believe this to be the case but not that good with figures. We need hard brutal data to turn this situation around regardless of who is governing.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     18 June 2017 at 12:00 pm

     Can someone mathematically prove that the welfare policies of having “cash assets” + the way the Social Securities Act is set up actually create a situation where in order to get out of the system you need significant assets or a very high income to begin with?

     It probably could be done but would require a dedicated team for a few years with access to all of the data. In other words, a few million dollars of research.

     Still, there is Piketty’s and others research that shows declining social mobility and the entrenchment of the rich.
   • Macro 4.2

     18 June 2017 at 1:24 pm

     Just published today:
     https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jun/17/wealth-gap-rises-as-uk-home-ownership-falls-resolution-foundation
   • weka 4.3

     18 June 2017 at 2:45 pm

     To get Accommodation Supplement you can’t have cash assets of more than $8,100 for a single person.

     Cash assets are all financial assets (not Kiwisaver), plus non-financial ones. You can have a caravan or boat so long as its worth less than $2,000, or you use it for day to day accommodation.

     Gifts of cash, payouts from ACC, money from sale of a house etc will all eventually be considered a cash asset (usually after a year).

     So, consider how many people end up on a benefit for 3 – 5 years and have to sell assets to live on, or use up savings, or live off the money from the sale of a house. Once you’ve used up that money the state will help with accommodation costs again. Meanwhile, things change, you get a minimum wage job, but have zero savings and now live hand to mouth with every big bill that comes along.

     It gets even worse if you are on TAS (which is many long term beneficiaries), because the cash asset limit for that is something like $1100. So if you have more than that you are ineligible for TAS until you spend it.

     “Can someone mathematically prove that the welfare policies of having “cash assets” + the way the Social Securities Act is set up actually create a situation where in order to get out of the system you need significant assets or a very high income to begin with?”

     Not sure about getting out of the system because as I’ve just described, you have to use up assets to be eligible in the first place.
5. Adrian Thornton 5

   18 June 2017 at 10:20 am

   Until we have a leading politician and political party that has the courage to just come out and say what every thinking citizen knows already, that the era of the ‘housing market’ and the commodification of domestic housing is over, and today exists only as pure fantasy, solely propped up by government intervention and welfare, that the ideology of the ‘property ladder’ as being the sole means to social mobility and personal security is past just being unsustainable, it is now an active threat to a stable society and safe and coherent communities.

   We need a political party that has radically different answers to this crisis, one with a vision for the future that we can all embrace and want to campaign for, get out on the streets for, poster the walls for, write song for, shout for, protest for, fuck shit up for……..and it is not Labour NZ today, they have made that much is sadly clear to us.

   Turn Labour Left.
   • patricia bremner 5.1

     18 June 2017 at 10:55 am

     Labour are promising to tackle this by forming Kiwibuild. You assert Labour will not improve things. Adrian your tone is negative, and troll like at times.
     We can join together and VOTE for change.
     For the finance minister to fail to plan for this over 9 years of public denial is shameful. His private admissions verge on criminal, considering he had the power.
     Many moderate Nats in our family and friends are disgusted as they put the jigsaw together.
     • Bill 5.1.1

       18 June 2017 at 11:17 am

       Can’t say I find Adrian’s comments to be particularly negative, and they certainly aren’t trolling comments. Sometimes we don’t like what we hear, but that doesn’t mean that what is being expressed is wrong. In this instance, I’d be saying that Adrian is ‘on the money’.

       You mention kiwibuild. I’ve been critical of that policy in the past, and so I’ll merely ask the following. What proportion of the Kiwibuild houses are for rent? What does that stack up to in raw numbers? How long will it take to build ‘x’ number of rental houses? And how many people are currently homeless or in dire situations?

       I’m asking the above in light of the stated intention to build affordable homes. And picking that more or less all of the people who are homeless or in dire straits with regards accommodation, won’t be in any position to afford any of these ‘affordable’ homes; that any people who are likely to be n such a position are not living at the sharp end of the housing situation.
       • weka 5.1.1.1

         18 June 2017 at 11:33 am

         Labour policy isn’t my forte, but afaik Kiwibuild isn’t designed to directly assist homeless or those in dire straights re housing. It’s designed to build upper middle class housing because there is a shortage there as well. The intention is that once people who can afford those houses have access to them, it will free up cheaper houses for buying and for renting. Labour also has other policies that are aimed at directly assisting people who are homeless e.g. their policy on HNZ.

         I agree it’s not brilliant, but it’s not nothing either.

         As for negativity, I think critiquing policy is one thing, writing off a party is another when they are the *only option for changing the government in an election year. I also think that there are numerous thinking citizens who don’t see the era of the housing market as being over, and who in fact are still doing very well out of the housing market. Which is one of the problems for Labour in its attempt to move left.
         • Bill 5.1.1.1.1

           18 June 2017 at 12:05 pm

           If NZ Labour are the only option for any change, then they are the only option for any change. That doesn’t mean it can’t or oughtn’t to be intelligently pointed out by way of reasoned opinion that they or their policies are possibly not much more than a pile of steaming crap. And that wouldn’t be so much ‘writing them off’ as opining on the “shite state of affairs” that’s the totality of parliamentary options or possibilities in NZ at the moment. As for this supposed attempt to move left that’s coming from Labour – that isn’t something that’s come up on my radar. Maybe I missed it.

           Meanwhile, Adrian commented on what they believe NZ needs, on where they think many people are at, and on the gulf that exists between what we arguably need and what we’re likely to get via NZ Labour.

           He didn’t say (in spite of patricia’s comment to the contrary) that some thing wouldn’t improve under NZ Labour. (I don’t think anyone claims that.) Neither did he troll and neither…well, this whole ‘tone police’ shite that patricia threw out in response is just crap designed to silence voices.
           • Red 5.1.1.1.1.1

             18 June 2017 at 3:47 pm

             NZers have no desire To bust the system that the Likes of Bill and Draco pursue, any party that purports to do so is also knackered at the election box as more articulately put forward by Rob Hoskins in this weeks NBR He further argued why conservative parties tend to be more successful, they start from a position system is ok, barring recalibration at the boundaries, incremental change and basic level of optimism not the doom and gloom of far left or those in some other weird wacky world of their own proposing to bust the system as their starting point
             • Muttonbird …

               18 June 2017 at 6:29 pm

               Interesting you put up against what you call ‘successful conservatism’ the ‘bust-the-system, weird, whacky world of the far left.

               Typical shark-jumping from a RWNJ troll.

               There is a legitimate alternative to the current ‘recalibration at the boundaries’ and ‘incremental change’ of the National Party led government.

               The National Party government’s approach described above is effectively zero government, and has led to severe housing shortages, severe infrastructure under-investment, increasing social and economic inequality, high youth suicide rate, under-investment in mental health and child protections, a sharp drop in NZ water quality, and an increasingly low wage/high cost of living New Zealand.

               It has led to some very real stresses at the worker and vulnerable end of society, but that doesn’t mean you can paint a far left anarchist solution as the only alternative, you little shit.

               The more moderate and socially responsible path for New Zealand to take is a Labour/Green coalition.
         • Incognito 5.1.1.1.2

           18 June 2017 at 12:13 pm

           I also think that there are numerous thinking citizens who don’t see the era of the housing market as being over, and who in fact are still doing very well out of the housing market.

           Indeed, I think this is one of the biggest problems. Many economists, for example, have warned that a market correction is necessary, which neither National, the RBNZ, nor Labour will (need to) take responsibility for. However, when political opponents starts to use scare tactics and politics of fear by blaming their (political) opponent for imminent and inevitable doom such a market crash then we find ourselves well and truly in the realm of the irrational & emotional. This kills off any reasonable debate and any non-partisan solutions and the status quo prevails by and large.
           • weka 5.1.1.1.2.1

             18 June 2017 at 2:24 pm

             Yep. It’s a really difficult one to solve politically. Needs a big change in culture.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2

         18 June 2017 at 11:58 am

         What proportion of the Kiwibuild houses are for rent?

         A moot point, considering the commitment to increase state housing stock.
         • Bill 5.1.1.2.1

           18 June 2017 at 12:11 pm

           Then I’m asking the question with the state housing numbers included. And adding a question about “right to buy”. Does that remain or is it due to be scrapped?
           • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2.1.1

             18 June 2017 at 12:17 pm

             Again, a moot point. The commitment is to increase state housing stock. If the “right to buy” remains how does that affect the commitment?

             Whether ‘right to buy’ is a good thing or not is another question.
             • Bill …

               18 June 2017 at 12:40 pm

               “Right to Buy” diminishes the availability of affordable rentals over time.

               The commitment is to increase the housing stock, yes. But by how much and by what terms that would increase accessibility for the poorest?

               That’s the measure of the policy’s effectiveness, given that the stated problem is poor people with no home or in bad housing.

               If the policy opens up access to the housing market for a broader sweep of the ‘middle class’, then ‘bully’ for them. But they aren’t the ones who are suffering and they aren’t the people desperately needing things to be shaken up.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 18 June 2017 at 1:15 pm

                 The right to buy only diminishes stock if you don’t replace it.

                 I agree with your measure of the policy’s effectiveness; in my book, the government should deal with this using emergency powers and requisition accommodation if need be.

                 While increasing state housing stock will have the same effect in the long term, that will be too long for some.
               • weka …

                 18 June 2017 at 2:09 pm

                 “The commitment is to increase the housing stock, yes. But by how much and by what terms that would increase accessibility for the poorest?”

                 As I said above, increasing home ownership for the middle classes will increase rentals across the board. Plus changes to HNZ including increasing HNZ housing.

                 Where I disagree with OAB is that we need better and more affordable non-HNZ rentals too, because not everyone is suited to social housing especially around location. But again, more HNZ housing should free up other rentals, eventually.

                 The better rental thing will hopefully be addressed by the rental WOF (I think both L and Greens have this but let’s assume that the GP one is more progressive so again, there’s a voting choice).

                 Once that is in place, or as it’s being put in place, then let’s push for improvements to that. I still think the big flaw in the whole plan is that housing is still tied to investment, which is about retirement and greed. Until we start looking at that, and how to solve that realistically, I think what L/G are offering is actually not too bad. But to go back to the original, IMO inaccurate comment from Adrian, plenty of NZers might have concerns about housing in NZ but they don’t see the market as the problem per se. That’s as big a problem as anything Labour is doing.
                 • Bill …

                   18 June 2017 at 4:15 pm

                   How does increasing home ownership for the middle classes necessarily increase the number and availability of rentals for the poorer among us?

                   The assumption would have to be that no young middle class people are living in their parent’s home; that they’ll only be buying houses that wouldn’t otherwise be available for rent; that none of them are currently in multiple occupier rental accommodation. And probably a few other scenarios that aren’t readily popping to mind.

                   But however those numbers stack up, and whatever your thoughts on how it might all fall out, the basic question of how many houses will be specifically for rent (whether through kiwibuild or HNZ) remains.

                   I can’t say I’m at all impressed with this idea that those not really in need should be catered to first, while the rest just wait around for some ‘trickle down’ effect to kick in.

                   Adrian said “what every thinking citizen knows already”. And sure, that along with the rest of that para is debatable. But throw in the legions of poor who don’t even begin to think about home ownership, and for different reasons to those put forward by Adrian, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that it is about time some politician or political party ‘called it’.
                   • weka …

                     18 June 2017 at 8:22 pm

                     “How does increasing home ownership for the middle classes necessarily increase the number and availability of rentals for the poorer among us?”

                     It doesn’t *necessarily and it’s why I think Labour’s policy is open to critique. I just think that attacking Kiwibuild for something it’s not designed to do isn’t that useful.

                     “The assumption would have to be that no young middle class people are living in their parent’s home; that they’ll only be buying houses that wouldn’t otherwise be available for rent; that none of them are currently in multiple occupier rental accommodation. And probably a few other scenarios that aren’t readily popping to mind.”

                     No, the assumption would be that enough first home buyers aren’t in those situations.

                     “I can’t say I’m at all impressed with this idea that those not really in need should be catered to first, while the rest just wait around for some ‘trickle down’ effect to kick in.”

