7
submitted 5 months ago by MadMonkey@lemmy.world to c/newzealand@lemmy.nz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MadMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

As someone who's skipped the whole OE and worked hard to scrape together a house deposit, living in a not too great area surrounded by KO homes whilst struggling somewhat to pay the mortgage, I don't get the sensationalism surrounding the news articles focusing on KO lately. Like, I'd love to be able to live in a nicely insulated home where the cost won't exceed 25% of my income. If people take the mickey in this situation we shouldn't be giving them a rent free pass? ie rewarding people for not playing their part in society. Alternative headline: Tenants who don't pay rent get evicted.

[-] shaun@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Because the outcome is a lot worse for society than unpaid rent if they don't have a roof over their heads.

New Zealand really loves to chase the wrong end of the stick and focus on benefit-bashing. The reality is that there's a much higher magnitude of tax fraud than there is benefit fraud, so how about we focus on the big ticket items first?

[-] Dave@lemmy.nz 8 points 5 months ago

I agree with the first it but not the second.

You'd love if you could live in a nicely insulated home where you didn't have unreasonable rent costs.

For me, the takeaway is not that we should kick these people out, it's that KO should be significantly expanding this programme.

[-] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 5 months ago

KO should be significantly expanding this programme.

KO needs another tier of accommodation for those who can't afford the rent in KO's existing accommodation.

I can't quite grok why KO wouldn't already have this though. KO's reason to exist is to provide accommodation to those who can't otherwise afford it. That they have unaffordable rent levels is weird given its probably mostly just consuming the tenants' accommodation supplement anyway. There's a wasteful overhead there.

The risk is that the cheaper accommodation will probably end up as slums from NIMBY's and aggressive cost cutting.

[-] Dave@lemmy.nz 5 points 5 months ago

Yeah, and maybe we should take a moment to consider why the KO housing exists. If it's to put people in housing when they otherwise would have had none, why are we kicking them out?

If they wanted to have the experience of living somewhere they couldn't afford and getting kicked out for not paying the rent, they could have just gone for a rental with a private landlord.

[-] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 5 months ago

It's not like shelter is one of the basic human rights we all agree on or anything.

;-)

[-] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 months ago

Slums or not I think it would be more efficient and effective to build multiple residency apartment towers. Land is expensive and it takes too long and costs too much to build thousands of individual houses.

[-] eagleeyedtiger@lemmy.nz 7 points 5 months ago

Like, I’d love to be able to live in a nicely insulated home where the cost won’t exceed 25% of my income.

If this is really your issue, then you're focusing on the wrong people.

Clearly something has to be done when a certain percentage are falling into arrears, but making them homeless is not the right tactic. Thinking they are all just withholding rent while having the ability to pay is a big assumption, and is almost certainly incorrect. There needs to be some discretion exercised and probably taken on a case by case basis. I have no doubt there are some taking the piss, but just painting all of them with the same brush seems wrong to me.

[-] liv@lemmy.nz 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Being poor doesn't always mean you're taking the mickey. But all humans need shelter and warmth.

[-] MadMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Maybe a solution is to increase the amount people get through the benefit system.

But to be clear, I'm definitely talking about the <1% of tenants who are taking the Mickey, and I don't think what KO has been doing in the recent past has really worked for them.

[-] liv@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 months ago

Yes it's clearly not fit for purpose.

Unless you have insurance (which I hope you do) if you got struck down bu one of the dread diseases you'd be unlikely to afford to rent a kainaga ora house.

Because you have a housing deposit you's not elligible for Accomodation supplement leaving you witb $342 a week. Take away 25% rent you're left with $264 per week to cover everything food, bills, utilities.

It doesn't take much to overset that. One disastwr in your life and suddenly money is supeertight.

[-] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 months ago

It's great that you were able to achieve your life's goals. I don't know where the attitude to pull up the ladder behind you comes in though.

The way I see it housing is one of those survival needs and the state should be providing it for everybody who can't afford it. Hell I would be in favor of converting jails to housing. It won't be nice but it's better than living in the streets or in a car.

this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
7 points (100.0% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1952 readers
17 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS