Mark Richardson is a self-confessed NIMBY, so it is little wonder that he has spoken out about a social housing development in Epsom. He does not want any social housing developments in his little piece of suburbia and he’s not shy about declaring his ‘me me me’ stance on the issue.
I’ve worked hard all my life and I’ve put my nuts on the line. I’ve tried to optimise every opportunity, I screwed myself to the wall to get into the eastern suburbs of Auckland.
I don’t then want [Phil] Twyford coming in and going ‘we’ll put that, that, that, that, that, that’ without at least consulting me. I have a right to have my house and have my moat and protect that.
He later states, after subscribing to the ‘not in my back yard’ mentality that these houses should be built in “appropriate areas, and he is “happy to pay as much tax as it takes to…ensure that those areas are built”.
Mark Richardson’s claim that he is willing to pay more tax is preposterous given he believes he’s going to ‘suffer’ from Labour tax changes. This resulted in another of his ‘I’m so hard done by’ rants just days earlier after Labour announced it will ‘ring fence’ rental losses. During the rant Mark didn’t sound like he’s too keen about losing kick backs from his rental property losses, but don’t worry it looks like he won’t be out of pocket after telling his tenants on national TV about his intention to raise their rent (who even does that)?
One has to worry when someone in his position says that “[t]here is going to be some creative accounting on the revenue gathering side of it so that we, at home, can’t do our own creative accounting to save ourselves money”. Richardson’s comment is a worry because ‘creative accounting’ implies resorting to misleading tax practices for personal gain.
Mark Richardson can be accused of being a lot of things: misogynist (and he actually thinks being one is funny), cheat (then implies other’s are criminals for ball tampering, whilst down playing his behaviour whilst doing exactly the same thing) and racist so I wonder if him being a nimby is the least of his problems?
Regardless, when nimby’s, cheats, racists or big mouthed idiots get to spout their brand of hate and stupidity to a large portion of society (and get paid for it) then we need to call them out for what it is.
Aside from Mark Richardson’s claim that there are more ‘appropriate areas’ than Epsom for social housing, he implies that the tenants will be less than desirable when he says “there is the onus to respect that roof and to respect those who helped you get into that roof, as in the tax payers you have around you”. This smacks of the same type of stigmatising discourse aimed at social housing tenants that David Seymour participated in recently. Richardson’s comments indicate that he does not believe that social housing tenants are respectful toward either the housing provided or the tax payers who provide it.
These wild assumptions and stereotypes are complicit in the most insidious form of systemic violence that people ‘not like them’ or ‘not like us’ have to deal with on a regular basis. These are the type of comments and stereotypes that not only hurt victims but also may prevent others from asking for help. So Richardson’s comments make him much more than just the ‘nimby’ he claims to be. It would be fair to say that his ability to influence others and broadcast his stigmatising views make him dangerous to anyone he cares to label, no matter how insidiously he choose to do it.