sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Salvation Army survey finds 568 children living in cars, garages, campervans and motels in Auckland; it calls for Govt to build 1,000 new social houses a year for 10 years; wants housing for kids as right in law

Salvation Army survey finds 568 children living in cars, garages, campervans and motels in Auckland; it calls for Govt to build 1,000 new social houses a year for 10 years; wants housing for kids as right in law

By Bernard Hickey

The Salvation Army has published a report on homelessness in Auckland that includes a survey conducted over the last year that found 568 children were living in cars, garages, campgrounds, motels or were couch-surfing with friends and family.

The 49 page report, titled 'Invisible in the SuperCity: hidden homelessness in Auckland', was based around a survey of people who had approached the Salvation Army and the Catholic Church's De Paul House for help with housing. The eleven-question survey was conducted three times for a month each over November 2014, February 2015 and May 2015 and 394 surveys involving 1,202 people were completed.

It found 634 adults and 568 children were in various states of homelessness around Auckland, with Manukau and Royal Oak showing the greatest need.

The survey asked where respondents had spent the last night and where they expected to spend the next night.

It found 13% or 151 people had slept overnight in a car, a garage or outside, including 65 children.

Overall the survey found 568 children were suffering some degree of homelessness, with 247 bunking down with family or friends, 25 in backpackers or boarding houses, 15 in camping grounds, 30 in cars, 22 in motels and 22 in garages.

"The social housing needed by these people is not currently available in sufficient quantity and present Government actions are not delivering sufficient affordable homes," said Major Sue Hay, the Director of The Salvation Army’s Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit.

Hay said it was common for families to be homeless for up to six months and more than 49% of respondents had not been in touch with the Ministry of Social Development, which is the agency now responsible for Social Housing after Housing NZ was stripped of the role last year.

"We hope by publicising the situation of these children and their families in this report, the Government and local authorities will be spurred to act with more urgency than we are currently seeing," she said.

The Salvation recommended the Government develop a programme to supply an extra 1,000 social houses a year for the next 10 years in Auckland, or until waiting lists fell to less than 100. The waiting list for families needing housing in Auckland was 2,172 at the time the report was written.

It also recommended the right to adequate shelter for children should be codified into law in some way.

"In addition to the codification of the right to shelter it is also important to have a system that ensures accountability," the report's author Reina Tuai Harris wrote.

"As a nation, we place importance on education, ensuring there is a legal requirement for children to go to school. We also place importance on health, ensuring (despite issues of access) that we have universal health care," Harris said.

"Yet it does not seem logical that although we understand that housing is crucial to both health and education, the State does not ensure in law that adequate shelter is available for children."

The Salvation Army recommended the development of a cross-party agreement for a national housing strategy and targets.

It also said funding for emergency housing should be increased and there should be increased contracting to organisations able to build and manage affordable rentals for low-income households.

Political reaction

The Green Party called on the Government to uphold its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and increase the supply of state homes in Auckland.

"There are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who have been left out of National’s ‘rock star’ economy, and rising homelessness is just one result of that," Green Housing spokeswoman Marama Davidson said.

“If parents and caregivers are struggling to make a decent living and can’t afford to rent or buy in Auckland, then it’s no wonder that children are being forced to sleep in cars or on the streets," Davidson said.

“There are more than 2,000 people on the waiting list for social housing in Auckland alone and these are just the people who have registered for help. There’s bound to be thousands more who have no contact at all with state services and are out there living on the streets, without the help and resources they desperately need," she said.

“The Government could use its access to low-cost finance to fund the building of more state homes and more affordable homes – that’s the only way we’re going to get our people off the streets and into housing."

Labour Housing spokesman Phil Twyford called on the Government to scrap the flag referendum to use the funds to deal with the housing crisis, and to stop selling state houses.

“This report is a damning indictment on the Government’s failure to address the Auckland housing crisis. It directly cites the shortage of affordable housing in low income areas as a cause of homelessness," Twyford said.

“We know how to solve homelessness – you provide houses for people to live in and support services for the homeless to get their lives back on track. All that is missing is the political will of the Government," he said.

“Paula Bennett should stop tinkering at the margins and commit to a nationwide strategy to end homelessness."

Bennett responds

Later in the day Bennett was asked about the report in Parliament by Twyford.

"I do not think it is acceptable for people to be living in cars, and that is why the Government is pursuing a social housing reform programme to increase the number of social houses," Bennett said.

"We have a social housing reform programme that is seeing success, that we need to have more of it, that it is unacceptable for those children to be living in those circumstances," she said.

(Updated with video above of parliamentary exchange between Twyford and Bennett on the report)

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.



yes auckland is becoming an international city and importing problems from overseas where this is normal.
about time we used the 2 billion in a year kicked back to landlords through neg gearing to sort this out
it is so sad to see

Bet those homeless kids are home-grown as oppose to imported from overseas.

how do you know that?

could be very much so, but once you price the locals out of options where else are they going to end up


500k homes in Orcs, appreciating by over $100k per year, giving Orcs an extra $50 billion per year, and this is the result. ____ you very much Auckland.

Statistics NZ have also usefully published a report on Housing in Auckland and show over-crowding in that region has been at similar levels since at least 1991. Check out Fig 46 on page 70 to see how crowding has eased everywere during that time except Auckland.

So this is not a problem that has been recently imported. It is a chronic problem known to both the government and Auckland Council. Shame on them both for tolerating the misery of our fellow human beings.


Sadly, these children are likely the product of our social welfare system and people prescribe more social welfare as the solution. History proves that welfare for the rich or for the poor mostly ends in failure, but we keep on doing the same stupid things and people believe that govt will solve the problem (when they are ironically the source of these problems). Social welfare has destroyed the family unit and communities alike - perhaps "more" will work this time....let's try that.

that is the key work, with pay at a level that they can support them selves.
the question then becomes how to achieve that?
do you subsidise the job? or do you subsidise the Housing? so employers will employ people at what they can afford.
or do you let market forces rule
subsidies never worked in the USSR but the people were housed and fed, (i dont like this option)
by the same token in a lot of countries with no Subsidies they have shanty towns and slums (1 dont like this either)
my option is the governement to use its balance sheet to build infastructure and housing to employ people. i dont care if they give to private enterprise to do as long as they make sure they take on our young in apprenticeships

Market forces would reduce prices and put significant cash into the pocket of poor people without resort to welfare intervention.
Think of petrol prices, building materials (houses) and food.
But this government caters for the big businesses not New Zealanders. And monopoly cartel business certainly does not want markets. The National party denies competition that would serve us.
I'm currently travelling and it's clear New Zealanders are ripped off for just about every item they need to buy.
Introduce markets!.

introduce markets? Do you mean by removing subsidies such as the dole & NZ Super? Or by removing market manipulation tactics such as the minimum wage? I'm pro both of those things happening, I suspect that just those items make up over 50% of government expenses, so they might even come with 50% tax cuts. Yay!

Social welfare has destroyed the family unit? I'm going to call BS on that! I've been to Scandinavia and family units and extended communities appeared strong to me.

I think addiction, stress and capitalism (through aggressive advertising which makes people desire unnecessary products) is destroying the family unit. Capitalism and globalisation is pushing up the price of housing while keeping wages low. A man can work 40 hours and still not have enough to pay rent and expenses - that's a major failure of our economic system, which is one of the most neo-liberal in the world.

Capitalism is welfare for the rich and we're seeing the fall-out for the poor in New Zealand right now.

VA - What you are failing to consider is the enormous running costs that go with organisations like the Ministry of Social Development before one dollar is even spent on those who need it......if the bureaucratic empire wasn't so large then workers wouldn't need to be working 6 months of the year to pay enough tax to pay the bloated bureaucracy.

How dare you state "Capitalism is welfare for the rich" I strongly object to such slanderous not confuse capitalism with wealthy welfare recipients they are not the same thing!!!

The BS lies with people who insist the stupid system persists.....

The BS lies with people who insist the stupid system persists.....

So you'll be in favour of Gareth Morgan's Big Kahuna and a GMI which would see the need for WINZ and all its supporting bureaucracy disappear overnight.

And Gareths big kahuna would help how? All the big kahuna does is shift the money around and will demand more from those (SME's) to meet the increases and that will in turn put prices will be like a dog trying to catch its tail!

I can see you know nothing about the proposal.

Unfortunately Kate this issue is far to serious for people to be making facetious comments.....

FYI - I have taken time to read the big kahuna.....and I stand by all my previous comments on the topic.
I find it appalling that people who frequent this and other sites think they have the solutions for the poorer members of our know what, the quickest way to make a change in a poor persons life is to take that person on...feed, cloth and get them some work. Have some faith in them, show them you are personally interested in them.......the big kahuna cannot do this, it cannot give the guidance, motivation or contacts that the person may need. Some people also like a transient life it is not my, yours or anyone else's role for that matter to enforce some stereotypical lifestyle upon them but equally I shouldn't have to support their free choices and the big kahuna is unable to distinguish between free choices and self-responsibility.

I can see many socialists unable to get their thinking past taxing the capital.......that just tells me they have rose tinted glasses on and would have very little experience in the export industry and poor knowledge of how markets can swing very quickly.....the big kahuna wants to gorge on capital.

You see criticism of capitalism as slanderous?

Haha, ok mate - says a lot about you. Come down from your glass tower mate. No capital gains, no inheritance and no land tax with one of the lowest "top" tax rates in the western world. Kiwis pay much less tax than most other OECD countries.

Getting pretty tired of these whinging neo-liberals - they think they're so hard done by when the system is heavily stacked in their favour. They have no shame.

Clearly you're not an economist.

And I am getting pretty sick of people who confuse capitalism with corporatocracy and or fascism.
I am also fed up to the back teeth with people who are too lazy to read the many documents that make up the constitutional rights of the people!!! It is not your right or any other persons to dictate taxes, levies and other government theft on the masses.....but there you go....accusing others of being in a glass tower all the while manipulating to stay in your own!! Clearly I am not an economist but I chose an honest name didn't I? No illusions with me!

Would you care to respond to any of Value Added's points in your reply, or would you prefer to just stick to non-sequitur tirades about your favourite philosophy?

Capitalism itself isn't the problem. The human race is the failure.

The attitude that "as long as I get what I want who gives a fuck about anyone else" is disgusting. The feeding off of those less capable, less able, to accumulate as much as possible for oneself and the idea that this is the model of success is the failure. Allowing what could only be considered psychopaths to run the economic system is the failure. This is the cause of inequality.

Fair call!

Jobs for all at a living wage.

There, I've solved it.

People's idea of a "living wage" is constantly changing. When enough people make enough to afford food, shelter in an outer suburb, hygiene & basic transport their idea of a living wage will suddenly and inexplicably change so that a "living wage" includes a smartphone and mobile phone plan, after that a "living wage" might include holidays, TV, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Some will even decide that a "living wage" must make inner city living affordable, or that it must make home ownership in "good" suburbs possible.

I reckon the real test if someone makes a living wage should be if they are able to waste money on alcohol, cigarettes, lotto or smartphones. Anyone who purchases any of those should be deemed to have at least a "living wage"

as long as people have work, a roof over their head and food in their belly that should be enough
but you are right now you need , mobile phone, car, etc etc

try to get a job without a smartphone and a car

both a physical address and an email address are pretty much 'must haves' as well.

and a bank account? which needs an address also?

Having had no car for 2 weeks, a car is arguably essential to today's life in NZ as that is how the economy / city is laid out.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Most people are just trying to belong and feel accepted by society. Unfortunately society says we should be as wealthy as possible and have as much crap as possible.

Christ almighty, why do people go on about smart phones as if they are proof positive of a luxury lifestyle? You can get a smart phone for $200 once every three years and be done. Is that a sign of profligate spending? That's less than quarter of a percent of the median wage. it's 0.05% of the expense of the national median house! Maybe we can move on and find some indicator that Really indicates an extra-comfortable income?

Alcohol, tobacco, gambling? Anyone with intermediate school math can tell gambling losses you money in favor of the house (or lottery commission), therefore those who gamble are doing it for the entertainment value as opposed to the return on investment. Being able to spend lots on luxuries such as entertainment, alcohol and tobacco is a sign of affluence.

Living wage, yes Jobs for all? so you believe in growth for ever on a finite planet then?

Ha! Nats blame the homeless.

It won't surprise you, Kate, that Minister Tolley wants to know why these homeless people didn't/couldn't "access" their emergency entitlements.

I suspect anyone in the country who has tried to "access" their entitlements through WINZ could tell her what the problem is.

So let's be clear, The Salvation Army have taken a snapshot of what the homelessness problem is for children only in Auckland on any one day. It's not the total problem but on any one day something like 700 or 800 people are sleeping rough in Auckland who are entitled to emergency shelter because some of them are children. Does that shelter exist? I would be very surprised.

Of course, in my book, they are entitled to something better than emergency shelter on a day by day basis.

Could someone please give me an common explanation how these people (children's parents) could run into such situation at the first place?

See p15 of the report. need to expand your social group...get out more. Experience life with no job, no credit, no family support and chuck in a bit of mental illness on top. What a dumb comment.

Why would any intelligent person want to do that? Is this advice you would give your children?

Are there no prisons?”

‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.’And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’

‘Both very busy, sir.’

‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’

‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’

‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.

‘You wish to be anonymous?’

‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’

‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’

‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Christmas Carol

hahaha Olly,that's you...

Trouble is then having a kid will be like it is in the UK, a key to a free place to live and welfare for life.

Need to prevent that from happening worse than it already is Steven. Welfare dependency is a blight on any society. I will repeat what I have said before; regulate to cap rents for a home at a max of $200 per week. The Govt will save close to $2 billion, folks in jaffaville will have more money in their hand impacting on poverty for individuals, families and children. As property values will fall due to the impact on yields, homes will be more affordable for kiwis. Down side is banks will scream, a small number of First Home buyers might need some help, but investors and speculators will get smacked.

The problem is some homes clearly are worth more or cost more than others and hence you cannot cap rents. What the Govn has done is cap/freeze the supplement which is having the same effect, if yes its too late. You cannot smack like this without causing major issues I think. So I'd expect such a policy to pop the bubble and cause a major recession an severe pain. It also tars genuine long term landlords with the same brush as the quick flick merchants and that simply is not fair, genuine landlords are needed. Introducing a CGT is actually quite a good way to catch the quick flickers, however mom and pop householder will not have a bar of it, mainly because quite a few have more than one house I suspect or thy fear a CGT on their own home despite what the political parties say.

correct once you introduce a new tax no matter how small or targeted it will grow to cover more over time.
the government is 1/2 right when they talk about supply of houses but their method of correcting it too small and meaningless.
First they need to reduce demand from outside of NZ it is not needed and contributes nothing to NZ.
then they need to think about a massive building problem and use it as an opportunity to create jobs and trade training for our young

I think the value of a home is just smoke. If a landlord want to rent high value homes to executives, then let them apply for an exemption to a cap. But the value of a home is an artificial thing driven by outside factors. Most people in the landlord business started out through property investment and renting is just a way to cover costs, provide a return until the capital has reached a level to make it worth selling. If this is not the case then why does this not occur more in the regions where there is little if any CG, and the primary return is in the rents? Also if managed then the impacts could be controlled to an extent. We don't trust the pollies because they have proven they can't be trusted. The CGT was always there, just never enforced. Something of more substance is required and I don't necessarily expect the excess pain you talk about except for those who have fooluishly over leveraged in the market, and if they are monitoring the information should be starting to think about bailing.

A homeless kid is sad indeed but I cannot see the relationship with the government, the blame lies with the parents

maybe some parents, maybe other reasons. New Zealand Was a country where we all contributed (taxes) to look after our sick, vulnerable, to ensure our children had an equal chance at an education.
we seem to have moved to a survival of the fittest forget the rest mentality.
where has that attitude come from I ponder

If we just made it so that anyone who wanted too could stay the night in un-used bunks on any of our numerous military barracks, that would solve a large amount of the homelessness issues while simultaneously helping the most vulnerable feel secure in the presence of a whole host of our nation's troops.

568 Children in a city almost 2 million?!
On a world scale it's zero.

why not just increase the population even more so the ratio is even smaller even though the numbers will be greater.
very heartless, why should any child in NZ have to live on the street, not be fed or schooled, its not their fault.
you would think this PM that when he was a child was housed by the state and was able to attend school with some food in his tummy would have some empathy

Indeed it is the parents fault? well in some cases sure. For instance in the UK is was almost standard practice in some circles for a single girl to become pregnant as then she jumped to the front of the housing queue for a council flat and got $s in support. ie the system gets abused, and the next generation of kids? well rinse and repeat. In the old days a girl would be left to fend for herself or go to the poor house ie life would get harder not easier, maybe that was a better idea, dunno but this one sure doesnt look to be working very well.

"you would think this PM that when he was a child was housed by the state and was able to attend school with some food in his tummy would have some empathy" Lewis Black said that pollies like that who turn out to be like JK probably had their empathy destroyed by electroshock treatment at some point.

Thumb down!

1 homeless child in a city of 20 million is an abomination. Especially in a developed country.

Equality of opportunity is about the only thing that Left and Right can agree on.

In that context no child should ever have to have their whole lives determined entirely by their parents' decisions. We can't make up for all the shitty things that happen to parents or shitty decisions they make but in the case of basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, education and health) we certainly can and must.

I was trying to work out whether your Scrooge quote was ironic or not but you have answered that question very succinctly, Olly.

These Salvation Army figures would be far worse if it wasn't for New Zealand's PIs who do such a great job providing accommodation for so many people who want to rent.

Well done PIs.

try not to put your shoulder out patting yourself on your back

Pi's do not provide accomodation. They displace persons from home ownership by exploiting tax and welfare systems. I no longer hold back in social situations and make myself clear on how I see them like maggots on a sheep, leaches on society and nothing more.... They need to be exposed for what they are. And no, I am not a rentier...happily invest elsewhere.

So I guess rastus, if we met in a pub I would be buying the drinks?

ha ha sure... you are clealry not stupid and I'd imagine prretty interesting company!

You're right - Pacific Islanders are very generous and give a lot to their local communties to help those in need.

Greedy selfish Pakeha could learn a lot off them...

Are you implying that New Zealand should model itself on Pacific island economies and ways of doing things?

"I am not a rentier...happily invest elsewhere"
If you are investing then you are as just as bigger parasite as property investors. Income should be classed as either 'earned"or "unearned". Earned income comes from the sweat off your brow. All else is classed as passive i.e. unearned, and should be heavily taxed.


you be the parasite my son, when you post your posts about how much you raise your rents and rub your hands with glee.... you are the reason good kiwis are forced out of homes onto the street.... sleep well my child. sleep well.... investments do not displace our young people from home ownership. Our elders never exploited us like the current boomers are exploiting the young of today. Turning a home into a means to impoverish our young is disgraceful.

Investing in companies that employ people and pay tax Big Olly, parasites? Seems the worm has turned and you seem a tad grumpy these days.

You should check your facts before making a fool of yourself by rushing into print.
I don't own any houses and accept your apology.

Interesting that there is no outcry when a government that cannot take care of its own most vulnerable invites thousands of so-called Syrian refugees (one just participated in the Paris massacre), housing, health care, all inclusive package in an act of international do-gooding that internationally nobody even gives a hoot about.

And dont start talking about impoverished elderly and the many mentally ill who end up homeless.

I honestly despise our government for its blatant human rights violations.

I believe its 750 as a one off. You are correct however in that we should be looking after our own first.

...what do you expect a Syrian to do while the west and russia bombs the c##p out of their country? Sit there and wave a white flag? The West created this mess, not the people of Syria. Read some history.

The West? Assard with some help from the rest of us (Climate Change).

Not sure what you imply here but, my understanding is Syria used to be a NET exporter of oil, giving it an income, this stopped some years back. Then due to climate change they lost their crops/agriculture and their society/economy couldn't hold together, The end result is a migration. Yes I can accept our earlier imperialistic Govn/generations historically created this mess, however I do not consider that the current generation(s) should be paying for that. If nothing else because it cannot.

Ok, so the New Zealand government should not take care of Kiwi kids, but Syrian "refugees" because Russia is bombing the IS.

What are you on?

You are right, 750. Nonetheless, our so-called government spends (" ... The emergency package - in response to a tide of refugees fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East and Africa - will cost around $50m. ...") a crazy 50 millon NZD on 750 Syrians who are none of its business, while letting down Kiwi children. Treason, if you ask me.

I do not disagree with you, on one level though maybe not "treason". What we will be seeing is more and more of this and we are not blameless. Syria is just the first failed states due to post peak oil and climate change and the developed world substantially holds the responsibility for creating climate change.

So therefore its not as simple as you imply IMHO.

Check this here out, steven, if you really feel the chaos spreading around the world is somehow "our fault" :

Forget climate change and have a good look at what is coming at you. To New Zealand maybe a bit later. And don't count on political dwarfs like John Key and his ilk to do anything about it.

It found 13% or 151 people had slept overnight in a car, a garage or outside, including 65 children.

In this age of political correctness..... What exactly is wrong with living in a garage....??? I have been in a few garages that have become living spaces.... an extension of the house in what becomes an extended family... cosy... probably more so than the drafty, cold , damp broken down old house I was raised in as a kid... which was fine by me.
(In the late 1930s' my father in law was a teacher in Taumaranui for a yr.... He lived in a tin shed next to the railway line.... very basic)

To me... what is vastly more concerning is adults and children who don't know where they are going to sleep for the next night.... A car .... outside..... thats real homelessness and its disturbing..