                     Yes and no. If Labour weren’t fixing HNZ or doing a WoF, I’d agree. But as far as I can tell the policies are better seen as interrelated (and I’m sure there are other ones too). But sure, I don’t see Labour’s policy as brilliant by any means, I just think that the gap between what Adrian was talking about and where most voting NZers are at is just too wide.

                     “Adrian said “what every thinking citizen knows already”.”

                     Yes, I included the word thinking in my response deliberately. Unless you are suggesting that most of NZ are incapable of intelligent thought (as opposed to having different opinions), then my point stands. Lots of NZers don’t see a problem with the property market. I disagree with them, but I’m not trying to form a govt in Sept.

                     “And sure, that along with the rest of that para is debatable. But throw in the legions of poor who don’t even begin to think about home ownership, and for different reasons to those put forward by Adrian, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that it is about time some politician or political party ‘called it’.”

                     I responded originally because I do find Adrian’s comments often pretty negative. I think they have good insight into what needs to change but the whole Labour-bashing, go left regardless thing doesn’t work in reality when it comes negatively framed.

                     That issue of housing affordability, we’ve barely begun to scratch the surface of how to talk about that in real terms in NZ. I just don’t see the value in expecting a centre left party to suddenly start talking about the end of the housing market. Something else needs to happen first for Labour to be able to start moving in that direction.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   18 June 2017 at 6:27 pm

                   Where I disagree with OAB is that we need better and more affordable non-HNZ rentals too

                   Then either you’re misinterpreting my remarks, or they’re unclear in some way.
                   • weka …

                     18 June 2017 at 8:10 pm

                     People have a tendency to see fixing HNZ as the solution to renters or the homeless. I think we need to be careful to not assume that HNZ houses are the only response needed for those people. I don’t think you think that but I do see in these debates a promoted reliance on HNZ as the solution.
     • Wainwright 5.1.2

       18 June 2017 at 11:19 am

       Kiwibuild will deliver half-million-dollar houses in Auckland and call them affordable. It’s a joke.
       • McFlock 5.1.2.1

         18 June 2017 at 12:01 pm

         50,000 houses, townhouses, and apartments in Auckland? No joke. That’s why the nats pretend they’ll try to copy it.
         • Bill 5.1.2.1.1

           18 June 2017 at 12:16 pm

           50 000 is a fair number. But what proportion of those who are either homeless or in dire straits will be able to access them? That’s crucial. If they are mostly for sale and/or beyond the financial wherewithal of those living at the sharp end of this housing crisis, then what’s the point behind building them? What problem would that 50 000 actually be tackling?
           • McFlock 5.1.2.1.1.1

             18 June 2017 at 12:22 pm

             the poor quality housing stock that’s killing people and the shortage of houses that’s fuelling a speculative market.

             The problems you bring up are targeted more by Labour’s HNZ policy, increasing the housing stock, stopping the asset stripping, stopping the dividend extractions, and so on. But I suspect HNZ will pick up some of the kiwibuild homes, too.
             • Karen …

               18 June 2017 at 12:50 pm

               My understanding is the 100,000 houses over 10 years is the Kiwibuild policy to provide houses for first home buyers. Houses will also be bought and built to provide for social housing needs.

               http://www.labour.org.nz/state_houses_people_over_profit
             • Wainwright …

               18 June 2017 at 1:00 pm

               You can build as many good healthy houses as you like Mcflcok, the point is if people living in cars or moldy shitholes can’t afford them you’re just fuelling inequality.
               • weka …

                 18 June 2017 at 2:12 pm

                 Why would new HNZ houses not be affordable?

                 People have a go at Labour’s $600,000 houses or whatever they are, but as beneficiary I couldn’t afford a $100,000 house. There has to be a cut off point, where should it be exactly?
                 • Bill …

                   18 June 2017 at 4:18 pm

                   Why would HNZ houses be for sale?
                   • weka …

                     18 June 2017 at 5:44 pm

                     Don’t know what you mean.
                 • Wainwright …

                   18 June 2017 at 7:58 pm

                   Kiwibuild isn’t ‘new HNZ houses’, it’s new private dwellings. There’s a fraction of the 100,000 figure Labour throw around which is new state housing, something like 10,000 over x years. Mcflock is confusing the two either deliberately or not.
                   • weka …

                     18 June 2017 at 8:08 pm

                     Yes, I know what Kiwibuild is. I was pointing out that it’s not designed to solve those problems directly (homelessness, substandard housing), there are other policies for that. I wish people would stop conflating those issues.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 June 2017 at 9:57 pm

                     They’re planning on building new private dwellings, and also increasing the number of state dwellings as part of a separate plan.

