How are HNZ tenants assessed?

[Wayne]

It's a myth that people are homeless through choice or substance abuse. Any one of a number of things can happen - the scenarios are as numerous as the people. Certainly, some people who are homeless choose this or have these issues but painting a broad brush does not help.

So it is a myth that people are homeless by choice but some choose to be homeless???
I agree if you mean because some choose to be homeless doesn't mean every homeless person has.

It's certainly not fun. Nobody wants a homeless person in their street. As long as they are in the next street, they don't care. Problem is, every street has a NIMBY (Not in my back yard) type. Some of these are really nasty people. Something got stolen from them months ago or even from someone down the street, they blame the homeless person. Often, it's just a witch hunt to white wash what they believe is their neighborhood.

I don't mind homeless people so long as they stay out of trouble (and the same with everyone else).
Bring them down my street - no doorways to sleep in as it is purely residential but ...

Cognizant of my own experiences and near misses, I let homeless people sleep around the back of my office and even gave them food. You know what? I never had a problem because of this.

Why would you have a problem?

There is not enough jobs to go around and there won't be. Capitalism requires unemployed people to keep wages down. An honest capitalist should view this as a cost of business, but some are so perverse, they seek to beat (unemployed) people down because they can't (or won't) get a job because of the structure of the very system they benefit from.

There may not be enough jobs to go around but there is also no reason for begging!
We have a good welfare system in NZ and I don't believe that there actually is a need to be homeless in NZ.

[Anthonyacat]

Having briefly experienced the beginning of the welfare system a few years back, I can say it's quite an effort to get on the dole. In fact, I had to work so hard to prove I was genuinely looking for work, I found a job before the four-week standdown period ended, so didn't get a cent!

Speaking in rumour and speculation now, but I believe there is a catch-22 in our welfare system that requires a fixed address in order to receive welfare, so those who are already homeless have no way of getting money. Could be wrong there, though. Just what I've heard.

[eri]

i think you are correct

to get into the system you need to be properly "identified"

esp. as many fraudsters have over the years ripped us all off BIG-TIME

by claiming multiple identities

possibly a move to some form of biometric - fingerprint, retina? - scanning would help remove this block

but then what?

if they don't have addresses can they have bank accounts?

would direct payments in cash see them assaulting + stealing from each other?

if they are incapable of functioning with rules and responsibilities for any length of time

should they be 'supported' by full-time carers and security in a purpose built facility at the bottom of queen st?

if not there then where?

what if they don't want to go there?

has anyone, anywhere solved this problem?

in my time and travels

i haven't seen it yet

[Sante]

I gather that organisations that work with the homeless (e.g. Presbyterian Social Services, Salvation Army) have come to an arrangement with WINZ so that homeless people can list them as their contact address, and in that way gain access to WINZ benefits. Before that there was the catch-22 where people who wanted to get off the streets found it even harder because they needed WINZ support to get off the streets, but they couldn't get WINZ support without a residential address...

The question of whether homeless people "choose" to live on the streets isn't as simple as "yes, most choose it" or "no, most don't". Many homeless people will say they "choose" to live on the streets, but that's because the world/reality doesn't allow for them to be housed in a way they'd be comfortable with, for one reason or another. The person who lives on the streets so s/he can have a dog, would not choose to live on the streets if it were easy to rent a property when you have a dog. The person who lives on the streets to avoid having to give "the man" information, would not choose to live on the streets if they could live off the streets without having to give "the man" information.

I remember a couple of homeless men who used to drop in at a charity shop I was working at years ago. One of them lived in a boarding house over winter, and was trying to convince the other to do the same for the sake of his health. The second was refusing: he had mental health issues that meant he didn't feel safe living in shared accommodation, but also wasn't "together" enough to run a house - he would forget to pay bills, neglect tidying, etc., so that he wasn't able to hold down a sole-occupancy rental. He would have said that he chose to live on the streets, but I could see that if there'd been a way for him to not live on the streets, then he wouldn't have.