Why can't Salvation Army be allowed to build cheap roofs over peoples heads.... Why can't we have more garages/sheds.... anything... that makes sleeping in a car or outside simply a choice rather than a brutal necessity..???
Why can't Housing NZ have " emergency Garages" for people..??
( the reality is that there are horrendous waiting lists for HNZ houses )

Anything is better than people not knowing where they are going to sleep for the night... surely.
( AND ... even more so if it involves children)

I'm expecting all the PC people to attack me here..... ???

The Salvation Army is a joke. Try taking second hand clothes to them without drycleaning certificates or beds without cleaning certificates...assuming they will even bother taking them. They wouldn't know what true poverty was if it smacked them in the face.

Roelof asks "Why can't Salvation Army be allowed to build cheap roofs over peoples heads.... Why can't we have more garages/sheds.... anything... that makes sleeping in a car or outside simply a choice rather than a brutal necessity..???"

Thinking through that very pertinent question out loud is useful, because it exposes the relentless creep of issues that have completely foobarred the housing industry in general, and quick, low cost housing in particular.

There's absolutely nothing technical about getting a living space together that is beyond the capabilities of a modestly handy bunch of people. Tiny houses and caravans are exemplars precisely because they dodge the issues which bedevil the construction of larger spaces. The sorry list commences.

  • Five sorts of LBP needed to touch a conventional house: founds, weathertightness, structure, carpentry, roofing. Hiring LBP's does not come cheap even though most of 'em were created by a mail-in form from building trade mags. Equivalent of packing the cert in with the WeetBix....
  • working at heights for anything over 2.4, which in practice means everything roof-related plus fall protection. Expect the bill to run $5-15K.
  • fencing of site and those 'Sign has Sharp Edges' hazard notices. Expect another $4-8K.
  • Electrical and plumbing need certified tradies (the attraction of tiny house 12/24v everything plus cassette loos, suddenly makes sense)
  • Use 230v tools anywhere on site? Every cord, tools, connection, distributor box etc needs tagged. It's for your Own Good, see. Expect $20 per item per year. Easily a grand a year if you are tool-addicted....
  • Oh, and the local avaricious authority will want anywhere between $10 and $80K to hook you into services like power and the three waters.

Notice, dear people, that we have not yet started to acquire the land, or buy materials. You have the pleasure of dealing with a local monopoly (the planning authority) for the former, and a cosy duopoly for the latter (Fletchers and Carters).

Now, sing me a sad song about all a them Poor Folks without a roof over their heads.....but that list above sure answers most of Roelof's very good question.

Right to Build??? Ha.....

As I have said before, those people who are forced to sleep in their vehicles should drive them to St Stevens Ave in Panel and park for the night outside the Prime Ministers House. I think the number might be 107

An interesting development with Auckland aspiring to be a Global City and experiencing massive property price inflation is that it becomes harder for poor people to live here. I remarked to my wife the other day that it seems like the whole of Auckland has become double grammar zone. Living in exclusive areas is very nice which is why prices are high. If a whole city is exclusive it is attractive to wealth and it is self perpetuating. Maybe Auckland is no longer a place for poor people? Indeed it sounds harsh but we do not want poor people living here. Surely there are many places south of the Bombay hills that are more suitable for subsistence lifestyles?
Also with collapsing international borders we can no longer rely on our ethnic heritage to guarantee a pleasant lifestyle. Individual wealth will be the defining factor. Stake your claim in the few Global Cities while you still can is my advice.

and without these poor people or people trying to survive in Auckland on lowest wages, who is going to make your coffee, deliver your parcels, serve you at the shop counter, collect your rubbish etc etc.
not sure many well to do people will be putting their hands up to do these jobs.
and if you think that some of those sleeping rough are not working you need to get out more
I have had employees living in cars and it can be hard on them because they are working they don't qualify for help but don't have enough money left after making payments, (debt, child support, supporting wider family, etc etc)to afford somewhere to live

Yes you are right. We need to urgently start working on some sort of rapid rail system to transport service workers in and out of The City.

From the table in the article there is a column totalling 568 children. Included in that total are 155 children who slept in a 'house or flat' that was not in the category 'family or friends'. Also I count only 102 who were actually 'living in cars, garages, campervans and motels'. The title of this article is highly misleading or am I missing something?