Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Old, New, New, Old, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Upper Hutt Posse
*love* Te Kupu is still around, but no releases since 2007 as far as I can see.
-
Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants”…, in reply to Lilith __,
Government subsidy, tax-write-off, increase in value of property.
Of which the first appeals to everyone, the second only to those who can't do maths, and the latter deserves a hollow laugh.
We're trying to buy a house right now, and the one good thing is that green features are worthless in the market, with the exception of solar PV. I'd almost go so far as to say that "weird green stuff" costs the vendor money if it's visible (double glazing being the obvious one, people here seem to assume it means there's a neighbourhood noise problem). That's great for us in the unlikely event that we can find something affordable that has the features, but since 99% of houses don't, it's a negative because we're going to have to add them but won't be able to recoup the cost when we sell. Probably, obviously we can hope "the market" changes it's mind.
In Oz we have a "rental green star" system at least in Victoria, but again, there doesn't appear to be a rental price premium attached to higher star ratings.
-
Up Front: Dropping the A-Bomb, in reply to B Jones,
Just about everyone is against killing babies; I'm sure you wouldn't want to imply that some of us are not.
That's actually an almost unrelated debate, and in the minds of many it is completely disjunct. Killing babies who might grow up to be terrorists, for example, is seen by some as positive. And right now we have New Zealand soldiers overseas doing things that are too terrible to be disclosed to the public.
The context in NZ seems to be less "should we permit abortion" and more "how do we shift politicians away from cowering before SPUC and towards majority opinion". And frankly, I am happy to see The Greens moving onward and upward from same sex marriage to abortion. Given time I hope they will work through the whole list of frankly stupid legislation, but starting with these two egregiously harmful items does seem smart.
-
Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants”…, in reply to Lilith __,
I'm talking about situations where the landlord lives on the premises, which is not currently covered by the Act. What are you talking about?
Share houses, where either the lease-holder or the owner has tenants who aren't covered by the act. Where it's a lease everyone can go on the lease but commonly don't. With owner-share situations AFAIK the owner can choose to have formal leases (definitely could circa 1990 when I was the tenant in one). I don't think the problem is "we lack a law that can be used" as "there's no practical way to give tenants more rights in the this situation"
-
Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants”…, in reply to Lilith __,
apart from require formal agreements. Which would give everybody rights and responsibilities.
How would that not just become another weapon to use against disadvantaged people? Whatever improvement you're suggesting has to be both cheaper and easier than signing a lease, and should also be better for the leasee/landlord than what we have now or they won't want to bother.
-
Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants”…, in reply to Lilith __,
the housing crisis in Chch is a scandal.
still a scandal.
I don't want to rehash the whole thing, and I'm not sure that rental tenancy reform is the most pressing issue here. I think the real solution is a change of government. But anyway, tenancies...
I have been on both sides of the share house issue, often, and I don't think the law can really do much. Most people are reluctant to kick out housemates, so by the time it gets to that point things are normally pretty ugly. And where that's not the case what can the law actually do? In that case a solution that doesn't take effect that same day is no solution.
The real problem is that if you're in that semi-official part of the market you don't have practically enforceable rights. So the government-level solution should be more aimed at removing the need for that market. Share houses should be reduced to cases where people choose to live that way for the advantages they get (ease of moving, lower costs, less paperwork, whatever).
Unfortunately the governments in both NZ and Aus are quite deliberately moving in the opposite direction - less stable housing, more poverty, fewer rights for poor people.
-
Oh, and can we talk about "renting while black"? I've lost count of the number of open inspections I've turned up to in Sydney where the agent has looked around, seen the one tall, affluent white guy and blatantly written off everyone else in the room. It's worth me dressing up a bit for that exact reason, but the flip side is that there's nothing I can do to stop them. It's also a hard call - should I go homeless in the vague hope that that will make it easier for someone less white and male to find somewhere to live?
Landlords are remarkably free from effective restrictions on who they can rent to. Or not rent to.
-
Share housing in Australia is even more fraught, FWIW. A lot of leases absolutely forbid anyone not on the lease from being resident, or agents require that they have "agreements" with every resident that make going on the lease look attractive. And they often charge a week's rent to change the people on the lease. Kids have to be listed and permitted as a separate item, same as pets. But some agents prefer "families" so I'm not sure how much that is a problem.
But those requirement also seem to be rarely enforced, we've had inspections where there were obviously 7 people living there with 3 on the lease and the agent didn't blink. It does, however, mean that they can give you 24 hours to vacate whenever they want to. Which may be the idea.
I've lived in a couple of share houses where no-one resident was on the lease, and in one case no-one resident recognised any of the names on the lease. Quite who is liable when those ones turn to custard I have no idea.
-
Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants”…, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
I don't personally have much problem with landlords/head tenants being able to turf their flatmates out with no notice. It's a different deal when you're living with someone.
I was amused once when I called the cops and they took my word for it that I was the tenant and the former housemwate who claimed to still live there was taken away. Albeit he was "known to the police"...
I've been renting/in share houses for 25 years now, and I've had everything from landlords letting themselves in to help me deal with my excess possessions (try proving that! He admitted it to me), a landlord terminating my lease and letting the house to my housemates without telling me, then refusing to return my bond when they stopped paying rent. At the other end of the scale, one rent increase in seven years and hiring a lawnmower so we could mow the lawns (roughly once a year :) That guy used to drive past about tax time every year, then ring and say "have you been paying rent? I haven't looked at the account for a while".
The power imbalance is truly awful when you're trying to find somewhere, and bad agents are horrific. I have been through the whole keep the bond/charge for extra cleaning/bad reference experience with one lot, and we were basically forced to go to the tribunal so we could say to future landlords "the tribunal sided with us, and they're retaliating". It still meant that a lot of agents just would not deal with us at all, their computer said "bad" so they blocked us. No return calls, applications ignored, it was a waste of time and a lot of stress.
-
Hard News: The Ides of Epsom, in reply to Brent Jackson,
I was immensely proud of my special vote cast in London in the 1987 General Election, where it was the only overseas special vote in the Auckland Central Electorate for the McGillicuddy Serious Party. 1 out of 1 - you can't get more meaningful than that :- ).
Darn! The best I've ever managed was being 4% of the Communist Party vote in Chch Central. It seemed more meaningful that being part of a 10000-ish margin for the Labour candidate. At other times I've also voted purely in the hope that my vote will help a candidate get their deposit back.
This time I'll be voting against Nick Smith in the hope that Labour will pull off a miracle in Nelson. I'm almost tempted to actually visit Nelson so I can spend some time volunteering, but it would be a hell weekend, so I'll probably just aim for something social in Chch.