National's Tenancy Problematic


We, the New Zealand public, are landlords and every three years we review the performance of those we allow to reside in our parliament buildings and deal to those who have not met the terms of our informal tenancy agreement. We have a three year occupancy clause but when a tenant's behaviour is such that the rent payment is irregular and there is damage to property, direct action may be required before the three years are up. Being a landlord is a difficult role, we need to maintain occupancy but when tenants misbehave removing them can be a protracted and difficult process. For landlords with a social conscience there is also the concern that if we turf tenants out they will have nowhere to go (we do have a chronic housing shortage).

The National Party has proven to be a difficult tenant, it has been disrespectful to its landlords and its poor budgeting has limited rent payments. There have been too many times where National has spent up large partying and gambling with its mates and not having enough money left to pay the rent. There are many similarities between a spoilt teenager and the National Party; the need for instant personal gratification, spending large on cars, travel, and recreational toys with no thought to planning for the future. 

The potential damage to property is also causing huge concern, with National inviting overseas mates to come onto our property and use our resources with little monitoring or assurances to protect our assets. They have also allowed activities to occur around our property with no expectation to clean up any mess made or pay for any damage done. 

There is also some concern that National may begin to sell off parts of our property to pay for the rent. It seems bizarre that we should allow this upstart tenant to hock off some of the best bits of our property and reduce our total equity, just to meet a few rent payments. 

We need to be more assertive as landlords and tell our troublesome tenant that if they want to retain occupancy they have to reassess their budgeting priorities, respect our property, manage their friendships properly and tidy up the mess!   



   

Comments

Pliny the Plonker said…
"....and its poor budgeting has limited rent payments.

Should be able to get a handout somewhere. WINZ will cover the shortfall, and the Greens can organise a protest march on their behalf. Poverty is 20% in New Zealand. Got a megaphone?
bsprout said…
Or, Pliny, they could sell the yacht, the BMWs or even ask their farmer mates to help clean up the rivers so that we don't have to spend millions doing it.
Pliny the Plonker said…
Sure they could sell some stuff to afford the rent, but that is too common sensical isn't it?

Is that what you would do?
Anonymous said…
But they should only sell what's theirs, not what's ours. They'd be criminals if they did that, plonker.
Pliny the Plonker said…
The yacht? Our $30 million investment in Team NZ?
The BMWs? Our cheap deal on "our" cars?
bsprout would not suggest anything criminal, anonymous.
Perhaps they could steal some more money from rich pricks.
bsprout said…
National are also busy trying to win rich friends from overseas and giving away too many expensive presents to buy their friendship (I think those Warner Bros guys got a $25 million gift, plus changes to immigration law). They would rather live the high life courting the rich and famous than paying the child support they owe. The kids are hungry, they need new shoes and a decent education and national are spending up large elsewhere.
robertguyton said…
The energy assets aren't theirs, plonker, they're ours. They should ask us if we want them sold, on our behalf. A referendum would do it. National will do everything they can to avoid hearing what the public will surely tell them. That is, no.
Pliny the Plonker said…
"...paying the child support they owe."

You are not talking about the absentee fathers of the solo mothers' children are you, bsprout?
Pliny the Plonker said…
I know, let's have Elections every year.
bsprout said…
Pliny, 25% of our children live in poverty and 50% of children have experienced poverty at some time. Most have fathers who try and support them but when the median income in this country is only $27,000, living wages are mainly a dream for most families. We actually have a crisis:
http://www.cpag.org.nz/
robertguyton said…
I know, when a significant proportion of the country expresses grave concern about our plans, lets dismiss them!
bsprout said…
...and especially dismiss and ignore those who actually know what they're talking about: our science advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman; our Environment Commissioner, Dr Jan Wright; the government's education advisor, John Hattie; environment scientist, Mike Joy; economic analysts, BERL; the Parliamentary Library and even Treasury when they don't support the government's plans.

