https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/the-number-of-famili
es-housed-under-dollar400m-progressive-home-ownership-scheme
-revealed/ar-AAP8uXA?ocid=UP97DHP&li=BBqdg4K

Good going Govt!

smallwoods - 2021-10-05 13:29:00

Amazing. How long have they been in power and how much money did they throw at it?

brightlights60 - 2021-10-09 20:17:00

The most incompetent bunch of muppets ever in Government. How many more years of failure to suffer???

pcle - 2021-10-09 21:21:00

pcle wrote:

The most incompetent bunch of muppets ever in Government. How many more years of failure to suffer???

So everybody would have been happy and housed cheaply under a Key and English governnent would they?

franc123 - 2021-10-09 23:01:00

franc123 wrote:

So everybody would have been happy and housed cheaply under a Key and English governnent would they?

Houses were cheaper under their leadership..

Habitat for humanity has been around for decades too. Seems like Labours just using somebody elses existing services as a way to partly fulfill their own promises, and then take the credit for it.
https://habitat.org.nz/

marte - 2021-10-09 23:40:00

franc123 wrote:

So everybody would have been happy and housed cheaply under a Key and English government would they?

It's reasonable to assume without the extensive changes made to rental requirements and costs to owners, rents would be considerably cheaper, and more rentals would be available. I don't know if renters would be happier with more money and more availability, but I have a feeling they might be.

bryalea - 2021-10-10 07:05:00

franc123 wrote:

So everybody would have been happy and housed cheaply under a Key and English governnent would they?

$7M a house. Are you stupid or just on the Government payroll?

pcle - 2021-10-10 07:38:00

pcle wrote:

$7M a house. Are you stupid or just on the Government payroll?

Or the third option is that he's read the article, done some research and critical thinking and realised that the OP's take on the article is incorrect?

sparkychap - 2021-10-10 08:07:00

bryalea wrote:

It's reasonable to assume without the extensive changes made to rental requirements and costs to owners, rents would be considerably cheaper, and more rentals would be available. I don't know if renters would be happier with more money and more availability, but I have a feeling they might be.

In the town I live in there are very few rentals as tis more profitable to have houses as homestays. Even if the government hadn't interfered and changed the rules, I don't think we would have any more rentals than we currently do.

annie17111 - 2021-10-10 08:20:00

franc123 wrote:

So everybody would have been happy and housed cheaply under a Key and English governnent would they?

Nah they sold off state houses

deboron - 2021-10-10 08:49:00

franc123 wrote:

So everybody would have been happy and housed cheaply under a Key and English governnent would they?

I would expect that less career benefit takers would be there wasting housing when they could well be out working hard for some money to pay rent rather than having everything gifted to them. More money needs to go to apprenticeships and education and less to benefits. Government housing should always be a short term solution to most and the long term solution only to the needy not the lazy.

sellontrademe - 2021-10-10 09:02:00

deboron wrote:

Nah they sold off state houses

That is certainly the usual statement these days, but somehow it is never mentioned that most were onsold to community housing providers at reduced price and tenants still qualify for taxpayer subsidised income related rent. And get local support.

Then there are those sold because they were at the end of their life or there was no demand for the size / location. Remembering that the waiting list was a quarter of what it is today.

So were you aware? Or just repeating what the people have been told to think.

artemis - 2021-10-10 09:34:00

sparkychap wrote:

Or the third option is that he's read the article, done some research and critical thinking and realised that the OP's take on the article is incorrect?

Only the public sector could be this incompetent. Private rentals don’t cost taxpayers $7M per family. Even if paying $1,000pw rent on the public tit would cost a mere $52k. Insane.

pcle - 2021-10-10 09:35:00

sellontrademe wrote:

I would expect that less career benefit takers would be there wasting housing when they could well be out working hard for some money to pay rent rather than having everything gifted to them. More money needs to go to apprenticeships and education and less to benefits. Government housing should always be a short term solution to most and the long term solution only to the needy not the lazy.

Don't disagree about apprenticeships etc. However... Young tradie in my family did a trades foundation course. More than 20 started, 4 finished and went on to apprenticeships. Most of the dropouts (some in week 1) were made to go by WINZ or lose the benefit. Sad but true.

artemis - 2021-10-10 09:37:00

pcle wrote:

Only the public sector could be this incompetent. Private rentals don’t cost taxpayers $7M per family. Even if paying $1,000pw rent on the public tit would cost a mere $52k. Insane.

