Suburbs in Lower Hutt

[wodger]

Hi, this is my first post on this forum.

By way of very quick background the wife and I are looking to buy our first IP in the next 6-12 months (we actually also own 1/3 of one in Paraparaumu, bought in late 2002 with her family) but this next one will be the first one we buy on our own. I intend for our strategy to be simple, P&I (maybe until I learn more about interest only), non-greedy, buy and hold. Haven't clearly defined a plan yet, but the rough idea is to have about 20-30 modest rentals in 20-30 years time.

We both grew up around Paremata and I'm wondering what people think of the umm, poorer areas, of Lower Hutt as the prices seem to be right at the moment. We don't have alot of knowledge of these areas. Took a quick drive through Taita on the weekend and that's about it ...

There seem to be some houses on the market right now in Taita, Stokes Valley and Wainui where the asking price is about $200k and maybe a few of them will go for around $150k-$180k. Hopefully the rent on at least some of them could be around $280-$320pw.

Is there anyone who owns IPs in these areas who could say something about how it's been going? Does anyone who doesn't, have anything to say about it?

Are there any other areas we should be looking at? Interested in Paraparaumu as we have a bit of experience up there already.

Am I right in thinking that the seemingly magical $100pw rent per $50k invested has been a bit hard to come by (for newly purchased houses anyway) lately, but is slowly starting to come back at the moment?

Cheers all, look forward to the replies.
Julian.

[Stevegoodey]

Hi Julian,

Price's in Wainui have stayed very still after a big rise at the end of the property boom and have taken a large hit on the way down.
Taita is an acquired taste due to the qaulity of tenant you are liable to attract with a $200k property.

Stokes Valley tends to be more family orientated and is a good option for rental returns.
I'm also in favor of Naenae and have purchased there due to tenanted demand and the fact that it is mostly well placed for sun.
There are some well known area's worth avoiding but they are mostly well marked by burnt out house's and vehicles.

Steve

[Commercial Dan]

The Hutt is dog tucker, go into town; maybe only buy and sell there until you can afford to buy in the likes of Newtown/Brooklyn/Hataitai/Mt Cook or Mt Vic.

The Hutt has big price swings that are not dependable, you deal with terrible tenants most of the time and it is too tough to build equity in dire times like now.

[Fingers]

I grew up in Wainui, and although I wouldn't live there myself now, I would purchase an IP there. My brother has one there and says it one of his best in terms of return on investment. I also fancy Stokes Valley for IPs.

Plenty of ex state houses in these areas, great for rentals.

Hey Steve Goody, is that photo of the guy who wrote Catcher in the Rye? Have not read the book, but recently saw the same photo on an article on the author.

Cheers

Fingers

[Viking]

Housing NZ are intent on improving the type of tenants available round Pomare.
Tribunal Hearing adjourned for the adjudicator to decide if issuing a 90 day leave notice contravenes the RTA.
The Tenants ( all mongrel mob) had a QC represent then at the tenancy hearing claiming the notice to move contravenes the Bill of Rights Act on the basis that it was racially motivated.
I thought that was against the RTA. No lawyers
Was reported yesterday but I can't find it now.

[muppet]

Gang evictions 'breach rights'

Last updated 15:36 10/07/2009




Housing NZ is breaching the Bill of Rights by trying to evict tenants with gang connections from units in Lower Hutt suburb Pomare, a lawyer says.
In March, Housing NZ served 90-day notices to Billy Taylor, Robyn Winther, Huia Tamaka and two others after neighbours in their state housing block complained about intimidation threats and burglary.

Police arrested and charged several Mongrel Mob members as a result of investigations, some of whom were partners of the tenants in question.

Two of those served with notices have vacated their units, but three remain and are refusing to respond to requests to move out.

At a Tenancy Tribunal hearing in Wellington today, Housing NZ lawyer Steve Haszard said the department was simply seeking possession of its units , as it - and any other landlord - was entitled to do as long as correct procedures were followed.

However, Robert Lithgow, QC, argued Housing NZ papers on the issue clearly showed discrimination was an issue.

As a result, the evictions breached the Bill of Rights Act, which the department had a responsibility to adhere to.

''These three women have been given notices because they are defacto partners of people Housing New Zealand does not want around,'' Mr Lithgow said.

He said the department had an agenda to ''sanitise'' Pomare of gang members and the Mongrel Mob was the target.

It was no different than discriminating against gay people, Nazi Party members or followers of Scientology.

Mr Lithgow said any assertion from Housing NZ that there were no particular reasons for the evictions didn't stack up, considering the department had documented details about the affiliations of the tenants and the crimes allegedly committed by gang members.

Housing NZ was trying to use the 90-day notice argument to detract from its fundamental reasoning behind the evictions, he said.

Mr Haszard said if he were to go down the road of justifying the evictions, then it needed to be noted that the intimidation and behaviour of gang members had become a scourge on the entire community in and around Farmer Crescent.

The area had developed a bad reputation and it was now difficult to recruit and retain state housing tenants in the block.

''There is a wider issue than just these three tenants as far as Housing New Zealand is concerned,'' he said.

Violence and anti-social behaviour had plagued tenants for years, and the department had tried hard, but failed, to resolve the issues in question.

He suggested to tribunal adjudicator Karun Lakshman that any discrimination allegations should be investigated by the Human Rights Commission _ which had received complaints from the tenants _ not the tribunal.

The tribunal simply had to consider whether correct procedures were followed during the eviction process.

If the tenancy did decide to take discriminatory arguments into account, then Housing NZ would want to provide new material, Mr Haszard said.

Mr Lithgow said if Housing NZ had not been prepared to argue on the discrimination issue, then the case should be dismissed.

Mr Lakshman reserved his decision.

- NZPA
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...-breach-rights