This is the front page of a swishy new publication from the Hobsonville Land Company (which is a wholly owned subsidary of Housing New Zealand) which was being distributed at a housing conference last week (obviously the by-line is my own addition).
The Hobsonville site is situated in the upper Waitemata harbour and covers 167 hectares and presents a rare opportunity for green fields urban development. Here is a real chance to build a mixed community – private, affordable, and state housing as well as all the amenities, public transport links, and business development to provide local jobs. By ‘pepper-potting’ state houses throughout, we achieve better outcomes for the entire community, and avoid the situation we have in many parts of New Zealand where entire neighbourhoods of state houses were built in the past.
Labour started this work, and our approach was to include 15% state and 15% affordable housing. Thats about 500 of each in a develpoment of 3000 homes. National has decided there will be no state housing built at Hobsonville because it’s in the Prime Minister’s electorate and he says that locals dont want state house tenants in their neck of the woods. He also says that inclusion of state houses at Hobsonville would be “economic vandalism”.
John Key has milked his state house upbringing for all its worth, yet he is now denying 500 more Auckland families that same opportunity. Seem contradictory? Not really. I’ve long thought that whereas Labour believes John Key did well because he grew up in a state house, he believes he did well despite growing up in a state house.
What a wasted opportunity.
It’s equally bad when they get rid of existing state houses in nice areas.
“By ‘pepper-potting’ state houses throughout, we achieve better outcomes for the entire community”
Can you explain how? I live nearby, and had this credo rammed down my neck several times while this plan was underway, but noone could explain this rationale…
They don’t want to create ghettos.
where are the jobs for low income people at hobsonville, why put state houses so far from where the jobs will be, I think its a stupid idea
Why not sell state houses in “good” areas where sale can realise enough to build two state houses in an area close to where people work. Sounds logical to me.
I’m sure they could take a bus and why not keep them out of rough areas?
Labour believes John Key did well because he grew up in a state house
Your logic is flawless.
Wow Moana, let’s all have state houses.
Yeah right!
Work hard, save as much money as you can, invest in a nice house and have your property value plummet when some low life moves into a state house next door.
If I am going to be forced to provide housing for other people then I should have a say where that housing is, I want it as far away as possible thank you very much.
I wonder how much consideration they are taking of John Key’s nail biting victory in that electorate in the last election as an endorsement of the current plan…
Danyl is at it again. misconstruing what Labour MPs say.
Keys mother was widowed with a young family. However state assistance ( benefits ) was available which allowed the mother to stay at home ( in a government provided house) to bring up her children.
The other option would be for her to work full time to pay private rents and provide for her family.( at a time women didnt get paid very much)
The benefits to the family of them maintaining their existing family arrangements were huge. AS a result of the assistance the state provided ( the state house being one).
Tell us again about how much flowers cost for your weddding, not that you would know about sudden change of circumstances
@Nathan – there is stacks of research especially out of the UK. This is why the current Housing Minister also always talks about the importance of mixed communities and I’m sure would’ve continued with the existing plan had the PM not vetoed it.
@Mel – there will be jobs in Hobsonville for low income workers but it will also have extensive public transport links to the rest of Auckland including a new ferry service to the CBD. This is not unusual. Not every state house tenant in South Auckland works in South Auckland and Hobsonville would be no different.
@big bruv – interesting that you think being on a low income automatically makes you a low life. I also think its important to keep a sense of perspective. The overwhelming majority of state house tenants cause no trouble but you only ever hear about the tiny minority in the media. The state houses in my street and over my back fence never cause me any hassles, and are great neighbours. I also have very few concerns about the new Housing New Zealand pensioner village being built nearby. I dont think it will impact on my house value too much.
@Richard – “Why not sell state houses in “good” areas where sale can realise enough to build two state houses in an area close to where people work.”
How do you know they don’t work locally? Maybe they’re a cleaner or caretaker or support staff worker at the local school? Or the hospital? Or the shopping mall? There will be workers commuting into Hobsonville to do these jobs and those who are state house tenants I’m sure would’ve loved to be able to live there.
And of course I don’t think everyone should have a state house, I just think everyone should be adequately housed and state housing is a big part of that with 10000 people on the waiting list. I believe it all starts with housing. Get that right and a lot of other issues disappear.
The UK government is in the process of outlawing socioeconomic discrimination by the state.
Something Labour here could borrow, perhaps?
There is all so a strong likelyhood the area between the Whenuapai airbase and the existing housing in Hobsonville/West Harbour will be zoned commercial- industrial, from the present farmland.
With the new motorway going through here and connecting to the North Shore over the recently Widened Upper Harbour Bridge there will good road links .
All they need is the workers nearby, which would have happened under Labours scheme. Now they will have to import workers via the motorways
Watch out that’s where the crims funnel through!
@ Moana-”there will be jobs in Hobsonville for low income workers”
Where are these jobs Moana?
Also South Auckland has efficient train and bus services. The ferries are expensive so your comparison is not accurate.
