Columns

An increase in regulations promoting warmer houses may be populist, but it isn’t necessarily good for everyone, nor is government support actually needed for good housing.

In student areas in particular, there is a demand for the slightly run-down, cheap flats. Some people want rubbish flats that they can do what they like to. And if that option isn’t there, then they are losing out. It’s a choice that people should be able to make, and a choice that landlords should be able to make as well.
   Many of the so-called slum lords of Dunedin actually provide very good properties, at a price that is still well below that of the main cities. They insulate, they provide heat-pumps, and they ensure that the furnishings are nice. And many students, often later on, are happy to pay for the benefits. However, there is still a demand for cheap accommodation, and it’s going to be either very small, or not very nice. It’s a choice, and people can choose a warm house.
   But you get what you pay for; you can’t demand cheap and all the best quality. Like anything. And landlords respond to demand – heaps of flats in Dunedin now boast heat pumps. Warm flats exist, and if people are willing to pay to offset the landlord’s costs, they are available. 
   While there are some good arguments that our houses could do with a minimum standard, the problems start to arise when we ask: who sets that minimum? And why is that a minimum? Is it really that far between legislating that houses must be insulated, for occupant health, and then that all houses must be kept at 18 degrees Celsius, for occupant health – whatever the costs? Demanding the government pay for this is a solution, but not really sustainable or realistic, given they have other priorities and limited funds.
   If people don’t have the money to move to a warmer house, do they really have the money to pay for improvements to their current accommodation?
   The government also needs to take a look at the state of state housing. As they are state-supplied, these should be nice and warm, and they should meet the needs of those people who struggle to pay for a place to live. But they are not cheap accommodation for everyone, and they can’t be considered a long-term solution for their tenants. Unfortunately, state housing is not a bonus of living in New Zealand. They should be a last resort, but they are not a place to call one’s own. They should be seen as temporary accommodation. 
   The option to purchase state houses is important; people do become attached to a place, but with 2700 state houses currently with empty bedrooms, they cannot continue to be leased to tenants who do not need the space. Especially while 10 000 people remain on waiting lists. While it may be nice to let people stay, state houses are about subsistence rather than the perfect life. Tenants should get what they need, and once they can stand on their own feet, state support should cease.