Housing Minister Nick Smith's announced $16.7 million of taxpayer funding for 87 new community social houses in Auckland.
The grants are coming from the $139 million Social Housing Fund aimed at backing the country's community social housing sector.
"Auckland’s housing problems require that we grow the stock of private and state housing, as well as the community social housing sector," Smith said.
"These additional community-developed homes are aimed at lower income families for both rental and assisted home ownership."
Smith announced the funding yesterday at a New Zealand Housing Foundation site in Avondale where 20 units for low-income families will be built. The foundation has received $4.2 million from the Social Housing Fund for the $9.7 million development.
Auckland Mayor Len Brown said this was "a great example" of Auckland Council working with Government and the social housing sector and the collaboration needed to tackle Auckland’s housing challenges.
The council and the Government recently signed up for the Auckland Housing Accord, which is targeting the building of 39,000 new houses in the Auckland region over the next three years.
"Auckland Council Property Ltd identified this council land as surplus to requirements and well suited to provide higher density housing close to a town centre and good rail links. ACPL worked closely with the Housing Foundation, an organisation leading the way in providing affordable housing in Auckland," Brown said.
Another of the recipients of the Government social housing funding announced yesterday was the Vision West Community Trust. It received $4.9 million to build 21 units in New Lynn, Henderson and Kelston for large low-income families. The total value of the development is $9.8 million.
The Chinese New Settlers Services Trust received $5.3 million to build 33 units in Panmure for low-income elderly in local Asian communities. The total value of the development is $10.5 million.
Accessible Properties Auckland received $2.3 million to build 13 units in New Lynn, Northern Glen Innes and Weymouth for low-income households. The total value of the development is $4.7 million.
Smith said these housing initiatives were part of the Government's plans to grow the community sector to provide 20% of New Zealand’s social housing by 2018.
"It is backed up by the Government’s Social Housing Reform Bill to be passed by Parliament by year’s end. This legislation will enable new tenants of community-owned social housing to be eligible for the income related rent subsidy, currently only available to state house tenants."
Smith said the latest announcement was "just a small part" of the Government’s overall housing strategy.
"We are spending a record $2.9 billion on Housing New Zealand to make sure state houses are in the right place, are of the right size, and are of good quality.
"We are supporting first home buyers through changes to KiwiSaver and Welcome Home Loans and tackling key underlying issues to housing affordability through the Auckland Accord to provide consents for 39,000 new homes over three years.
"We are also scrutinising infrastructure and building materials costs, and investing heavily skills and productivity in the construction sector.”
10 Comments
This type of article is really annoying . We need to state the obvious , "You dont help anyone by giving them a State House to live in, it simply enhances a culture of dependancy"
We need to move to some more intrinsic methodology of social housing for the pooer people than giving it to them for nothing or next-to nothing .
I have been banging on about making leasehold sections available from the State/ Auckland Council to enable people to put ( newly constructed) relocatable houses on them .
The Ground rent would give the Auckland Council a return at least equal to the cost of borrowed funds ( around 2,75% per annum) given we are an Aaa rated city .
So a $200,000 section would carry a ground rent of $100 a week . The 3 bed house would cost $200,000 and be financed by a Bank at say 5% which is $199 per week, over 30 years .
All up you get a house on state owned land for around $300 per week AND
- Because you own it you are more likely to look after it
- It enhances responsibility and reduces dependancy
- It wont become vacant and get vandalised
- Communities with high ownership levels have lower crime rates
- It will become a valuable nest egg
- It enables one to have a stake in the mainstream economy
- It will encourage financial discipline
- It is a form of saving
- You have something to hand down to the next generation
- There are numerous physcological benefits to home ownership for the individual
Boatman - the Politicians want to enhance dependency and reduce personal responsibiilty. The more co-dependents there are the more the Politicians and bureaucrats are needed.
Subverting an individuals power to that of Nanny State is how you architectually design oppression.
It's a slow learn. ain't it?
We are a species in overshoot, by several orders of magnitude.
Getting back to any kind of equilibrium - real sustainability - cannot be done in a personal-choice-slash-free market scenario. Perhaps it could have been done about 1970, but not any more.
So if you don't want to come along for the good of your fellow beings, I presume you two are good with AK47's - because that's where you illogically end up.