You dont seem to know Auckland very well.
Or the UK. I doubt we should really be holding up that country as an example to follow.
@ Spud
You mean the Sth. Auckland crims? No, they travel via Mt Albert.
LOL
Moana, It doesn’t matter where people work, the fact remains that the state shouldn’t own $1M+ state houses. The rent paid represents a negative return on capital, which is better employed building two or three NEW state houses, having the effect of housing more people for the same investment. Very simple economics. If tenants want to work in Remuera or Orakei that’s fine, then build the new houses there, but having houses worth $1M+ is a very poor way to manage state housing stock.
@ David – “Where are these jobs Moana?”
In the businesses, schools, shops and public amenities that are all being developed as part of the project. Likewise public transport is part of the development (not just ferries!) Clearly not everyone who lives there (state house or otherwise) would work there, and I never actually said they would. My original point was simply that business development is part of the project (particularly marine industries and retail) – this isnt just a suburb of houses.
Also bear in mind that their are large numbers of people on the waiting list already in West Auckland. So the need is there already.
The UK does a huge amount of housing research, despite what you may think about the country.
And you’re right – I don’t know Auckland enormously well but nor do I claim to. We moved from Auckland to Gisborne when I was six. Thats why I’m spending so much of my time there now.
Thanks for the comments ppl – it’s good to get a debate going about these things. I’m heading to no-computer land now so please don’t think I’m ignoring you. My laptop got stolen a little while ago and I am still “negotiating” with the insurance company about a replacement!
well said Moana. Makes me sick these Tories demanding we reinvent the wheel – all the UK experience shows that mixed developments work best for everyone, while the old-style huge council housing developments often became “sink” estates, spilling their social problems over into “nice” areas.
@Richard Morgan
My Grandad and my Nana lived in a state house (They are both now gone)
My Grandad was not a low life but one of the most generous men I have ever known and my Grandmother one of the most gentle human beings I have ever met.
How dare you try and say they must have been low lifes as they lifed in a state house.
Think about what you are saying before you submit it.
Labour letting slip the dogs of greed with this PPP is a disgrace. That National Ltd® has taken whatever modicum of assistance there might have been for the poor is hardly surprising.
Whoa A Mother, Please point out to me where I said any such thing! Your interpretation couldn’t be further from the truth. Please explain.
I think she mixed you up with big b, ruv.
I think you are right Spud. Certainly not my attitude towards those who need state assistance in housing. I guess we won’t hear from her now.
I can understand her offence.
Spud, an honest answer please. If you told us your real name, would we know you?
Who’s we?
Also, someone is bound to know Spud.
Simple – beggars can’t be choosers, much less demanders.
And using the UK as an example isn’t helpful. They are circling the drain as a country, with all of the feral people now living and breeding there.
@Rich – I don’t know, I doubt it.
@BLiP – cheers for that…
Curious about your name BLiP.
Richard, Labour had a policy of identifying for sale state houses worth over $600,000. I know as I visited each and every one of them within the Auckland region.
There was an interesting debate about which state houses should be sold – the ones with giant sections (and development potential) or the ones with no development potential but high values because of where they were (Ponsonby, Orakei etc.) My opinion was that it was better to sell the ones without development potential and redevelop the ones with some potential (and possibly then sell them so that the state is the one who profits from the subdivision).
In terms of Hobsonville, I guess there’s always going to be a debate about “where to put the state houses?” Unless we want tonnes of people living on the street, or a return to the early 1990s when over-crowding brought Auckland many third world diseases, we do need to provide state housing. So really, we have two options – either lump them all together (which I like to call “the Otara option”), or to ‘pepper-pot’. Pepper-potting has its own problems, such as lowering the value of surrounding privately owned houses – but compared to ‘the Otara option’ I think it’s preferable.
Ideally, it should be invisible as to whether a property is a state house or not – which means very good design when constructing new ones. Another option is for Housing New Zealand to focus on leasing properties for a set period, so that there’s a bit of a ‘churn’ as to whether a property is a state house or not. They have been doing this quite a lot in recent years too.
The other option, which we’re seeing in places like Glen Innes, Northcote and (in the future) Otara, is an ‘embracing’ of the concentration of state houses and really focusing on community building. This seems to have been a huge success in the Talbot Park development in Glen Innes – and possibly will be in Northcote in the future too. Maybe Otara could become the next example of this, although I think some pretty serious rebuilding will be required to make that possible.
In other words, it’s a difficult issue – the question of “where to put state housing?” Hobsonville was a pretty good option for a few state houses, although I too wonder whether somewhere that far from employment areas was the best idea (although to be honest these days you basically need to be unemployed to get a state house, so perhaps access to employment doesn’t matter).
Personally, I would get Housing New Zealand to buy up huge tracts of land around train stations – areas like New Lynn, Henderson, Mt Albert, Papatoetoe, Ranui etc. – and redevelop that land at higher densities. Then, some of the new houses could be sold off (to avoid ghetto problems) while others are retained. This way we solve three problems:
1) We develop in accordance with the city’s growth strategies
2) We provide state houses in areas with good access to transport options.
