Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.nz
politics·NZ PoliticsbyRangelus

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.

Did National really just simply sell off state houses?https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-09-2023/did-national-really-just-simply-sell-off-state-housesOpen linkView original on lemmy.nz
10
Comments6

6 replies

Ilovethebomb
lemmy.nz

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.

3
Rangelusreply
lemmy.nz

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

2
TagMeInSkipIGotThis
lemmy.nz

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.
3
deadbeef79000
lemmy.nz

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.

2

You reached the end

Did National really just simply sell off state houses? | Spyke