                     I’d be surprised if there wasn’t some overlap in the two, but increasing the number of homes on the market also lowers the cost of increasing the number of state houses, however they’re sourced. Which actually provides a mechanism by which kiwibuild can indirectly help solve homelessness, a relationship that on the face of it looked like a complaint that a policy on farm effluent does nothing to address child labour problems overseas.
               • McFlock …

                 18 June 2017 at 9:59 pm

                 yeah well maybe you should take a closer look at the HNZ or rental homes policy. Kiwibuild isn’t supposed to directly address every problem under the sun, just the oversteamed housing market.
       • Incognito 5.1.2.2

         18 June 2017 at 12:21 pm

         By itself building more houses is not going to solve each & every problem but surely more available houses will allow mobility to occur on a larger scale and I’d like to think that it would free up housing at the lower end of the market. It is no magic bullet but it is better than doing absolutely nothing.
       • greg 5.1.2.3

         18 June 2017 at 5:48 pm

         i think that was point another comment dealt with a market correction will be needed to deliver affordable houses there is no painless way out of a housing bubble. its much more preferable if national had never allowed one to form.but here we are and we just going to have to deal with it.
     • Adrian Thornton 5.1.3

       18 June 2017 at 12:43 pm

       @patricia bremner
       I will say what I want, when I want about Labour, and if that happens to be a tough critique of their pathetic attempt at a housing solution to a looming critical national crisis, and you see that as negative, then that is your problem.

       As far as trolling goes, I don’t think so, I have made my views clear to Little, and Lorke face to face, and stand by anything I say, that is why I use my real name on political forums.
       I am open to debate, but I have seen nothing in your answer to me that carries any weight. Blaming a neo liberal economic disaster, that is expressing itself through this housing crisis on National, is quite frankly naive….at best.

       BTW, it speaks volumes that your Nat friends are moving toward Labour, while all the progressives I know and others I talk to in my shop daily, are moving away…

       Turn Labour Left!
       • weka 5.1.3.1

         18 June 2017 at 2:13 pm

         Who will you vote for Adrian? And who would you encourage people to vote for if not Labour?
       • greg 5.1.3.2

         18 June 2017 at 6:00 pm

         you need to remember we have mmp and kiwi build is a starting point in any negotiation the disenfranchised can us there vote to get the deal they want the power is theres or they can continue bickering (divide and conquer) and allow national to walk all over them .
         the speculators will be voting and national is counting on the young not to vote
6. Policy Parrot 6

   18 June 2017 at 12:32 pm

   This is bullshit – they (or someone else) just need to get on to it.

   The government could easily lease land on the outskirts of Auckland (near Drury perhaps), and contract a consortium to build several Kaikoura style temporary accommodation camps that could house these people, and have them operational at maximum within a couple of months.

   Provide subsidised transport to Takanini Railway Station, so they can travel further afield if desired, for work/family/pleasure etc.

   Obviously these places aren’t ideal, but surely they are several steps up from what they are currently living in. And it will cut the scum operators out of the market.
   • Bill 6.1

     18 June 2017 at 12:47 pm

     I agree that they (or someone else) just need to get on to it.

     I’ve a memory of an old Campbell Live piece after Christchurch where he went to a ‘lot’ containing basic pre-fab units that could have been rolled out by the truckload. Except it wasn’t happening. (I can’t remember what the excuses were.)

     I’m also going to mention again that NZ Labour said it would build rentals and houses to buy in a ratio such that it would take a hundred years before the number of rentals equaled the initial numbers being touted for ‘the market’.

     Maybe they’ve rowed back on that one.
   • Whispering Kate 6.2

     18 June 2017 at 1:30 pm

     This Government can roll out temporary housing when it wants to – they are building a mini town to provide for all the workers who are rebuilding the earthquake damaged highways created by the Kaikoura earthquake. From what I remember they were flat pack quick fix housing.

     One thing to build flat packs for their bloody highways but never a consideration for people who need housing. This is being primed up for wholesale privatisation of our social housing in this country. They don’t give a damn for the vulnerable – not one bit.
7. Philj 7

   18 June 2017 at 2:18 pm

   There are solutions to the housing crisis. We have a government who have benefited, in the short term, from not taking the sensible options to correct the situation. That is how we find ourselves in the dumb situation we are now in. We are being mislead and deceived.
8. RedLogix 8

   18 June 2017 at 2:39 pm

   Historically boarding houses were a regulatory black hole; not a motel, nor a flat. They’re are a very old component of our housing market and served a purpose for those with no other options. But always something that existed at the margins. Undesirable, but tolerable just.

   But with renting by the room has become a rapidly growing practice in recent years. The reasons all tie back into the usual suspects; the loss of social housing, and relentless pressure on rents.

   Since 2010 they have been brought under the mantle of the Tenancy Tribunal. Here are the DBH rules:

   https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/starting-a-tenancy/types-of-tenancies/boarding-houses/

   This section is pretty clear on the landlord’s responsibilities:

   Repairs
   A boarding house landlord must make sure the house is in a reasonable state of repair. It must comply with all requirements for buildings, including health and safety, under any enactment that applies. This includes supplying basic necessities such as cooking facilities, drinkable water and bathroom facilities (connected to an adequate means of heating water).

   Tenants must notify the landlord as soon as possible if they discover any damage or anything that needs repairing. Tenants must not intentionally or carelessly cause any damage, or allow anyone else to do so. Tenants must not interfere with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire.

   Security
   A boarding house landlord must provide and maintain sufficient locks to ensure the house and all rooms are reasonably secure. They must also make sure tenants have access to their room and toilet and bathroom facilities at all times.

   Before changing any lock or similar device, the landlord must tell every tenant who will be affected.

   Tenants must not alter, add to or remove any lock or similar device.

   In the case highlighted in the OP it’s crystal clear the landlord is absolutely in default on these obligations. The problem is that these tenants are people with no other options short of homelessness and are either unaware of, or afraid to exert even these minimal rights.
9. patricia bremner 9

   18 June 2017 at 3:45 pm

   Adrian I also use my name in discussions.
   “Negative and troll like” meant no positive suggestions coupled with sweeping statements that “no-one is offering anything better” (especially Labour).
   What do you suggest Adrian? Is an improvement through the election not desirable?
   Sure Little isn’t Christ. He is however genuine, and he cares.
   To turn round the 30+ year neo-liberal bus is going to need good will and a degree of personal sacrifice.
   Little and Labour have stated “houses should be homes, not bargaining chips”
   You said something radical needs to happen.
   Do you think we should nationalise home building? That would be a big move, but it would frighten the voting horses ofcourse.
   As for blaming the current government, well they saw the looming crisis and did what you said. Propped up a rotten system with welfare instead of change for the better.
   I repeat, I personally will vote for a change of government, aware as I am that deRoot and others have made “investment in houses” the problem it has become, and that an incoming government will need support and goodwill to bring about change.
   It was good to see a variety of responses, as I read this blog daily.
   • Philj 9.1

     18 June 2017 at 6:44 pm

     Patricia B,
     You can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg. To remedy this unfolding housing tragedy some people will have to pay. It should be those who have captured the market but I bet it won’t be.
10. Poission 10

    18 June 2017 at 5:26 pm

    The other accommodation problem causer.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/93622633/airbnb-headache-for-longterm-renters-as-marlborough-landlords-pull-properties

    This would be also a problem in other tourist ‘hotspots” such as queenstown wanaka etc

    Here local authorities have not met their responsibilities to manage AIRBNB with the regulatory constraints that apply to all commercial accommodation premises.
11. Venezia 11

    18 June 2017 at 10:02 pm

    I back the Jeremy Corbyn option. Requisition all houses which have been empty for 6 months or more to house people, especially in Auckland. This is likely to include houses purchased by foreign buyers (? tax dodges, ? money laundering).

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS