Part of a OIA request Response from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is below.
Rather oddly, it doesn’t want to identify how many each of the owners (itself and the Salvation Army) of 1-bedroom, 4-bedroom and 5-bedroom units have in Kapiti.
Neither does it want to provide a breakdown of where these units are in each of the four main areas.
The KCDC in contrast is quite happy to detail what it has on its website here.
On the other hand, a question we needed to ask the Ministry because of the KCDC’s secrecy was:
Has the Ministry been invited by the Kapiti Coast District Council to buy any of the social housing units it owns, and if so where and how many?
An earlier Response received:
The Ministry has not been approached by the Kapiti Coast District Council to purchase its housing portfolio.
So there you have it: if the KCDC is looking at selling its social housing, it’s not to the MHUD.
The MHUD also told us in the earlier response:
The Public Housing Plan 2018-2022 sets out the intentions for acquiring public housing throughout New Zealand for the next four years. The Public Housing Plan currently states that the Ministry is looking to acquire 40 additional units in the Kapiti region — this is an estimate [our emphasis – Eds], with the actual volumes dependent on changes in housing demand and other relevant factors. The Ministry’s intention is for this document to be updated and published annually, mid-year, following the Government’s Budget process. Each annual update will contain updated information about the number of additional public housing places being sought, based on what has been secured in the pipeline and to reflect any changes in national and regional demand, and funding availability. The Public Housing Plan can be found here: https://hud.cwp.govt.nz/community-and-public-housing/increasing-public-housing/
“S” = “we’re not telling you”, however, the combined total of 4 and 5-bedroom houses must be 8.
There is no justification whatsoever for KCDC to sell the current stock of social housing.
Yes the stock is old, (The newest are 30 ears old) Yes refurbishment is costly and only happens when units are vacated. Yes council has made the decision for the past five years to ratepayer subsidize an annual revenue shortfall rather than raise the rents beyond what is affordable for the tenants on limited incomes. Yes, many more, newer units could be built on the current land by using modern design to create slightly higher density units. And no, the council cannot charge tenants the market rates needed to enable the rental income received to cover the costs of maintaining and improving the stock. However, a registered housing provider could achieve all of the above, by being able to access a greater level of Central Government housing subsidy for each tenant.
Here is the kicker – KCDC only has to lease the stock to them. NOT SELL IT. A 99year lease agreement will achieve all of the above. Without selling up one square inch of our publicly owned land asset, and I will never ever support the sale of our social housing. Districtwide Cr Jackie Elliott.
Thank you for informing us about matters which have been kept from the ratepayers. We also appreciate your desire to retain council-owned social housing — you are probably now the only councilor now who cares about it.
Could you please contact me with more information?