Our future is being shaped by dynamic thinkers who can claim with conviction:
"We are building motorways because people want them....they will cost what they will cost" ($12-14 billion)
"We are increasing class sizes to improve the quality of teaching"
"The tax cuts will be fiscally neutral"
Anonymous said…
Thanks for thoughtfully supplying the cpag link. It makes for very interesting reading. I was particularly interested in the material on page 25 of the report. Having last night read the link "Collapse now and avoid the rush" provided by another blogger, I agree there is a massive problem looming but also some things that can be done to ameliorate the situation.
Some years ago Hillary Clinton said " It takes a village to raise a child". Now Hillary Clinton knows a fair bit more about Government than most, and it is significant that she did not say "It takes a Government to raise a child".
A North Island town, about 16 or 17 years ago, built a heated indoor swimming pool for about $2.5million. The emotive campaign by the believers in the town was argued it would be so popular that the running costs would be self-funding. I understand that the running costs currently are a nett $800,000 per annum paid by the ratepayers.
That $2.5 million would have bought a fully operational 400 cow dairy farm at the time, producing 9000+ litres of raw milk per day in the peak of the season. In light of your claim, bsprout, that 25% of children live in poverty, where do you think that investment might have been better made. Now leave aside the operational detail of how that would work, isn't some lateral thinking by our community leaders sorely needed? Is such thinking exactly what is suggested in "Collapse now and avoid the rush".
Do you think that Council should consider selling the pool, and investing the capital in something that could address community poverty?
robertguyton said…
"Some years ago Hillary Clinton said " It takes a village to raise a child". Now Hillary Clinton knows a fair bit more about Government than most, and it is significant that she did not say "It takes a Government to raise a child"."

It's interesting to note that Hilary Clinton hasn't stayed in a village in order to achieve her political aims, but has in fact assumed the mantle of Government. Perhaps she was just politicking when she said, 'It takes a village'.
robertguyton said…
Regarding the pool and what the Council should do, I would advise that we mind our own business. The locals and their representatives should manage that issue the way they see fit. Self-determination and democracy, they're important things, Pliny the Disingenuous, as I expect you know, despite your naive presentation here.
bsprout said…
Anonymous-twenty years ago rural Southland communities were thriving and schools and community centres were well supported by the farmers (mainly sheep and some cropping). These farmers donated both time and money to community projects and school swimming pools were upgraded and well maintained.

Dairying has brought a different style of interaction with local communities. Communities are struggling because many new dairy farmers do not want to share their time and money. Many also pay their workers minimum wages and I can relate many stories where filipino families, brought in to work on dairy farms, are supported by donations of furniture and toys for their children from the wider community because they struggle to survive.

The other issue with dairy farms is that the external cost of the industry are having to be borne by all rate payers. The rest of us are effectively subsidizing the industry.

Poverty is caused by the wealth of the country being captured by a few and a reluctance to use that wealth to support the communities that they live in or pay living wages to their workers. The gains in worker productivity are not shared with workers.

You would be advised to read "The Spirit Level".

Hillary Clinton's quote referred to shared responsibility, the Government is part of that community and we provide taxes to fund schools and social services. We do not expect the government to use our money on promoting and progressing the sale of our own assets ($120 million).
Anonymous said…
@bsprout

Clearly you could not resist citing why you dislike the dairy industry. The example I gave was to merely show roughly how much food could be produced from that much investment. It could have been a market garden, it could have been sheep, it could have been beef, it could have been orchards, or combinations thereof. It would wipe out a lot of food poverty would it not? But you wanted to scotch the idea because you hate the dairying industry and dairy farmers.

Perhaps your inability to consider any merit in my suggestion is that you just cannot think laterally. But more likely you want this to be a political football. It is not for no reason that the Greens are know as the "Veto Party". So organise a march, get up some petitions, write letters to the Editor, but don't look for solutions. Maintaining 25% poverty is fertile ground for votes you can siphon from the Labour Party.
You would be advised to not read "Collapse now and avoid the rush".
robertguyton said…
The Greens, Anonymous, are not known as the 'Veto' Party, except perhaps in narrow circles you may inhabit. If you challenge my assertion, please link to prove the veracity of your claim.
Bsprout's comments about dairying don't show hatred for the industry, from what is see in his reply. You seem to want to be fitting him into a preconceived mold of your own...what's tht called again? Oh, prejudice, that's it!
bsprout said…
Anonymous, I have even had letters supporting responsible dairy farmers published in our local newspaper. You don't seem to have grasped the intent of my comment. The problem is that some farmers within the industry are not pulling their weight in terms of their social and environmental obligations.

Under National people are being blamed for creating their own poverty but life for many people can be likened to a rigged game of monopoly. Some people have been lucky and have started the game ahead of others and bought up all the hotels, railway stations and electric companies etc. For those who start the game later they find themselves having to pay out a lot every time they move, they can't get ahead and end up becoming broke and going to jail.

You obviously haven't read our election material, the Green Party is indeed a Party of solutions, and costed ones at that. While National refused to share their policies with voters (see National Radio election website) we published ours so that there would be no surprises when in government. Do have a read:
http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/gp_jobsbooklet_20final.pdf

And here is the fiscal implications: http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/fiscal_implications_november_6_2011_0.pdf

Are you able to produce the National or Labour equivalent?

Drilling for oil, digging up lignite and cutting funding to education and important infrastructure are not future focussed or sensible.
Anonymous said…
@ robertguyton the ungracious

I have yet to meet anyone with your sense of superiority worthy of such self esteem.
Anonymous said…
@ bsprout

My post at 4:00pm suggests a way a community could address food poverty. You respond with the following:

1. Many new dairy farmers do not want to share their time and money.
2. Many also pay their workers minimum wages....
3....filipino families, brought in to work on dairy farms, are supported by donations of furniture and toys for their children from the wider community because they struggle to survive.
4. The other issue with dairy farms is that the external cost of the industry are having to be borne by all rate payers.
5. Poverty is caused by the wealth of the country being captured by a few and a reluctance to use that wealth to support the communities that they live in or pay living wages to their workers.
6. The gains in worker productivity are not shared with workers.
7. We do not expect the government to use our money on promoting and progressing the sale of our own assets ($120 million).

My comment at 8:34pm clarifies how the community could address food poverty, and you add:

8. The problem is that some farmers within the industry are not pulling their weight in terms of their social and environmental obligations.
9. Under National people are being blamed for creating their own poverty......
10. You obviously haven't read our election material.....
11. Are you able to produce the National or Labour equivalent?
12. Drilling for oil, digging up lignite and cutting funding to education and important infrastructure are not future focussed or sensible.


And you say to me: "You don't seem to have grasped the intent of my comment."
robertguyton said…
I'm a very self-assured person, Anonymous. Argue with me at your peril.
Anonymous said…
In an interview many years ago the head of the New York Teamsters' Union was asked if he was powerful.
His reply:
"Being powerful is like being a lady, if you have to tell people you are, you ain't."
robertguyton said…
You've become distracted from the core questions here, Anonymous, by your desire to take me down a peg or two and make me behave graciously.
I sense you are struggling with bsprout's challenging questions.
Am I right? I usually am :-)
bsprout said…
Anonymous-I thought what you attempted to explain was that rather than waste money on a swimming pool, a local community would have been better advised to buy a dairy farm. Rather than expecting the community to pay out money on civic infrastructure that needs constant input, if they had bought a dairy farm then the profit could be used to support families suffering from poverty.

My reply questioned the fact that communities should have to look at owning businesses to generate funds and that if all businesses and individuals paid a reasonable portion of their incomes on supporting their communities directly, it would be better. I gave examples of where some did not show any community spirit or civic responsibility and cause previously functioning communities to struggle.

Your interesting solution only deals with one symptom, hunger. Surely we should aim for a society where all families can live independently on a living wage and not have to survive on charity and government support that 50% of all families now have to do at some time. Poverty is more than a lack of food.

You also accused the Green Party as the "veto party" that offers no credible answers, I do hope that you followed up on the link that I provided. I myself am involved with Transition Towns, an organisation that looks at building resilience and self sufficiency in communities.
Anonymous said…
My emphasis on "food poverty" was because that was the main thrust of an extensive survey on the cmag site that you linked for me to read. Additionally I have read your opinion that the 20% failure rate in our school results is more likely due to poverty, children not being fed before coming to school, than to any teaching under-performance.

