I am confused by the social housing policy. Or more correctly, confused about whether I approve. There is sense in a family mentor also being the landlord eg Salvation Army and addiction services, and to a degree they already operate thus. But do they want to expand their landlord role significantly? The bigger their clientèle becomes, the more difficult it is to control. As evidenced by the problem English is trying to solve.So it was unsurprising to read in the NZ Herald this morning that the Sallies will not be progressing the idea of buying state houses from the government.
And he will know that at least some degree of that "appalling state" is due to tenant damage or neglect. The benefits of repairs and maintenance are short-lived.
... Major Campbell Roberts, of the Salvation Army, says the church organisation does not believe "the lives of tenants would be sufficiently improved by such a transfer".
Nor did it have the "expertise, infrastructure and resources to successfully manage any social housing transfer of size", he said.
"It's just that to take on a significant number of houses is a very complex operation ... the numbers require huge inputs of capital." Housing NZ was in an appalling state, he said.
What can the government do? Those tenants that abuse property tend to be anti-social and lower the quality of life of their neighbours, also state house tenants. No doubt they can or have been identified.
Perhaps as MSD re-adjusts tenancies to meet need, it could also put 'undeserving' tenants together in the same location where they could collectively absorb each other's disruptive dysfunctionality thereby relieving other innocent parties. The opposite of pepper-potting. What a heretical thought.