A reader kindly sent me a response she received yesterday from MSD. She'd asked if any cost benefit analysis has been made of Temporary Emergency Accommodation versus paying market rental. The answer was 'no'. Hardly surprising.
But MSD did supply a document containing some data from March 2020 quarter. Under a heading 'Analysis' the following observation appears:
"The spend on Emergency Housing does not represent value for money."
That's the understatement of the year.
I've charted the three main spends:
Subsidising renters in the private market costs just a third of subsidising them in public housing, and a sixth of what's being paid for motels, hotels and the like.
Any cost/benefit analysis will show that government should get out of housing and confine itself to subsidising low income private renters.
I understand why people complain loudly about the state subsidising private landlords but as matters stand, it's still the most efficient way to house low income people.
1 comment:
Would not some aspiring bright eyed graduate from journalism school not see an opportunity up there with Erin Brockovich to go viral with an expose here? Then on further thought that would be a bad career move threatening the State Largesse for media I guess?
Post a Comment