Our community housing

The Wellington Housing Trust sent a survey on housing affordability to all candidates.

48 candidates were asked 2 questions. But only 30 candidates replied. And some replies were rather short – which is disappointing when they are from incumbent councilors.

Below are the 2 questions and my answers. I’ve also summarised the other candidates positions.

Other candidates answers can be found on http://www.wht.org.nz/pdf/WHT%20Housing%20Affordability%20Survey.pdf

1. Do you believe housing affordability is an issue in Wellington City ?

Yes. Especially for those on low incomes, or those who are single, or solo parents. A point I thought Bernard O’Shaughnessy made very strongly at the Problem Gambling Foundation’s Mayoral Candidates meeting, that I attended. I also rent, so I know how hard it is to get quality affordable housing that isn’t damp and in a location that is safe, convenient, and enjoyable.

2. If so what do you think should be done to address this issue?

(1) Rent. Why are we benchmarking council rents against private buildings that are not the same in condition or purpose. If council are offering discounting of rents based on income, why don’t they just make it less complex and fairer by charging rents based on average income. Using the same criteria and methodology for setting benefit levels. Some council housing tenants rents are about to go up 15-20%, yet their benefits only increased 3%. This type of increase makes housing unaffordable. Any increases should be capped so they do not put undue stress on tenants.

(2) Stock. Council need to ensure there is sufficient social housing stock – particularly for single people or solo parents – which is where demand is increasing and where stock levels have reduced the most. This includes ensuring housing is safe and healthy. Pictures on my blog have illustrated the poor state that housing stock is in. And I have seen first hand much worse (rotten floors where lino sags on the floor). A lot of housing isn’t healthy (ie mould, leaking or damp), or is sitting empty (a number of flats in Arlington are empty – hopefully as part of ongoing maintenance schedule). We also need to keep Wellington’s social housing stock in council hands so our communities have a direct say in their future. Generally, better planning and management is required to ensure stock levels meet demand. We also need to ensure new housing stock is widely dispersed across the city.

(3) Engagement. Getting councilors to visit housing estates (or work in nearby community centres) will ensure councillors are more aware of the issues for residents (and are more easily available). A point that was exposed at the recent Arlington Candidates meeting, when existing councilors were not aware of a number of safety incidents or tenancy grumbles – even after council had been advised by police.

(4) Funding. Great to see the $220 million from central government for earthquake protection and general refurbishment. But what happens after this funding is used up? Council need to collaborate more with central government agencies and housing trusts to secure ongoing funding and supply. While ring fencing funds for social housing might ensure an ability to have funds available, it should not act as a constraint if additional funding is required. Why are council spending money on the trivial things (eg, $350k monuments and $2.4 million tents to name a few of the trivial things), rather than investing it in the homes and communities of those who need it?

***

Summary of Lambton Ward Candidates

Bishop: Central govt problem not council, unenthusiastic about ratepayers subsidising tenants, or of the council investing capital in housing projects. [So not interest in council being involved in community housing. I wonder if he'd consider selling our council housing stock? Probably.]

McKinnon: Pleased that Central Government is funding the Social Housing refurbishment. [Lost of suggestions, but no commitment to anything. What does he stand for? Appears to associate ethnic diversity with affordable housing??]

Pannet: 10,000 households struggling in terms of housing. Won’t change current housing rental policy. Supports offering surplus land to community housing, but no land to give. Not keen on easing rules so developers provide low cost housing. [So income related rents won't happen with the Greens. On the upside - the longest response from an incumbent councilor].

Cook: Integrate low cost or publically owned housing into new housing developments. [That was it? Does she not know the issues? I expected much more for 15 years of funding from ratepayers. Disappointing really.]

Ganley: Wellingtonians are spending more than 30% of their income on housing [30%? I think its much higher! I spoke with a Mt Vic resident who was spending 33% of her income on rates alone, add mortgage and insurance payments and it gets much higher. Surprisingly, silent on how community housing rents will be calculated if elected!!].

Price: 100,000 new residents coming to the city over the next few decades. One option, require new developments to provide proportion of affordable housing. Council should take a more direct role in developments. [Again silent about rents - given it was about "affordability". Numbers at odds with the current mayor?? For someone interested in urban development - it was a disappointingly brief response, given endorsement from eye of fish friends. Perhaps I expected to much. But he did endorsed Jack Yan on WCCwatch as the best mayoral candidate at the Back Bencher Debate - so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.]

Mayors

Kerry Prendergast: There will be 44,000 more people living in Wellington by 2031. Income from these apartments is to be ring-fenced. Rents and house prices will need to rise. [Will there be a surplus from ring fencing  or will costs get inflated? Any funds available from outside the fence for improvements - probably not. Rent increases!!]

Celia Wade-Brown: ….. [No reply. So silence on everything, including rents].