Also, we're talking about people sleeping rough. There's a whole other giant swathe of homeless people who don't sleep rough. They live in temporary accommodation; they "couch-surf" - staying with friends and family; they have a van that they sleep in; etc.

[Damap]

Eri they should just micro chip and neuter them. Problem would be gone in one generation :-)

[speights boy]

Sante.
I assume there must be a number of WINZ beneficiaries who live in Auckland from choice, but actually have no real need to be there.
If so, are there any efforts made to have them move to other centers where housing is not in such demand ?

[Propertytrader]

Breaking news,

Has anyone has seen the monks competing against the homeless down queen street.

[Sante]

Sante.
I assume there must be a number of WINZ beneficiaries who live in Auckland from choice, but actually have no real need to be there.
If so, are there any efforts made to have them move to other centers where housing is not in such demand ?

Not exactly. I mean, there was the $3K payment to entice people to move to Christchurch, but I wouldn't call that a center where housing isn't in demand.
The difficulty is that in places where there is a steady job market, there also tends to be housing demand. But if you move to somewhere without a steady job market, your benefit gets cut, because it's seen as not being conducive to finding work. So if you're already in Auckland, you can't win.

[speights boy]

Sure.
I was thinking of beneficiaries who are realistically not employable; hence local job market is not a factor in where they live.

[Damap]

When I was in my teens I had a "friend" who lived under a bridge in Hillsborough. After 2 or 3 years of befriending him discovered he had a very nice home in the area he had inherited. He just didn't like being inside. I think mental health issues are behind a lot of it . Certainly in the USA it is a real problem but I don't believe NZ really has one.

[Sante]

Certainly in the USA it is a real problem but I don't believe NZ really has one.

Sleeping rough is certainly less common here (or was... it appears to be growing: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11388764), but that doesn't mean we don't have a problem with homelessness. It's the hidden homelessness, as described at the end of post #74, that's the problem.

Sure.
I was thinking of beneficiaries who are realistically not employable; hence local job market is not a factor in where they live.

You mean like sickness beneficiaries and people on the DPB? There are problems with both of those. First, most people on the DPB aren't on it for very long, so you'd want to limit the encouragement to move to long-term DPB recipients - and not ones who have children with disabilities, for reasons as per sickness beneficiaries to follow.

However, the problem with moving single parents is that they really need their extended support networks to stay sane and raise their children well. Making them move to a small town isn't going to help with that. It's also hugely disruptive for their children, with school mobility being a strong indicator of poor educational outcomes.

If they're sickness beneficiaries, they'll likely need easy access to health services, which is not always available in cheap housing areas. That's also why I wouldn't suggest that all superannuitants not in paid work should be required to sell up and move to low-housing-demand areas (to free up their housing for workers), tempting though that solution could be!

[speights boy]

Worth a read in full.

READER REPORT:

Solo mum's life is 'lonely, scary, sad'
NAME WITHHELD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/...ruggle-is-real

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Worth a read in full.

READER REPORT:

Solo mum's life is 'lonely, scary, sad'
NAME WITHHELD

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/...ruggle-is-real

I doubt her position will get much empathy here. Landlords have money, pay their bills, don't have disabled children, vote for National/ACT and are not solo parents so why can't she?

[Maccachic]

I doubt her position will get much empathy here. Landlords don't have disabled children, vote for National/ACT and are not solo parents

Care to back this up with facts?

Personally I think its a failure that someone who wants to work can't because childcare costs prevent them from doing so.

[Wayne]

I doubt her position will get much empathy here. Landlords have money, pay their bills, don't have disabled children, vote for National/ACT and are not solo parents so why can't she?

I certainly empathise with her plight.
I don't vote National or ACT.
But you are right I don't have a disabled child.
I am not sure what I can do for her.
Unfortunately the welfare system works on a broad basis.
This person got in the situation she is in through little fault of her own but she will be lumped in with many beneficiaries who are there by choice.
If I had my way she would get more and those who have more children while on a benefit would get less. Choices!

I hope you feel better for having lumped all LL together much the same as many people lump all beneficiaries together.