Another state housing sell-off in Sandringham

Just like it is all around the country, Housing New Zealand is busy demolishing state houses and selling off the land to private developers in Sandringham.

It’s a tragedy, not only for those who have now lost their homes in the area, but also a tragic missed opportunity to invest in more of the affordable, medium-density housing so badly needed in Auckland.

Instead of threatening to override Auckland Council’s plan for a compact city by legislating to open up more land outside the city limits for more urban sprawl and McMansions, Housing Minister Nick Smith should focus on his core business.

Instead of selling it off to the highest bidder, he could direct Housing New Zealand to use the now bare land in Sandringham to rebuild affordable, medium-density homes. It wouldn’t all have to be social housing – we know this Government doesn’t like social housing in suburbs it has decided are “too good” for that; after all Prime Minister John Key set the tone when he said that building state houses at Hobsonville Point would be “economic vandalism” – a mix of social housing, affordable houses for private sale, and Government-built “rent-to-buy” homes as proposed in our Home for Life policy paper would be ideal. That’s what we were supposed to get at Hobsonville before this Government gutted that promising development.

Meanwhile, the same story is being played out all over the country as Housing New Zealand empties its homes on the flimsy pretext of earthquake code compliance, leaves them vacant for months, and then demolishes or sells them without replacing them with social housing. Last year, for the first time in recent memory, Housing New Zealand sold or demolished more houses than it built or bought. And while they have promised to build 2000 new homes in the next two years, at the rate they are getting rid of their old stock, this won’t even result in an increase in total state housing numbers.

Auckland – and increasingly the rest of New Zealand – has a housing affordability crisis, and this Government’s answer is to sell off valuable land to private developers and leave the most vulnerable to fend for themselves in the private rental market. It’s simply not good enough.

 

5 thoughts on “Another state housing sell-off in Sandringham

  1. It’s economic insanity with taxpayer dollars to give ONE family a $1000 a week subsidy (which is effectively what a $800,000-$1m house is), when the same money could give FIVE families a $200 a week accommodation subsidy in private rentals.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. With only 1 part in 125 of New Zealand’s land covered in sprawl, and with such devastating housing un-affordability results from functionally outlawing it, and with the fact that sprawl can be engineered to be ecologically rich, if we wish, why then don’t you explain why it is a bad thing?

    How many times does it have to be said? How much longer will the basic facts be ignored and the same old bullshit repeated over and over again as though you are deaf?

    Do. your. homework.

    Visit Cantabrians UNITE for a start. Hugh Pavletich towers above you in knowledge of this sector. LEARN! WOMAN!

    https://www.facebook.com/CantabriansUnite

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. It wouldn’t all have to be social housing – we know this Government doesn’t like social housing in suburbs it has decided are “too good” for that; after all Prime Minister John Key set the tone when he said that building state houses at Hobsonville Point would be “economic vandalism” – You seem to be implying this is unfair of the Prime Minister. State housing does unfortunately bring the value of the surrounding area down. Would you be happy having state houses built in your area and seeing your house and everything you’ve invested in it devalued?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. Sandringham is doing very very well in prices even in-spite of a significant proportion of those houses being state houses.

    And actually the most decrepit houses are the ones the line the main streets in auckland suburbs, which i think i wouldnt be wrong to assume are owned by negligent property speculators…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. photonz1,

    Whilst rental subsidies may have economic merit the state house is a fixed asset whereas a rental subsidy is an expense. The fixed asset would appreciate so your cost comparrisons are incomplete.
    Given that in terms of housing price to net income Auckland housing prices are unafodable, a major downward revision would be very disruptive and subsidies will be captured by a small sector the use of state housing has much to recommend it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>