Speaker by Various Artists

That is a really unfortunate juxtaposition, the two issues look bad when put together. Most blatantly, kicking one woman out of a three bedroom house so that a family of 12 can move into it, instead of the three bedroom house they have now, makes no sense. But that's not immediately obvious.

If the government was proposing to build more appropriate houses instead it would make a certain amount of sense. "move away for a year while we build a 1-bedroom unit here" would be fine. But they're not even doing that, they're just going to keep knocking them down and selling them off so they can build fewer houses somewhere else.

I presume the rules are also structured so that if an unemployed state housing tenant moves from a high-employment region (where the houses are now) to a low-employment region (where the new state houses are) they lose their benefits? That's how they do it in Oz.

If the government was proposing to build more appropriate houses instead it would make a certain amount of sense. “move away for a year while we build a 1-bedroom unit here” would be fine. But they’re not even doing that, they’re just going to keep knocking them down and selling them off so they can build fewer houses somewhere else.

I know the level of trust about the future is not high amongst Greys’ Ave HNZ tenants soon to be moved out for renovations.

Doesn't this govt also have an explicit target of no more than 15% of residents of any place being state tenants? That means removing many from current enclaves.

a high-employment region (where the houses are now) to a low-employment region (where the new state houses are)

other way around in our case, I believe - need more houses in Auckland, fewer in job-poor provincial towns.

Laissez-faire, Lessee fear...
Privatise the suburbs !!
- as the Government moves to distance itself from social housing, could 'the Sir Owen Glen Innes District for Lessee Mortals' be just over the horizon?

HNZ does seem to be making moves to turn at least some of their 3-brm houses into 5-brm ones by adding 2 attachment bedrooms to the back door.

need more houses in Auckland, fewer in job-poor provincial towns.

yes, but I thought the official plan was to remove state houses from where they're more valuable in favour of building a few where're they're lower value. Which I assumed meant in the job-poor areas with low land prices (because no-one wants to live there). But if it's other, also accessible, parts of Auckland that is good news.

Brett, adding bedrooms is excellent news.

All roads, I suspect, lead back to the housing bubble and those who've wilfully cartelised it.

"All roads, I suspect, lead back to the housing bubble and those who've wilfully cartelised it."

Agreed. Roger Blakeley being the ring leader of course.

it's our financial system's overseers over many years who are responsible for the housing bubble, not council planners. But carry on the supply-side nonsense if it brings you comfort.