1. I can just see it now, after the UP is approved, done and dusted Housing NZ moves in and build social housing on public land proclaiming a solution to housing shortages and prudent management of tax payer dollars by lumping hundreds of people dependent on the state in one or 2 buildings. A recipe for disaster.

    1. Not best practice. Mixing social housing throughout the whole city is what works, as is well know world wide. And the benefits accrue to all of the city not just the social housing users. For example: The Housing Commission in Victoria [Australia] has a programme where it takes 30% of dwellings in new developments, these are the cheaper apartments typically with the poorer outlook, or smaller or whatever. The Commish gets a bulk deal, doesn’t get into the messy business of developing itself, the developer gets a lump sum guaranteed sale of the trickier move dwellings that underpins the viability of the whole project: basically gives lenders confidence. The Commish gets to have a hand in details like open space provision. Win-win-win. Private buyers aren’t put off by this process. Public money is spent efficiently, and in a way that neither distorts the market nor creates ghettos of beneficiaries, and the Commish is able to actively run a large number and variety of housing types, and change these with need. Can even sell on the market or to tenants, or just keep re-investing.

      Of course the city used to own social housing but that was all sold by Mayor Banks.

Leave a Reply