Al Mansell: ….. [No reply. Still recovering from the Back Bencher after party. Clearly won the "best witty comeback" debate. A tv career beckons.]

Bryan Pepperell: Low cost housing is a serious issue and needs addressing. [That was it??]

Bernard O’Shaughnessy: We have an urgent need NOW to house 10000 people and yet the WCC
has embarked of a housing upgrade plan that reduces there per bed count (unit) from 2377 down
to 2100. I live at Newtown Park flats. [The facts from someone who lives the issues].

Jack Yan: Everyone deserves to be housed. We need to examine income-related rents and work with central government on revising the housing benefits’ system. [I agree. Now lets make it happen].

Time to step up. Make sure you vote – or you will see a candidate, you don’t agree with, on council.

Its time to address some problems

Everyone in our city supports a good cause. Its what makes Wellington a real community.

Providing housing for those who need it – is something everyone wants our council to provide.

So why is it our resources (built from funds we have entrusted our council with) have been left in a state of decay? Because  that is the environment we have provided the less fortunate in our city.

Over the past few weeks I have met some wonderful residents of our city. And I have seen the priority our council have provided them.

Their apartments are leaking, their floors are rotten, or they suffer from serious mould problems.

But instead of prioritising funding to the residents of our city, we see money wasted on monuments, unnecessary roading through manners st, and other various developments.

Is this a council you are proud to have voted for?

Where are our priorities. Surely the well being of our citizens should come first.

Safety in our city is also a real concern.

Today I meet a local resident who had been beaten up by a group of teenagers only metres from his council apartment. He was now scared to venture out from his home – to even do his laundry. And what was the council doing to combat this horrific incident? According to this elderly gentleman, absolutely nothing.

Its time our council was pro-active and came up with real solutions to some very real problems, that to date it has attempted to sweep under the carpet. More can be done. Bans are for lazy politicians and won’t protect anyone from being attacked. We need to get to the root of the problems.

Its time we had a council that cared about its citizens. That put the safety and well being of our community first.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/the-wellingtonian/3893158/The-Wellingtonian-editorial-Time-for-serious-action-on-liquor, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2683897/Youth-crime-unexploded-time-bomb

Chinese garden

WCC are proposing spending $5 million on a chinese garden. One of the reasons the Mayor is justifying a trip to China (see post below). Is anyone thinking on this council?!!

Where are we going to find $5 million to build a garden and how much will it cost to maintain? We’re already well over $365 million in debt (some are now suggesting its more like $400 million). Didn’t council just recently announce they are having to prune back other services in light of the leaky homes debt they have just taken on?

Don’t get me wrong, a Chinese garden is a nice idea and acknowledges a large part of our community (even Sydney has one). But surely a better idea (given the current financial climate) is to integrate it into the basin reserve motorway development project (perhaps as a park in front of the Carillion), rather than a separate very expensive project, that clogs up our waterfront with more buildings.

After all, the motorway project will have already planned for parks and green spaces.Merging it into the basin reserve motorway project would kill two birds with one stone and save the public millions (perhaps $5 milion).

There have been some fantastic alternative design proposals for the basin reserve motorway project (see the Architecture Centre’s proposal on www.savethebasin.org) that have created green spaces (eg, covered trenches) and safe walkways for the public and local school children.

A chinese garden would fit perfectly. And if it can’t be merged successfully, then perhaps we have to have the strength of character to say no.

Its about good planning and design for our city.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3756104/Mayor-and-business-group-head-to-China, http://savethebasin.org.nz/sites/savethebasin.org.nz/files/arch_centre_basin_sm.jpg, http://www.cabe.org.uk/public-space,

Knives are being sharpened

WCC has voted to approve the leaky homes deal. Kerry who supported the package was unable to vote due to a conflict of interest. Her $1.7 apartment on oriental parade is leaking. Apparently there was no conflict negotiating the deal?

The WCC has now signed ratepayers up to an estimated $87m debt, lifting current debt levels to $356 million. The knives are now out and more service cuts are expected (and rate increases). This is not a good deal for ratepayers or those leaky home owners not eligible for loans.

There were other options that fixed “everyones” homes with less debt (see discussion below). With WCC having to re-examine their budgets, perhaps its a good time to highlight some interesting figures already present in relation to projected funding.

Library funding is planned to drop 7.73%. An interesting decision when you compare funding decisions in other areas. Tourism promotion funding will go up 10.8% and Engagement funding up 7.11%. This projected funding cut for library services is a concern. It implies closures and\or service reductions are contemplated.

At the same time there are plans to spend millions on ‘artistic’ toilets and rugby monuments. Those trusted with the stewardship of our City are failing. Where are our priorities?

http://werewolf.co.nz/2010/05/closing-the-books-on-libraries/, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3744062/Wellington-City-Council-first-to-accept-leaky-home-package