following on from julie's post about the welfare working group asking the wrong questions, i'd have to say that the housing shareholders advisory group which reported on state housing reforms is also taking the wrong perspective. they focus on the "housing for life" issue, which they seem to think is the main reason for the increased demand on state housing.
i don't suppose this group looked at issues like:
1. the average wage, the minimum wage, in fact wages in general which are no longer sufficient for many people to afford their own housing. how about recommending positive strategies that will ensure people get fair pay for their labour.
2. housing speculation, which has pushed up the price houses and therefore rents, as highly-geared speculators try to meet their mortgage payments.
3. the much reduced stock of state housing, and to which has never recovered from the major sell-off from last decade.
not surprisingly, the group wants to see more subsidies to landlords via more accommodation supplements, rather than a building up of the state housing stock so that those supplements don't have to be paid. but they ignore the wider economic issues that lead to the demand for housing.
2 comments:
We need quality state housing and the ability to buy their own home. It's a health benefit to have warm, dry homes. It helps kids learn because they aren't switching schools because their parents have moved. It helps build communities because people become part of the neighbour-hood. People can invest in gardens.
My mother bought a flat in the 70's with a Housing Corp. mortgage. She lived in that house for over 30 years giving me a chance at a stable childhood in a healthy home.
National's plan of tearing down the welfare state is going to hurt the most vulnerable in society - poor families, especially chidren. I think it is wicked.
Muerk
Yes, it is wicked. So much for Key's "I grew up in a state house" rhetoric.
Post a Comment