One, they will never meet demand. The queue is 27,000 long and growing. They will never build at the rate they need to. They don’t have the manpower. They don’t have the money.
The point she made on the programme yesterday that was fair was that, yes, the debt is massive, but so is the asset. And by-in-large houses grow in value.
Second mistake is the Government doesn’t need to be the only player in social housing. Social agencies and private landlords are part of the equation but because they have been locked out, the Government is left as the sole operator in the market.
You have to ask yourself the bigger question. Just what is the value to the country of having tens of thousands of houses owned by the state? What sort of state is it we are wanting?
Thirdly, the fact the Government don’t turn the houses over is a moral, social, and financial crime. Not booting people out when they trash the house or the neighbourhood is shocking. And not having a criterion at day one, where the house, at best, is temporary to see you through tough times is a gargantuan mistake.
It is through these ideological mistakes that they have hamstrung themselves into this nightmare of being unable to build at a rate to meet demand. They have created the demand. They have created their own nightmare.
Fourth mistake, money would be vastly better spent elsewhere. We don’t need a sea of state-owned houses. We need nurses, roads, bridges, reliable power, lower taxes, and better schools.
At some point people have to work out they can make their own decisions in their own lives and welfare, which is all state housing is, is a last resort, not a lifestyle option.
Unless, of course, this is what the Government actually wants. They want to be in your life. They want you beholden to them, not unlike Working for Families.
If they have enough voters at their mercy for their wages, for their housing, maybe you are not voting against that? Maybe their utopia is suburbs full of government infrastructure with a captured population?
Or maybe what they thought they could do versus what they actually can and are doing are two completely different things?
The streets of motels are the out-workings of yet another theory having blown up in their face.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings
You have to ask yourself the bigger question. Just what is the value to the country of having tens of thousands of houses owned by the state? What sort of state is it we are wanting?
Thirdly, the fact the Government don’t turn the houses over is a moral, social, and financial crime. Not booting people out when they trash the house or the neighbourhood is shocking. And not having a criterion at day one, where the house, at best, is temporary to see you through tough times is a gargantuan mistake.
It is through these ideological mistakes that they have hamstrung themselves into this nightmare of being unable to build at a rate to meet demand. They have created the demand. They have created their own nightmare.
Fourth mistake, money would be vastly better spent elsewhere. We don’t need a sea of state-owned houses. We need nurses, roads, bridges, reliable power, lower taxes, and better schools.
At some point people have to work out they can make their own decisions in their own lives and welfare, which is all state housing is, is a last resort, not a lifestyle option.
Unless, of course, this is what the Government actually wants. They want to be in your life. They want you beholden to them, not unlike Working for Families.
If they have enough voters at their mercy for their wages, for their housing, maybe you are not voting against that? Maybe their utopia is suburbs full of government infrastructure with a captured population?
Or maybe what they thought they could do versus what they actually can and are doing are two completely different things?
The streets of motels are the out-workings of yet another theory having blown up in their face.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings
2 comments:
'houses grow in value' - wouldn't that depend on the quality of the neighbourhood (significantly influenced by neighbours)?
i've heard many cases where families had to sell their house at a discount because living near 'sponsored' tenants ensured enough trouble when they decided to stay and reduced demand with lower quotes when they decided to sell. i wonder how the value of the asset maintained by such recipients may fare any better :(
The housing costs the public directly via taxes and indirectly by the huge reduction in value of nearby and not so nearby properties. With many tenants indoctrinated with the decolonisation theme, and no effective punshment for failing to comply with acceatable civilised (as in colonialist) behaviour there is no incentive to amke any behaviour adjustments.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.