Me, I advocate altruism, as the more intelligent approach to the problem. Of course, you have to be intelligent enough to understand the problem, and capable of avoiding blame-shifting, denial, and/or cognitive dissonance. It's not a matter of left/right, just a matter of the only set-up which doesn't stuff out one-and-only planet.
PDK - maybe you might want to think about all that you said again.
Your making the assumption that all your group members would work cohesively towards a desired goal and in my very humble opinion that would be an impossible task to achieve. You forget about human nature in your hypothesis on sustainability. It is people who desire leadership and control over others who would use the AK47s and those the guns are being used on would end up either retaliating if they had the capabilities, becoming enslaved or dead. If you read some history you will see how the world has evolved.
I think it is time someone addressed Altruism and it's definition. If we have an unselfish regard or devotion for the welfare of others......would we not consider what is necessary for the individual to best meet his/her needs and what is necessary for the individual to reach his/her potential?
Your defintion from what you have written would define altruism as what is good for the collective must be good for the individual which is not really a correct definition as it does not recognise the individual and his/her talents, goals desires, creativity and imagination etc.
If we are to be truely altruistic then we must recognise the individual and be unselfish in ensuring that we recognise that persons right to take care of their own welfare at all times. This will be extremely hard for people to do as many are emotionally incompetent and will not take care or responsiility for their feelings. If one is to be Altruistic then one needs to become emotionally competent. When people think their feelings are real and right then we are all losers. Feelings can be right or wrong but they should not rule you and your decisions.
Altruism is therefore the ability to control oneself to the point where one does not want to in anyway impede another individual. This requires all people to be responsible for themselves and their actions at all times.
You constantly accuse people who disagree with you that they have congitive dissonance. Does it really make you feel better when you can accuse people of some form of cogntive impairment that you assume you know about because somewhere you feel that is true? Or is your ego urging you to be right? Ego has a desire to be in control but is it rational and objective? I think not it is full of the feeling of itself and the desire to be dominant.
Can someone please explain the rationale behind this use of taxpayers money?
Chinese New Settlers Services Trust received $5.3 million to build 33 units in Panmure for low-income elderly in local Asian communities. The total value of the development is $10.5 million.
Puke T,
There could be a couple of elements to your question.
Why does the government supply housing to any low income people? On this, despite what Boatman implies above, there are people who cannot afford housing, and who cannot reasonably live with relatives or friends. Given most of presumably prefer not to have people living on park benches; this seems a sensible option.
and how is it that elderly low income immigrants requiring free housing are allowed into the country? This seems a valid question to me; and one that good old Winston asks occasionally without getting a satisfactory answer. If they have come in on some sort of family rule reasons, then such rules if they apply at all, should insist on housing arrangements that do not require state help. Add in that we probably very quickly give them a pension and pay for their health care.
Nevertheless am keen not to pick on the Chinese in this. Nearly all of them that I can see, do work, and presumably pay some taxes. And I suspect that the Chinese New Settlers Trust is also subsidised by charity from the Chinese community, so not all state dependent.
Stephen L: There are more than two elements to the question
It's what was missing that stuck out the most
Nothing for any of these
Pacifika New Settlers Service Trust
Indian New Settlers Service Trust
South African New Settlers Service Trust
Samoan New Settlers Service Trust
Rarotongan New Settlers Service Trust
Malaysian New Settlers Service Trust
Australian New Settlers Service Trust
Fijian New Settlers Service Trust
British New Settlers Service Trust
Irish New Settlers Service Trust
Use of the term "local Asian communities" acknowledges the existence of both institutionalised and passive acceptance of the (unacceptable) establishment of enclaves, resulting in that which has long been claimed - the avoidance the "kiwi" ethos, integration, homogenous communities.
And I suspect that the Chinese New Settlers Trust is also subsidised by charity from the Chinese community, so not all state dependent
Chinese New Settlers Service Trust (CNSST), founded in 1998, is NZ government funded.
http://ethnicaffairs.govt.nz/story/chinese-new-settlers-services-trust
One assumes that CNSST was established to assist new settlers to integrate into the wider new zealand community. Instead it has transitioned into a defacto welfare add-on-organisation parallel to WINZ and Housing NZ
Why in Panmure of all places, right next to Glen Innes where long time local beneficiaries are being kicked out, so their state-owned properties can either be sold off or redeveloped? What? For the benefit of the elderly parents of recent arrivals
If we must be responsible for them why not re-locate them to Putaruru, or Tokoroa, or better still, Stewart Island
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.