Submission No: 143 Name: Selena Mercer Organisation: Do you wish to speak about your submission at a Council hearing? No Do you support in principle Council’s proposal to sell all the Council owned pensioner housing properties to a combination of social housing providers and on the open market? This option is outlined in more detail in the Options Paper under 4C. Yes Please include reasons why you hold this position. please see attached file Do you have any specific comments in relation to the other options considered by Council? Do you have any other comments in relation to this proposal? Section Two
Sale Principle
Yes I support the sale principle.
Reason and comments:
I understand that government has made a change in the law. That local government do not have to
provide social housing. Social housing should be done by those who provide social housing to
provide a wrap around service.
However, those in council flats do not expect to get these services from the council and source other
means to do this.
I understand that the housing provided by the council is aging and not up to date with new
standards, would be an expense to rate payers.
Has the council asked the rate payers for their opinion on this? Wouldn’t most rate payers want to
provide for their elderly community?
However, from what I understand Hamilton City Council (HCC) has not give a written letter to its
social housing clients in regards to the proposal to sale of their units. Even up to date information
regarding what has happened in recent meetings. The ratepayers are finding out about the sale of
these units via The Waikato Times, not very professional and not a very wide audience. Not all
people read the Waikato Times and wider audience could be The Hamilton Press.
Specific comments in relation to options
Option one (status quo)
I understand that option one is status quo that the council will continue to deliver the service
provide by the council which includes: operation, management and maintenance.
This is less stressful for all those involved and provides stability for the clients.
Therefore, a need to ask rate payers for their opinion on keeps social housing for the elderly
community.
Could local council approach government asking them to change the rules regarding council
providing wrap around services?
Ask current social housing clients what they expect to receive from local councils in regards to social
housing and its services.
The current rent needs to be increased by the HCC to keep the books in a balance. Can social
housing clients handle a price increase? Has HCC checked with income support what the increase
would do to affect their clients?
Option two (contract the service out)
This means the local council still owns the land, but will contract out the service to a provider to
enable clients to receive full wrap around service.
This also guarantees the current clients are able to stay where they are and get a wrap around
service. This option also takes the expense away from the local council and rate payers.
Has the HCC investigated if there is a sympatric provider in the community that could provider this
service? How does this compare to all four options?
Option two also changes social housing to all social housing clients not just for housing for the
elderly community. Has the HCC investigated what the implications on current clients? Are they
going to be able to handle mentally handicapped people and those of a different age group? What
new rules do the council need to establish to endeavour to help in this situation?
Have HCC done full investigations into how other local council have dealt with the ideas regarding
providers.
Option three (partial sale)
This option is partial sale of HCC social housing on open market or sympatric providers. Has the
council investigated whether there is a possibility for partial sale? If so who with? Does the partial
sale give enough finance to repay debt and for current capital improvements? Has the council done
its figures?
Option four a (sell all on the open market)
This option is the HCC social housing being sold on the open market to maximise HCC return. Has
the council investigated if there is a buyer who can buy the whole lot at the best return for the
council and rate payers?
With this proposal the property would have to be vacant. This means all residents would have to
move out and not guaranteed a unit with the new owners and could mean moving twice.
Being that it’s on open market are the potential buyers going to use the properties for social
housing. This could cause a lack of social hosing within Hamilton, making it really hard for those
already struggling to find housing even harder. Would HCC not sell it to a developer that will use the
land for a townhouse subdivision, would this be in their sale and purchase agreement?
With the restricted money received on supernaturation elderly do not have the means to use private
accommodation.
Whys should this money be used to pay HCC unwise debts that the rate payers have not agreed on?
Example are V8’s, revamping of Garden Place, art sculptures to name a few.
Option four b (sale to a social housing provider)
This option means the council will sale the HCC social housing to a social housing provider to
maintain as social housing.
Option four b also gives residents slightly less stress for maybe not moving in the short term.
Will the social housing provider be able to give the residents a full wrap around service?
Option four c (4a and b)
Is a combination of 4a and b being finding a sympatric social housing provider over a six month
period. If this is unsuccessful would be put on the open market for the next 12 months while
allowing residents to say in place.
Other points
No matter what rents for the social housing is going up. If it is to a sympatric social housing or open
market buyer, the current residents are financially worse off (by approximately y $6 to $23).
Does all the HCC social housing have to be sold as one whole unit? Could they be sold as separate
street whole sites?
Does the HCC housing have to be sold to one sympatric social housing provider. For example
Salvation Army, Housing NZ, Maori Trusts and Church groups have a combination buy?
Has the HCC looked at the emotional and physical stress this is putting on their current clients? The
needs to:







feel secure in their environment,
that their community is willing to look after them,
have a full understanding of what is happening,
getting support for those who have no immediate family,
informing the immediate family of what is happening,
finding means of alternative accommodation for current clients (not all families are in the
position to help out),
ability to have a social network for current clients
Has HCC looked in to ways it can help their current clients into a transition of the sale?
As I have stated previously HCC needs to look after its current clients as a whole person not just a
financial burden adding to their ever increasing debts.
As stated in the Waikato Times on Monday October 27 2014, “a lot of tenants are fearful of what
might happen to their units and there’s been a bit of scaremongering by opponents for the proposal,
but all these people have agendas.” These people may have agendas like keeping Hamilton’s
informed about what is happening to their elderly community, showing us what the current HCC is
up to and asking us why we voted for these councillors.
The HCC has not informed the rate payers about selling off of a major assets and giving them a
choice of what the correct course of action is?
Brian Winsdale is quite correct in his comments to Waikato Times that “one of the drivers for us
would be to act as a voice in the community for the care of the elderly. We want to challenge
families to care for the elderly but for those who don’t have family support networks; we want to
help care for them.” This statement shows that the church has more care for the elderly than HCC,
which is really disappointing and sad.