|
|
Post by bingbong on Mar 6, 2009 9:23:55 GMT 12
re Naki's reply #24. Again you reflect your lack of understanding of the Residential Tenancies Act and this situation.
It appears your brain is back firing and you keep missing the issues. The 'Act intention is to deal and regulate between reasonable landlords and reasonable tenants. Where tenants or landlords don't comply within that orbit then as reflected in the mechanisms of that legislation [if you have ever bothered to read it from cover to cover as I do before bed time] Landlords as in the appalling situation memoralized here it is reasonable in context to give notice. You need to reread the initial articles posted here and in matters of intimidation by nature are hard to are deal with in a court situation and it is proper here that as these matters are not criminal under the Act it is a civil mechanism to issue legal notice and an affective and safe way of dealing with a complex situation where intimidation of good tenants by gang like people is not going to work. Trying to get tenants to give evidence of intimidation against gang members isn't safe, this process is. No politician has the power to terminate any tenancy and that hasn't happened here. It is unfortunate you cant sift and solidify the real issues here. Good tenants are not being given notice here. I support the goodies not the baddies.  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Mar 6, 2009 9:50:11 GMT 12
You are wasting my time. The Residential Tenancies Act was not written with the intention that government ministers could issue mass eviction notices against tennants based on their membership of a specific group. If it is now against the law to be a gang member, by all means allow the police to act within their powers. If these people are committing offences, again, the mechanisms exist to deal with them through the law courts. If , however, tennancies are being terminated at the whim of politicians in the hope of political gain, then it is the politicians who need evicting. This country should not be mismanaged to appease the simpletons who infest talk-back radio. No. It was written to protect landlords and tenants. The case in point is the one where the tenants harassed another tenant to the point she fled (with her child) There is provision under the RTA for a landlord to quit tenants for this type of behaviour AS WELL AS referring to the Police. This isn't a tenancy terminated at the "whim" of politicians. This is a tenancy that should have been terminated some time ago, but wasn't and is now. As an aside: I have no problem with the Government wanting to sell some of the older HNZ homes (to get people into the property market) and building some newer, more environmentally efficient ones. |
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Mar 6, 2009 13:54:18 GMT 12
I wonder though what effect it would have if gang members are evicted, they do tend to live close to other gang associates unless they want to change the life style. If they are evicted from one area will that mean the problems they cause are wider spread? There are definitely ways to get around the housing problem as someone else said they'll just get someone else to seek accommodation for them at where ever they want to be. They do that anyway. It will be interesting to see what actually comes of it, because I can't see the problem disappearing into thin air. What housing corp could also consider is to relocate good tenants into areas where they could enjoy a safer environment. National would be pretty stupid to start selling off state owned housing in this current downturn - though they have considered it in the past and they could be looking at long term solutions to paying off massive debt that they will being creating over the next few years. Yep. I like the idea of rewarding good tenants too, but bad tenants need to be punished as well. I know this might sound harsh but I don't care where the gangs house themselves. If this case makes other people sit up and take notice and/or pull their heads in a bit better - then good on them. If they find other people to let them into HNZ houses before their stand down period is completed, then I'd quit them as well. |
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Mar 7, 2009 20:39:42 GMT 12
re Naki's reply #24. Again you reflect your lack of understanding of the Residential Tenancies Act and this situation. I no longer care to hear your opinion on this subject, no matter how many times you rephrase it. HNZ exists to provide shelter for those who might not otherwise be able to access it. It is no coincidence that it has been doing exactly that for many years. National regain control of government [including HNZ], and within weeks HNZ is acting like a private landlord instead of a government service. Anyone who thinks that it is a coincidence, or thaat the State should be allowed to cherry-pick the best tennants and discard the rest is naive beyond all description. |
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Mar 7, 2009 20:49:13 GMT 12
re Naki's reply #24. Again you reflect your lack of understanding of the Residential Tenancies Act and this situation. I no longer care to hear your opinion on this subject, no matter how many times you rephrase it. HNZ exists to provide shelter for those who might not otherwise be able to access it. It is no coincidence that it has been doing exactly that for many years. National regain control of government [including HNZ], and within weeks HNZ is acting like a private landlord instead of a government service. Anyone who thinks that it is a coincidence, or thaat the State should be allowed to cherry-pick the best tennants and discard the rest is naive beyond all description.That is no longer the case, Naki. It used to be, but it hasn't been that way for some time now. If it was the case, then there would be a set income level where people are required to quit when their wages reach a certain amount. People require HNZ homes now at record levels and as such, I think HNZ are quite within their rights to ask tenants to quit that are problematic, and impact upon other tenants. Quite frankly I'd rather see HNZ pick tenants that are going to appreciate the opportunity they've given, rather than squander it through bad behaviour. The gang members in this situation are not victims. The women and child who had to flee are, and I'm astounded that people would be advocating support for the gang to have a HNZ - almost as of right - rather than supporting the woman and child who have the right to live in peace, and quiet without harassment from their neighbours. |
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Mar 7, 2009 21:22:05 GMT 12
Thank you for puting you hand up to being naive beyond description , sparrow.
Bottom line is that this action will not change any of the issues, will not change any of the gang members, and sooner or later, HNZ will be called on to find homes for these losers.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Mar 7, 2009 21:33:46 GMT 12
Thank you for puting you hand up to being naive beyond description , sparrow. Bottom line is that this action will not change any of the issues, will not change any of the gang members, and sooner or later, HNZ will be called on to find homes for these losers. You are welcome, Naki. If being naive is having a standard for behaviour for tenants in HNZ homes (paid for by the largesse of the NZ public) then so be it. And I actually think the point of this discussion is that HNZ won't be housing these losers any longer ... Prisons might be, but if you deal in criminal activity (the employment option of choice for gangs) then that is an occupational hazard. You will change some of the "issues", Naki. What is debatable is "how far" you will change them. Getting rid of them from HNZ areas is a start. At least 95% of the other decent tenants in HNZ homes will have some respite. |
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Mar 7, 2009 21:50:40 GMT 12
You are welcome, Naki. If being naive is having a standard for behaviour for tenants in HNZ homes (paid for by the largesse of the NZ public) then so be it. . Largesse? GET REAL. HNZ is funded from taxes, it is not a charity. We claim to be a first-world country, we should live by the standards of one. HNZ should stick to its original purpose, that is, to provide housing for the needy without judging them, in much the same way the health service provides care for those who need it, or the police provide protection for those who need it. |
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Mar 7, 2009 22:29:22 GMT 12
You are welcome, Naki. If being naive is having a standard for behaviour for tenants in HNZ homes (paid for by the largesse of the NZ public) then so be it. . Largesse? GET REAL. HNZ is funded from taxes, it is not a charity. We claim to be a first-world country, we should live by the standards of one. HNZ should stick to its original purpose, that is, to provide housing for the needy without judging them, in much the same way the health service provides care for those who need it, or the police provide protection for those who need it. Yes: Largesse and it is getting real, Naki. I'm glad HNZ are getting real. The one who is advocating for charity here, is you. These tenants had it and they lost it. HNZ are different to the health system and police etc because they do not provide for all people in the country. They provide for a certain sector of society where, in my view, there should be more caveats in application of that criteria. Income would be one and so would numbers in a house and most importantly, so is behaviour. BTW: Many first world countries don't have a social welfare system nor public housing. HNZ tenants are lucky that we do have a welfare system and some assistance with publicly owned houses. |
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Mar 8, 2009 7:45:31 GMT 12
HNZ are different to the health system and police etc because they do not provide for all people in the country. Again, you prove your lack of depth. The police, the health service and HNZ ALL provide help for Anyone who needs it. If we allow this government to sanction the de facto privatisation of HNZ, we can kiss goodbye to any form of social housing. Then they'll move on to ACC, the health system and the welfare state as a whole. If we allow these nazis to set a precedent by looking the other way while they unload their more difficult cases onto some other poor bastard, we are abandoning the concept of universal social welfare HNZ IS NOT A PRIVATE COMPANY AND IT IS NOT A CHARITY. it has an obligation to provide for ALL who need shelter. |
|
|
|
Post by bingbong on Mar 8, 2009 11:27:48 GMT 12
Re Naki comments. HNZ does provide all that fit its criteria and who are able to obtain a state house. Here the original articles formatted the issues that you have substantively drifted from to clearly meet your ideological needs. You fail to see the people that are in the houses that are in tiled to have a safe environment to live in and around. HNZ doesn't at whim give people notice. Here it is gang members and there partners that are going because of their outrageous behaviour.
Living in a HNZ home there comes a code of conduct. You are unable to see the people who are entitled to live safely and to protect there entitlements.
Naki explain then how you would deal with these gang members as described in the initial articles? Sparrow has more than once identified as the problem. You don't seem to be able to see and have empathy for the victims of the gangs behaviour as though they have some more entitlement to stay despite there behaviour, explain this if you can.
|
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Mar 8, 2009 15:04:58 GMT 12
I have no intention of explaining anything to you. If you cannot grasp the basic concepts of social welfare, it's a waste of time going into more complicated issues. I've already answered the question twice, if you can't grasp the concept that THE POLICE ARE THERE TO DEAL WITH CRIMINALS then you're wasting everyone's time asking for solutions.
State housing is not supposed to be Disneyland. It exists for 'bad tennants'. If the 'good tennants' don't like it, there's nothing stopping them from taking their benefit money and spending it in the private sector. HNZ exists to house those who can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by bingbong on Mar 8, 2009 16:40:57 GMT 12
Naki it is not for good tenants to be forced out by bad tenants is dumb and illogical. As I thought, you are damaged and your statements are nonsense, you fail to understand the complicities of housing and in particular residential tenancies dynamics especially here in this context. You have memorialised here how damaged you are. Have you ever been diagnosed with any mental health condition?
|
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Mar 8, 2009 18:01:48 GMT 12
HNZ are different to the health system and police etc because they do not provide for all people in the country. Again, you prove your lack of depth. The police, the health service and HNZ ALL provide help for Anyone who needs it. If we allow this government to sanction the de facto privatisation of HNZ, we can kiss goodbye to any form of social housing. Then they'll move on to ACC, the health system and the welfare state as a whole. If we allow these nazis to set a precedent by looking the other way while they unload their more difficult cases onto some other poor bastard, we are abandoning the concept of universal social welfare HNZ IS NOT A PRIVATE COMPANY AND IT IS NOT A CHARITY. it has an obligation to provide for ALL who need shelter. No, Naki. They aren't. They are there, as bingbong says, to assist people that meet their criteria. This makes HNZ different to the Police, health services etc who have an obligation to all citizens. If you cannot understand that basic point, then you're missing all the other ones. You are essentially arguing for a "rights" based approach to HNZ homes, but without the caveat of responsibility of tenants. HNZ does have an obligation to provide for its tenants - all of its tenants, including the ones that have fled in terror from these poor tenants. If that means the bad tenants lose their "right" to a HNZ home and/or no longer fulfill the criteria to have an HNZ house, then that is their problem. It also sends a signal to other tenants: that there is a standard to meet. The defacto privatisation argument has no basis in the situation above. That may come later and I don't think it is necessarily a bad option, especially in selling off older HNZ homes with first option to tenants, but with the added proviso that newer homes are built. What is the problem? It just appears ideological. |
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Mar 8, 2009 19:58:16 GMT 12
Naki it is not for good tenants to be forced out by bad tenants is dumb and illogical. As I thought, you are damaged and your statements are nonsense, you fail to understand the complicities of housing and in particular residential tenancies dynamics especially here in this context. You have memorialised here how damaged you are. Have you ever been diagnosed with any mental health condition? That's it. I'm done here. Call it a win if it's that important to you, but you'll still be wrong,and no amount of gutter attacks will change it. |
|
|
|
Post by bingbong on Mar 8, 2009 23:15:00 GMT 12
Naki You cannot come up with any real reasoned, debate you missed all the dots and created a void so big between the real issues that the country the size of Peru would fit into.
I don't know if you are a handsome person or not, you must have something going for you, but remember "beautiful fades, dumb is forever."
|
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Mar 9, 2009 2:32:33 GMT 12
Done. Not interesting in arguing further with an idiot, lest I get mistaken for one.
|
|
;D