To overcome that food poverty in a community I suggested a Council had the ability to commit $2.5 million to a leisure facility, which if spent on agricultural land would grow sufficient produce to ensure nobody went hungry.

I would support a Council that funded such an approach, though the scale was suggested only as a comparison for the sum mentioned. Unemployed could be encouraged to learn the growing skills that they could use in their own situation. Retired folk could enjoy the comeraderie of a little gardening, or other required skills, with others. They might also enjoy passing on their knowledge of a lifetime to those without that experience. Or they might oversee the pre-schoolers of young parents who wish to join in. I would not support any Council initiative to buy a business, particularly farming, on the basis that they might derive profit and subsidising rate collection. In the instance of this Council, even without the leisure facility or the food production, they would have the current $800,000 cost saving. That would buy a lot of food.

But supplying food to the hungry is only a stop-gap measure. This quotation is the essence of any such initiative:
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."

Dairy farmers are a completely different species to dry stock farmers. If you require their support you may need to alter you approach to them. Many would happily donate a days ploughing (worth $1000?) to the sort of venture I theoretically suggested. You would have seen on TV the numerous farmers with tractors and front-end loaders in the Christchurch situation. In the North Island, IHC has benefitted for many years from dairy farmers committing to rearing bull calves with their replacement heifers and donating them to IHC. The Lions Clubs would organise the pick-up of the weaned calves, ten or so weeks old, with drystock farmers' physical help. The collected calves would then be sold at auction with all proceeds to IHC. The donation of milk to schools is from dairy farmers collectively.
bsprout said…
Anonymous-What you suggest sounds perfectively reasonable but still I think that the main issue is how our country's wealth is being sucked up by a few wealthy elite. This government has supported a culture where the rich pay less in tax and huge salaries for managers and CEOs has become common place. It is not unusual for government and private CEOs to receive increases between 10 and 50% while wage earners real incomes are dropping.

If you watched TV 1 news this evening there was an item explaining how local government is receiving less support from central government for important infrastructure that was once supported (like roads and sewage treatment). Small communities are having to shoulder rates increases of 30% to maintain core services.

I agree there should be more support for young people to gain skills to make them employable for farms but we are currently seeing 27% of school leavers unemployed (many do have qualifications), and the highest suicide rate for youth in the OECD, yet many training schemes have lost their funding.

We are not a poor country, our government debt is one of the lowest in the OECD, the money is there to do some good things but this government's priorities are elsewhere. They are not paying what is due to the majority of people who elected them.
Anonymous said…
"They are not paying what is due to the majority of people who elected them."

Redistribution?
bsprout said…
Re-prioritise, Anonymous, rather than spending $12-14 billion on motorways of dubious significance, put some of it into education. Rather than spend $120 million on promoting and setting up the asset sales, keep the assets and sell energy bonds to raise cash. Rather than spend $36 million on the America's cup challenge repay the $25 million cut from the Ministry of Education's budget (the poorest performing Ministry).

You could call it redistribution, but it is really about priorities and where the best value is gained. The home insulation scheme, that the Greens promoted and National supported, provides a $1.40 return on every dollar invested while some of the motorway projects return only 40c for every dollar invested. Home insulation provides jobs, lower health costs, better education outcomes....while unnecessary roads increases use of private cars, increases carbon emissions and traps us into reliance on fossil fuel.
Anonymous said…
Nothing wrong with re-prioritising.
The high-lighted sentence suggested something else altogether, Government control of people.
Unnecessary roads are self explanatory. The purpose built dual carriageway for buses beside the motorway north of Auckland probably fits that category.
Inefficient roads increase carbon emissions. While improving them provides jobs and ultimately lowers the transport costs of everyday goods, it probably means city folk spend their holiday money in outlying communities and "holiday highways" just sound bad, don't they?

Popular posts from this blog

NZ now ranks at bottom of developed world

Turei slaps Pakeha privilege in the face!

National, Dead Party Walking...