(This story, which we broke last week, generated a lot of attention and comment from Kapiti people, most of it negative. Although the Mayor didn’t want to respond to our request for comment, a media release was issued by the Council “Communications Department” late last week, which said in part:
“Kāpiti Coast District Mayor K Gurunathan has asked Council staff to do everything in their power to avoid the large family in Paraparaumu from being forced out of their Council-owned home with no-where to go.
“This is a very unfortunate situation where the government agencies responsible for providing safe and affordable housing for those in need have failed in their duty of care.
“We have no desire to see this family become homeless which is why I’ve asked Council staff to follow a formal process to slow down the sales process for the property until such time as the family has secured alternative housing via Housing New Zealand,” said the Mayor. “)
It is no good the mayor blaming central government. This is a Kapiti issue and has been handled very badly. The family has been very poorly treated and the trauma for them is ongoing because council seem to be inconsistent and full of probabilities with housing.
Mayor Krishnasamy Gurunathan cannot hoodwink the residents of Kapiti by placing blame on Government Agencies!
Mayor Krishnasamy Gurunathan has mentioned his involvement and concern for the housing crisis that we are experiencing in Kapiti in his column, and yet abnegates his responsibility in working with the CEO and team in KCDC to address this housing situation! I believe that if the residents of Kapiti are not vigilant in monitoring the 117 social houses with the additional larger houses, all could be sold to address the chronic debt that rate payers are saddled with.
For Mayor Krishnasamy Gurunathan in his election campaign of 2016 to promise transparency in his Council and to conduct these housing and debt considerations [and many others –Eds] in public excluded sessions is the measure of credibility for this Council.
I believe that the family should be given an immediate reassurance that their tenure is safe until council has a sensible policy and an acceptable alternative house can be found. In the interim as a measure of good faith the Mayor must give the family a letter confirming this recommendation.
It is understood last year KCDC’ s pensioner housing was in deficit by $500K, this shortfall being made up by ratepayers. Needless to say in the spirit of OPEN TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE (as required of local government, never mind the Mayors (hollow) election pledges) ,this fact was not publically made available.
The Mayors gone very quiet on KCDC’s own social housing pensioner units. Clearly the attempts to offload the problem to a social housing provider (DWELL) has gone nowhere.
As with the two houses being sold soon, there isn’t much in the way of cash out for ratepayers other than holding cost (what the flats might be worth on the market @ 4.65% interest per annum), less the rentals received plus maintenance and (presumably) insurance. Apihaka Mack says that little gets spent on maintenance. That $500,000 claimed deficit divided by 118 = $4,237 per annum each, which is high but not incredible. Nothing is said about the steady increase in land value that the houses sit on, which we think means that there is a significant net benefit to ratepayers. Getting information out of the council can be like pulling teeth and we doubt whether any figures presented to councilors by management are scutinised by them.