Did National really just simply sell off state houses?

Really interesting article which serves as a good background to the current problem with state housing.

Tl;dr: Did National sell off state housing? Yes, but the net loss was only a few hundred. However, if you factor in the proportion of the total housing stoke owned by the state, we are short 43,000 state homes, and that’s only for the rather meagre 5.4% of total stock.

deadbeef79000,

The net loss was a few hundred, however the number should have grown with population growth.

Do the nominal loss need to include that growth that didn’t happen, whether value it was.

Then, factor in the growth lost every year afterwards too.

luthis,

National’s gonna de-nationalise.

That’s a wierd sentence.

TagMeInSkipIGotThis,

Yup, which has resulted in a double-whammy of problems.

  1. There’s not enough social housing to keep vulnerable and disadvantaged people in homes.
  2. There’s not enough non-private housing to create market pressures that might otherwise change private provision of housing.
Ilovethebomb,

Her colleague Chris Bishop even told RNZ that National would “build enough state and social housing” to clear the state-house waiting list – a startling claim given that the list currently sits at 24,717, but one to which he will no doubt be held if his party wins power.

We can but hope.

Rangelus,

Indeed. This is good news if they stick to their word.

Mojojojo1993,

Has a politician ever ?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • politics@lemmy.nz
  • tacticalgear
  • DreamBathrooms
  • cisconetworking
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • Durango
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • mdbf
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • everett
  • megavids
  • modclub
  • Leos
  • cubers
  • ngwrru68w68
  • ethstaker
  • osvaldo12
  • GTA5RPClips
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •