Hi Bernard, it took me a few hours to get to reading this one today, but my first thought was, this flavour of "social housing" sounded a bit gaslighty. Coming to the comments, it seems like I'm not the only one with that concern. I would love to hear your thoughts about the pros and cons of private/community housing provision vs public/…
Hi Bernard, it took me a few hours to get to reading this one today, but my first thought was, this flavour of "social housing" sounded a bit gaslighty. Coming to the comments, it seems like I'm not the only one with that concern. I would love to hear your thoughts about the pros and cons of private/community housing provision vs public/state housing (beyond ideology)... My instinct is that the state should (by dint of democratic accountability and scale) always be cheaper, better, more responsive, and more inclusive - assuming equally competent management. Therefore, further concentrating something as important as shelter for vulnerable people into private control just seems risky, right? For example, what's to stop a CHiP from shadow-offering their housing only to people who are part of their congregation/not LGBTQ/no criminal record etc? What's to stop a CHiP from employing a CEO on a $2.9m salary or selling out to a private equity firm? How transparent about rent increases or service levels do private housing providers need to be? Even before they are operating, in the short time that Kāinga Ora was fully operational it had to bail out a bunch of failed private developments. So, unsurprisingly, since they were knee-capped we've ended up with hundreds of half-finished houses rotting in the weather because there's no one empowered to finish and operate them. If something like an interest rate or building cost increase means these houses suddenly make social-but-not-financial sense, they basically become stranded (even as investors recover their money by way of government bail-outs). With all that said, I just can't understand what the private incentive to build social housing is. There are much easier ways to 'do charity', and if it's for 'profit' that seems to defeat the whole purpose of it... Would love someone to explain how this isn't just another neoliberal shell game to me.
Hi Tim. You are correct in your analysis. We seem to be just chipping away at the edges, trying to alleviate some of the really big problems this insane neoliberal economic system has got us into. Historically NZ has solved housing problems by the government building them. At least twice.
Hi Bernard, it took me a few hours to get to reading this one today, but my first thought was, this flavour of "social housing" sounded a bit gaslighty. Coming to the comments, it seems like I'm not the only one with that concern. I would love to hear your thoughts about the pros and cons of private/community housing provision vs public/state housing (beyond ideology)... My instinct is that the state should (by dint of democratic accountability and scale) always be cheaper, better, more responsive, and more inclusive - assuming equally competent management. Therefore, further concentrating something as important as shelter for vulnerable people into private control just seems risky, right? For example, what's to stop a CHiP from shadow-offering their housing only to people who are part of their congregation/not LGBTQ/no criminal record etc? What's to stop a CHiP from employing a CEO on a $2.9m salary or selling out to a private equity firm? How transparent about rent increases or service levels do private housing providers need to be? Even before they are operating, in the short time that Kāinga Ora was fully operational it had to bail out a bunch of failed private developments. So, unsurprisingly, since they were knee-capped we've ended up with hundreds of half-finished houses rotting in the weather because there's no one empowered to finish and operate them. If something like an interest rate or building cost increase means these houses suddenly make social-but-not-financial sense, they basically become stranded (even as investors recover their money by way of government bail-outs). With all that said, I just can't understand what the private incentive to build social housing is. There are much easier ways to 'do charity', and if it's for 'profit' that seems to defeat the whole purpose of it... Would love someone to explain how this isn't just another neoliberal shell game to me.
Hi Tim. You are correct in your analysis. We seem to be just chipping away at the edges, trying to alleviate some of the really big problems this insane neoliberal economic system has got us into. Historically NZ has solved housing problems by the government building them. At least twice.