So you didn't bother with the reading or critical thinking either.

sparkychap - 2021-10-10 09:52:00

"We will build 10000 homes" ( they built 53 over ) We have approx. 15000 new home buyers coming into the market annually . The average person needs to work and save for 75 years now to get the deposit to buy a home ( Halve that for couples )
Even if you win the lotto first prize of $1,000,000 you only get just enough for a deposit for most houses !
All this going on yet they keep saying inflation is running at 2% and the economy is booming ???
I guess life is easier if you earn $450K + perks P/a and hubby gets a free tv show funded by the state . Go figure !

woki - 2021-10-10 09:53:00

sparkychap wrote:

So you didn't bother with the reading or critical thinking either.

For $7M I will house 134 families in Auckland. Put it up for tender. Public servants can go choose a new cardi and biscuits for tea breaks.

pcle - 2021-10-10 09:55:00

pcle wrote:

For $7M I will house 134 families in Auckland. Put it up for tender. Public servants can go choose a new cardi and biscuits for tea breaks.

QED.

sparkychap - 2021-10-10 09:57:00

annie17111 wrote:

In the town I live in there are very few rentals as tis more profitable to have houses as homestays. Even if the government hadn't interfered and changed the rules, I don't think we would have any more rentals than we currently do.

So you don't think anyone has sold their rentals so they are now privately owned and not available to rent? I know someone that has sold 3. It wouldn't take too many to reduce the number of rentals available.

bryalea - 2021-10-10 14:21:00

pcle wrote:

For $7M I will house 134 families in Auckland. Put it up for tender. Public servants can go choose a new cardi and biscuits for tea breaks.

So, you acquire 134 existing houses for around 50k each that all meet the healthy homes and space requirements?
Then what?

zirconium - 2021-10-10 14:51:00

zirconium wrote:

So, you acquire 134 existing houses for around 50k each that all meet the healthy homes and space requirements?
Then what?

Nope. Private rentals at $700pw offer the owner $900pw and pocket the remaining $100pw as admin fee. ????

pcle - 2021-10-10 18:00:00

zirconium wrote:

So, you acquire 134 existing houses for around 50k each that all meet the healthy homes and space requirements?
Then what?

Or even better for the $7M I’ll buy six $1m houses and keep $1m as my fee. Then give six families a free house. QED six times better than the useless public servants. ????

pcle - 2021-10-10 18:04:00

pcle wrote:

Or even better for the $7M I’ll buy six $1m houses and keep $1m as my fee. Then give six families a free house. QED six times better than the useless public servants. ????

Of course there is no "$7m/family".

sparkychap - 2021-10-10 18:16:00

FF $#@ke
Total value for the project based on how many have been housed is . .. . 7m per family
But wait ..... theres more
That figure will decrease as more familys are housed under the entire project cost.

mrfxit - 2021-10-12 12:42:00

mrfxit wrote:

FF $#@ke
Total value for the project based on how many have been housed is . .. . 7m per family
But wait ..... theres more
That figure will decrease as more familys are housed under the entire project cost.

Your logic is working slightly better than others in this thread, but its still out. There is no $7m per family as the $ 400m hasn't been spent yet. I note that H4H are providing houses under this scheme at some $ 330K per dwelling according to a media release on their website.

sparkychap - 2021-10-12 16:10:00

sparkychap wrote:

Your logic is working slightly better than others in this thread, but its still out. There is no $7m per family as the $ 400m hasn't been spent yet. I note that H4H are providing houses under this scheme at some $ 330K per dwelling according to a media release on their website.

Ahh, yes, but remember the kiwi build fiasco was up their.
And the covid budget went elsewhere!
At present, it is what it is.

smallwoods - 2021-10-12 16:50:00

smallwoods wrote:

Ahh, yes, but remember the kiwi build fiasco was up their.
And the covid budget went elsewhere!
At present, it is what it is.

And its not $7m per family!

sparkychap - 2021-10-12 16:54:00

artemis wrote:

That is certainly the usual statement these days, but somehow it is never mentioned that most were onsold to community housing providers at reduced price and tenants still qualify for taxpayer subsidised income related rent. And get local support.

Then there are those sold because they were at the end of their life or there was no demand for the size / location. Remembering that the waiting list was a quarter of what it is today.

So were you aware? Or just repeating what the people have been told to think.

Many were demolished near me and the sites split up public private partnership housing built, much of which were sold off privately with a proportion retained for social housing. There were also concessions given for developers to build for guaranteed HNZ tenants where there was so much damage caused by the tenants that the house suppliers withdrew at the earliest possible opportunity. At the same time Councils decided housing wasn't core to their business so sold down council housing.

So I am aware of much and more like HNZ first come first serve to locate people in housing giving unfortunate blends of pensioners and addicts.

deboron - 2021-10-14 08:09:00

And in the paper today https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/horrific-iwis-fury-after-hou
ses-destined-for-desperate-families-demolished/5F2AM7M3JMQX2
234MUGPOKLUU4/

deboron - 2021-10-14 09:25:00