Mismanagement of state housing in Auckland city

Auckland City, Eden Terrace and Grafton are small yet highly concentrated, busy suburbs with various living standards, mostly apartment blocks with houses plotted in between. Living around inner-city suburbs most of my life, I am fairly used to the urban sprawl; however, I have always occupied above-standard living environments and never fully understood the contrast in housing that surrounded me. With this essay, I want to report on the large gap between living environments in the nearby urban areas by discussing the mismanagement of state housing facilities. By highlighting the changes in state housing throughout New Zealand's history, we can gain insight into the experiences of state housing residents and neighbours in the area and what factors are blocking state housing from becoming a socially sustainable environment.

Context

Throughout New Zealand's history, the role of state housing has changed vastly depending on the government in power or the social-cultural environment. State housing in New Zealand originally started with the liberal government of the 1890s as a solution to city slums. However, state housing wasn't fully implemented until the 1930s labour government. (Schrader, n.d.). At the time, state housing was a form of alternative homeownership for 'respectful families,' with poor households being excluded from the system (Mills et al., 2015). However, In the 1940s, the National Party redirected state housing to the poor with an income bar (Schrader, n.d.). By the late 1980s, state housing faced criticism from several angles and was increasingly restricted to assisting those with 'serious housing needs' (Johnson, 2017.) Issues surrounding state housing only worsened when, in the 1990s, the national party came back into power; the party implemented a devastating reform that relied on accommodation supplements instead of the previous income-related rent (Schrader, n.d.). The accommodation supplement left many residents with inadequate after-rent income, leading to reports of chronic overcrowding, resulting in increases in domestic violence and sexual abuse. (Schrader, n.d.). Although the Labour government in 1999 removed accommodation supplements, many of the housing issues of the 1990s reform remain. (Schrader, n.d.).Today, the New Zealand government manages about 63,000 statehouses, with 180,000 people living in the state housing system, often located in areas of high social deprivation. (“Part 2” 2009). Although the location and number of statehouses and residences in the CBD area aren’t disclosed, state housing is mainly focused around Great North Road, Newton cluster, Khyber Pass Road (“Auckland,” n.d.). and Grey Avenue. (“Grey,” n.d.)

Personal observations/experiences of the issue

When I started discussing my university work with a friend who lived in the same area, they mentioned the state housing apartment block they lived next to and how it brings disruption and concern to their daily lives. My friend, Case A, told me about seeing scenes of domestic violence and fights outside the building. Police would come to the apartment block often at least once a week, and occasionally, screaming could be heard at night from the building. After Case A, I gained a second perspective from a statehouse resident in my area. Case B lived in a house rather than an apartment building; they were a high school student who had been living in state housing for 17 years with their father. Their primary source of income was the benefit due to their father's disabilities. Their housing was a two-bedroom home with one bathroom, no heating or any support appliances to help with their father's worsening condition. The housing conditions were described as a 6/10, with safety at 5/10 and financial stability at 5/10. Their neighbours were incredibly supportive and helped with case B's father's needs, such as cooking him meals, shopping for him and paying the rent when he couldn't. Although Case B is given neighbourly support, their housing supplier focuses more on increasing the house's resale value than accommodating Case B and their father's needs. Although the supplier has repainted and redone the roofing, they haven't attended to the residents' needs, such as hand railing, heating and fixing broken windows. Case B feels helpless with the lack of support from their supplier, which is further noted when asked about the limitation of the state housing system, "They definitely don't help people, they see it as a way to get people off the street, but they take what they can get out of vulnerable people, and they do not accommodate to their needs as they say they do."

Possibly causes & contributing factors.