3) We avoid ghettoisation.
Labour was getting there with their state housing policy. Unfortunately the Nats have pretty much slammed the brakes on building new state houses.
Jarbury have you been Miranda St in the Avondale New Lynn area. Exactly what you have suggested is happening now- all instituted under Labour . Just the ribbon cutting will be done by Key
@Richard Morgan
I am so sorry I typed the wrong name in I owe you an apology there was nowhere where you stated this and I was wrong.
big bruv was the name I was to put in.
“Work hard, save as much money as you can, invest in a nice house and have your property value plummet when some low life moves into a state house next door.” They are not all low life’s at all big bruv
Your gracious apology accepted. Thank you.
@ A Mother – I know the feeling, I didn’t like the low lifes comment either.
that’s a great idea jarbury, state houses near train stations so low income workers can get to work not way out in the wop wops like hobsonville where they have to ride a bus for three hours a day.
@Richard Morgan
“I guess we won’t hear from her now”
No not me at all. I just logged back in today and I believe in always saying sorry when I am in the wrong. Thats the way I was brought up, and in a state house no less (for 5 years anyway). I even do this when I’m in the wrong with my children as I like to lead by example and how can I expect them to do that if I don’t? I’m glad you accepted it as I felt really bad about naming you when it wasn’t you at all.
@Spud
Yes that comment really hit a nerve.
Good on ya! Give that girl a Speights.
Pepperpotting doesn’t guarantee no problems with state house tenants. Any time HNZC is dealing with some of the hard case people that go round all the social service agencies, they are putting these people into potential situations where they are going to cause problems for their neighbours, the only difference is that they are spread out a bit more.
The public view of State house tenants is well founded based to a large extent on the failure of HNZC to be a responsible landlord for their neighbours as well although this is changing of late.
Hello,
We are a young couple who saved up a small deposit, looked at a really nice house and sunk all our resources into it and put off having a family to be able to work at chipping away the mortgage and generally take the path most people take. Except, we brought into one of these ‘mixed communities’ utopias. Being from Wellington we were naive about how Labour was doing things here in Auckland and didn’t realise that $400,000 new houses surronding us were being provided to state housing tenants. To cut a long story short, it ruined our lives. We got tagged, we got abused, we were scared to come home from work worried about what would be happening in the street, we couldn’t sell so we rented to some poor people that got broken into three times and had, not only their insurance cancelled, but their lives ruined as well. We ended up flogging off the property to some Asian investor who was happy to take it off us for a massive loss – and we lost everything and are still paying the bank and will be for the next 2 years (and our taxes of course, to pay for these people to live in ‘their’ state houses). Yes, I blame Labour, I blame HNZ and the sooner that these people who do nothing actually get nothing the better. I wish National was in power earlier – I’d never choose to live in Otara so as far as I’m concerned – upskill, get a job or get marginalised and stay out of the way of the rest of us that are trying to make something of our lives. Keep state houses away from private homes!!
Dont want those nasty poor people living near you eh Paul. Lets rocket back to Victorian times where poor people lived in slums.
No Millsy, those ‘poor’ (whose working for families income is higher than mine in most cases with the amount of kids they have) people drove me out of my home – and now the street is becoming a slum and a problem that we’re all going to have to pay for to fix – who’s fault is that? I’m being unreasonable in expecting to be safe in my own home and should tolerate drunks, aggression and whatever the else these noble poor should choose to do with the 40 hours a week of free time they have? Maybe I’m just racist? Maybe I’m just intolerant of other’s life choices? Yeah, my fault, sorry Millsy, and by the way, sneering at working taxpayers’ concerns is definitely the way forward for Labour, keep it up! If Labour ever gets back in, I’m out – you may think that’s great and good riddance, but hey, someone’s eventually going to have to pay the piper.
@Paul – I’m sorry you’ve had such a terrible experience. Where exactly were you living? I’d like to follow it up and ask some parliamentary questions about it. Thanks for letting me know – if people dont tell us their experiences then we cant learn from them. Feel free to email me at my parliamentary address if you don’t want to post details here. Doesnt sound like much of a mixed community though if you were completely surrounded by state housing.
HNZ manages nearly 70,000 properties and actually based on HNZ stats the problem tenants are a very small minority, although thats no comfort if you are the target of this minority. As I’ve said – I live in a neighbourhood with a lot of state housing and have never had a single problem. I would also point out that just because they’re not in a HNZ house doesnt mean they are going to disappear. Problem neighbours exist in every time of accomodation, HNZ or private rental.
And they dont get working for families if they aren’t in work. So they cant have “40 hours a week of free time” and the in work payment.
@Moana
They get working for families, but not the in work portion of it.
@Paul. I’m sorry you found yourself in a rough neighbourhood.
. I know they exist. I was just saying we not all low lifes.