As someone who’s skipped the whole OE and worked hard to scrape together a house deposit, living in a not too great area surrounded by KO homes whilst struggling somewhat to pay the mortgage, I don’t get the sensationalism surrounding the news articles focusing on KO lately. Like, I’d love to be able to live in a nicely insulated home where the cost won’t exceed 25% of my income. If people take the mickey in this situation we shouldn’t be giving them a rent free pass? ie rewarding people for not playing their part in society. Alternative headline: Tenants who don’t pay rent get evicted.
Because the outcome is a lot worse for society than unpaid rent if they don’t have a roof over their heads.
New Zealand really loves to chase the wrong end of the stick and focus on benefit-bashing. The reality is that there’s a much higher magnitude of tax fraud than there is benefit fraud, so how about we focus on the big ticket items first?
That may be true, but what other options do they have to control the behaviour of people in their housing? People are being assaulted and harassed by their neighbors.
We already have clear laws about assault and harrassment. I would like to see those upheld properly.
No one should be able to do those things, whether they are in Kainga Ora or own their own flat in Remuera.
Agreed, if we move on from the topic about not paying rent and onto a discussion around violence/harrassment or destruction of property, that’s a policing issue. KO as “landlord” could impose some penalties such as rehousing to a less desirable location or imposing fines, but throwing antisocial or violent people out onto the streets are simply going to make our streets full of more anti-social and violent behaviour that the public-at-large will then encounter. Longer term, we need to adapt our policies across the board to set the next generation up for success so people have less need for social housing and then everybody is better off. But in the circumstances we have today, it helps nobody to kick these people to the curb.
I agree with all these points. Long term I’d like to see a move away from creating ghettos (especially SROs to more pepperpotting.
We already have clear laws about assault and harrassment. I would like to see those upheld properly.
Pigs are more likely to fly than do that.
Maybe. But I would think that’s more of an argument for a) police funding and b) pepperpotting which is international best practice for social housing anyway.
When I lived in leafy suburbs I once saw the police arrive within 5 minutes because a passerby had peed on someone’s letterbox.
Why are you pretending this is being done by everybody in KO? It’s a very small minority and they can be dealt with by the law.
BTW. I like that you want to kick people out of their houses for harassing their neighbours. Oh wait a minute. You are only calling for that when they are in public housing. If they are in private housing you don’t give a flying fuck that they are harassing their neighbours.
Why don’t we take your hyper violent recommendation and apply it uniformly? If anybody harasses any neighbour they are left homeless. If they are renting they get evicted, if they own their own house they are kicked out and their houses are confiscated.
Would you be OK with that?
I’m honestly not sure what you’re on about here, or how you reached the conclusions that you have, but you seem remarkably fired up about an anonymous comment.
And yes, if people repeatedly commit crimes against their neighbours, they should be forced to move. That sounds fair and reasonable to me.
And yes, if people repeatedly commit crimes against their neighbours,
You didn’t say crimes when you were talking about people on public housing. You also didn’t say repeatedly. This is your two tiered morality. You think people on public housing should be ejected from their houses for harassment but if you are on private housing it not only do you have to commit a crime but repeatedly commit crimes against your neighbours before you are kicked out.
Once again, I’m baffled how you got from here to there, but OK buddy.
This is why I don’t typically bother engaging with you, you read a comment, and go off on the most batshit insane tangent, based on what you’ve decided I meant.
You just don’t like being held responsible for your words. You chose the word harass not me.
you said if a person in public housing harasses their neighbours they should be evicted. You didn’t say crime, you said harass. You added crime later when I challenged you.
So just to clear things up.
You asserted that a if a person in KO harasses their neighbours they should be evicted.
Do you think if a renter is harassing their neighbours they should be evicted?
Do you think if a homeowner is harassing their neighbors they should be evicted?
These are simple yes and no questions that should clear up the matter.
Don’t use the word crime, we already have laws dealing with crime and even people who commit crimes don’t get evicted as a part of their punishment or lose their homes.
I agree with the first it but not the second.
You’d love if you could live in a nicely insulated home where you didn’t have unreasonable rent costs.
For me, the takeaway is not that we should kick these people out, it’s that KO should be significantly expanding this programme.
KO should be significantly expanding this programme.
KO needs another tier of accommodation for those who can’t afford the rent in KO’s existing accommodation.
I can’t quite grok why KO wouldn’t already have this though. KO’s reason to exist is to provide accommodation to those who can’t otherwise afford it. That they have unaffordable rent levels is weird given its probably mostly just consuming the tenants’ accommodation supplement anyway. There’s a wasteful overhead there.
The risk is that the cheaper accommodation will probably end up as slums from NIMBY’s and aggressive cost cutting.
Yeah, and maybe we should take a moment to consider why the KO housing exists. If it’s to put people in housing when they otherwise would have had none, why are we kicking them out?
If they wanted to have the experience of living somewhere they couldn’t afford and getting kicked out for not paying the rent, they could have just gone for a rental with a private landlord.
It’s not like shelter is one of the basic human rights we all agree on or anything.
;-)
Slums or not I think it would be more efficient and effective to build multiple residency apartment towers. Land is expensive and it takes too long and costs too much to build thousands of individual houses.
Like, I’d love to be able to live in a nicely insulated home where the cost won’t exceed 25% of my income.
If this is really your issue, then you’re focusing on the wrong people.
Clearly something has to be done when a certain percentage are falling into arrears, but making them homeless is not the right tactic. Thinking they are all just withholding rent while having the ability to pay is a big assumption, and is almost certainly incorrect. There needs to be some discretion exercised and probably taken on a case by case basis. I have no doubt there are some taking the piss, but just painting all of them with the same brush seems wrong to me.
Being poor doesn’t always mean you’re taking the mickey. But all humans need shelter and warmth.
Maybe a solution is to increase the amount people get through the benefit system.
But to be clear, I’m definitely talking about the <1% of tenants who are taking the Mickey, and I don’t think what KO has been doing in the recent past has really worked for them.
Yes it’s clearly not fit for purpose.
Unless you have insurance (which I hope you do) if you got struck down bu one of the dread diseases you’d be unlikely to afford to rent a kainaga ora house.
Because you have a housing deposit you’s not elligible for Accomodation supplement leaving you witb $342 a week. Take away 25% rent you’re left with $264 per week to cover everything food, bills, utilities.
It doesn’t take much to overset that. One disastwr in your life and suddenly money is supeertight.
There was a KO housing development that was burned down in an arson attack recently, almost certainly by a local resident.
They’ve dug a massive hole for themselves, because the actions of a minority of people in their housing have given them such a poor reputation that nobody wants to live next to a KO property, and are willing to go as far as committing arson to avoid it.
It’s a serious problem, and it should never have gotten this far.
It’s great that you were able to achieve your life’s goals. I don’t know where the attitude to pull up the ladder behind you comes in though.
The way I see it housing is one of those survival needs and the state should be providing it for everybody who can’t afford it. Hell I would be in favor of converting jails to housing. It won’t be nice but it’s better than living in the streets or in a car.