These circumstances and experiences of Case A and B have been created due to several intertwined factors. Case A observation shows that issues apparent in the 1990s national reform on state housing, such as poor health, domestic violence, and sexual abuse, are still inserted in today's state housing. (Schrader, n.d.). The cause of these issues is likely the quality of accommodations, such as Case B housing. Overcrowding is still an issue today; however, other problems, such as inadequately maintained housing and poorly configured and isolated locations, are now a burden in today's state housing system. (Johnson, 2017.) Another cause of Case A's observation is the increase of people with complex needs for housing in recent years, such as mental or physical health problems, drug and alcohol abuse, incidents of threatening behaviour, and poor private rental market history. (“Part 2” 2009). From what we have seen with Case B, statehouse residents with specific needs are likely not provided adequate support to settle into their homes. In Case B's experiences, what is being seen instead is a downsizing of the state housing stocks, which started with the national-led government of 2008. State housing stock peaked quietly in 2011; since then, an Auckland-based redevelopment plan has focused on demolition, transfers and sales. This is why Case B's housing suppliers focus more on resale value than installing accessible housing. (Johnson, 2017.)

Relationship to social sustainability framework and theory

The experiences of Case A and B have highlighted some of the counteracting forces toward creating social sustainability. Stephen Mckenzie centres his definition of social sustainability around enhancing and achieving the community's needs and wants. (McKenzie, 2004.) However, the community can not achieve connectivity and fulfilment due to the failure of the state housing system. Because state housing has become a welfare system, there is little sense of community responsibility in state housing residences. Present government policies of reviewable tenancies will move out-state tenants who meet the requirement to build stable livelihoods outside the state housing system, substituting them with families or individuals in worse conditions who cannot contribute to the broader community. Because state housing always replaces residents in more secure circumstances, there is little sense of community responsibility as state housing acts as a liminal space for people in crisis. (Johnson, 2017.) Stephen Mckenzie's belief in the political participation of citizens and political advocacy to meet community needs is also not accomplished in the state housing environment. (McKenzie, 2004.) what is highlighted by Case B's situation is that there is little support from housing providers and the government to meet their needs. Although the state provides housing, they are disconnected from the residing occupants. Hardly any support is given to the residents to live in these accommodations to the fullest. Occupants feel voided of ownership and become further detached from the community, avoiding participation as the state does not meet their advocacy. (Johnson, 2017.)

Discussion

At first, the observations given by Case A left me with many questions about state housing, as this was all from an outsider's perspective. However, I could discern that the overall community feeling toward state housing in the area was likely negative. An increase in violence and social disturbances would have been of concern to many.

Hearing about Case B's situation gave me more insight into the conditions inside the home. Overall, I was pretty shocked by the blatant disregard by the housing supplier for Case B's situation, with increasing the revalue price being more important than considering the needs of the residents inside the home.

Together with the research, these two perspectives bring insight into a complex multilayered situation that has only been worsened by the New Zealand government's responses over the past few decades. However, from Case A's stance, we can infer that the ones often blamed for the negligence of state housing are often the residents themselves rather than the environment and the government in power. From Case A's outsider perspective, one can not honestly know the condition of housing on the inside that may have led to incidences of violence or concern.

While Case A's circumstances show the distrust between state residents and the community, Case B is more fortunate, getting support from her neighbours and community. However, the disconnect between the state provider and the state resident is disconcerting in case B circumstances—the blatant focus on resale value and housing stock rather than broader housing issues. Even long-term residents, such as Case B, can only access below the legal requirements of a quality living environment. Going into this project, I focused on the mismanagement of state housing facilities. However, although I found the results I expected, what surprised me was the government's lack of interest and innovation in solving broader issues around state housing. Perhaps this disregard comes from the neoliberal mindset of today's government and housing providers. Neoliberal concepts such as "individualism is morally superior and that markets and materialism define progress" seem to block the state from realizing that solutions should be centred around social sustainability and communal thinking. (Johnson, 2017.)

Conclusion

This investigation has revealed some critical issues facing the state housing system. New Zealand has had a complicated history with state housing, and the results are currently complex. On the one hand, it accommodates people in need; on the other side, the system is disconnected and indifferent and does not seem to have its residents' needs at heart. In areas like cities and inner-city suburbs, this plays out as judgement from private house owners, deeming state housing residences a danger and disruption to the community rather than being seen as victims of the state and their living environment. Overall, the New Zealand government needs to act to make state housing an effective system by reconsidering policies, changing the social discord, and giving the statehouse residents the support they need.