Should the government build more state houses?

1940s State house

1940s State house

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 10.57.22 AM

State houses were originally a Labour Party initiative but there is still strong support for them from our readership as long as sensible guidelines are followed. Contrary to what the left would have the public believe, we conservative, libertarians are concerned about looking after the most vulnerable in our society. The difference is that we’re not afraid to enforce rules to ensure that the system is not taken advantage of.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 10.57.35 AM

Word analysis of written responses. The  size of the word indicates how often it was mentioned in the written responses. Land supply was clearly a concern. Another concern was some tenants’ belief that they get a Statehouse for life.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 10.57.50 AM

Written responses unedited:

It is not the responsibility of government to be a landlord however our welfare state dictates state houses to be supplied by the taxpayer so state houses should be seen by the tenant to be a privilege and a hand up – not a hand out and dependance.

if land supply was resolved there would be no need for state houses

State house tenants should not have the choice of houses they should go where placed also as their circumstances improve they should pay market rates for 2 years then rent on open market

This debate is all about Auckland. I have never accepted that Auckland’s problem is an “all of New Zealand” problem. Government wouldn’t even think about becoming involved in housing land demands for Kaitaia, or Whitianga or Ekatahuna or Ashburton. Why the REDACTED is my Prime Minister being taken away from me, to be looking after Auckland issues? My Prime Minister has a country to run.

I agree with the last statement, but the accommodation should be basic – strictly budget and as non-destructible as possible. And strictly policed.

No. And exisiting tenancies should be for a maximum fixed term as a subsidised interim step while tenants improve their circumstances to be able to enter the private market.

The housing “boom” is partially due to govt subsidising rents – no subsidy would decease rental returns at the lower end of the market making these cheaper

Anyone who has a bad tenancy record e.g. vandalised a rented house or contaminated it with P should be refused any state housing assistance.

It is a community responsibility not a central government responsibility.

My answer probably looks inconsistent In the short term – Yes but in order to do this the government should sell off its most valuable stock in order to raise capital for new state homes in more affordable areas In the longer term if and when land supply and demand are in equilibrium – No it shouldn’t and the government should sell off all state house stock

And damage of state property, ie contamination by “P”, or vandalism should result in immediate eviction and denial of access to government funded accomodation.

The classic old chestnut, is it really the Governments responsibility to provide housing for all, or is it each of our responsibilities.

We have two problems with state houses. Those tenants who have family’s far larger than they have the intellectual or financial capacity to support, and those who trash or contaminate their homes. Reforms need to deal with this e.g. welfare capped and dependent on accepting birth control, and for those tenants who lack the life skills to live in a house supervised shelter be provided.

there should be no involvement of the state or council in supply of housing or restriction of housing via consent fees or land supply for sections.

Most of the older ones need to be replaced as most of these are no longer legal or could be made so cheaply, to fit today’s (Or for that matter future) rental standards.

Only as a short term measure. A state house is a privilege not a right and for a period of time. Long term housing for those that are unable to care for themselves because of some disability.

Provision should be made for local govt., to provide ?% for those in need that are not able to manage life with out help.

It’s 2016 FFS, there should be 0% homelessness even for the idiots who chose to live rough.

Yes I do think we probably need to upgrade and reutilize the land some of the state homes are sitting on. These homes are solid and serviceable for what they were designed to do. Provide temporary housing for people who needed a hand. NOT tenanted out for life to one family. Time in these homes needs to be restricted and controlled. 5 years is enough time to get your life sorted and move on.

Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.