New President for APIA

[donna]

This information is sure to interest some of you.

APIA's new President is long time member Kirstin Sutherland.

From scoop.co.nz

Sutherland is particularly interested in restoring the public’s confidence and trust in landlords. “For too long our industry has been mischaracterised and dishonoured by a rogue minority of self-serving landlords who cause harm to tenants and communities. They do not represent us,” says Sutherland. “APIA landlords understand that tenants are our partners. It is a symbiotic relationship where one cannot exist without the other.”

Umm she's talking about the Press - so I wonder how she plans to do this?

cheers,

Donna

[Sanya]

A nice piece of virtue signalling by Kirstin which many will read as an attempt to elevate her standing rather than being helpful for landlords.

Furthermore, its naive to suggest that public confidence and trust in landlords is framed by a "rogue minority of self-serving landlords." Its a bit more complex then that.

[Perry]

Sanya is quite right. We all know that there's a small number of scumbag tenants and LLs. We also know that they - the squeaking wheels - get the most publicity oil and are deceptively made use of as examples, by a disingenuous gummint and certain other partisan groups.

What's long, long overdue is for the NZPIA to really, actually, publicly and stridently demonstrate an attitude that shows that it's a strong, loud and stoic advocate for residential LLs, along with their private property rights.

That won't be achieved by being soft and compliant towards asinine edicts, laws and regulations, or being 'nice' to the current crop of socio-commies clowns involved in rushing through ill-thought-out legislation.

[Sanya]

Precisely Perry.

Furthermore, I can’t imagine the head of a tenants advocates association coming out with a nationwide Press Release saying that for too long now renters have been mischaracterised and dishonoured by a rogue group of tenants who cause harm to landlords, damage their properties and engage in anti-social behaviour to the detriment the local community….

[donna]

What have NZPIF etc done for Landlords in recent years?

cheers,

Donna

[Perry]

Perhaps the question could be what has been done that is manifestly obvious, newsworthy, clarion and so would motivate residential LLs to join?

Andrew, Peter et al have spoken of the behind-the-scenes stuff. That does not attract new members

Nothing seen, no one gained.

Instead, the NZPIF has succumbed to industry group capture by the W'gton woodenheads, so appears to be little more than a puppet on gummint strings.

The NZPIF advocacy needs to be similar to the moving and shaking traditionally associated with trade unions.

And get some gut-gripping headlines to work! Something like this off-the-cuff stab.

Government targets residential property investors to divert attention from the abject failure of its housing policies.

Then get into a story like . . . .

Tenants: are you having difficulty finding accommodation at a reasonable price? Don't blame residential rental property investors. Blame the real cause of your problems - the government. The one that lied to you about the 30,000 affordable houses it was going to build, in order to get your vote. (Didn't even make it to 500 in three years!)

The government's former housing Minister was warned by Treasury as well as his own departmental advisors and policy analysts that his government's reforms would lead to a shortage of residential rentals and cause rents to increase.

He pouted that such was not going to happen, put his head in the sand, dismissed the advice and now many tenants are paying the price of his egotistical ignorance and that of the current government.

Tenants can blame no one but the current government for the quandary they find themselves in. That includes those who, costing taxpayers over $100,000 a day (over 36 million-a-year), are living in motels as a consequence of the current government's totally failed residential rental housing policies.

Tenants should not expect anything to get better, any time soon. Because - despite the evidence of failure being everywhere around it - the government has declared that it's going to continue with more of its same, totally-failed-so-far residential rental housing policies.

[donna]

Awesome post Perry.

Maybe it sort of explains why 70 million voted for Trump! People believe when they want to believe and that has nothing to do with reality.

cheers

Donna

[Perry]

I looked at the Media Release today. I wonder who crafted it?

What a load of waffle.

“Renting is not a zero-sum game. There is a mutuality in terms of challenges, opportunities and outcomes that connect landlords and tenants. Ultimately, we all want renting to be modern, safe and efficient.”

What on earth does zero-sum game mean in that context?

The rest is no better.

I wonder if whoever wrote that works (or worked) for the gummint's PR machine, at some stage.

[Sanya]

I looked at the Media Release today. I wonder who crafted it?

What a load of waffle.

What on earth does zero-sum game mean in that context?

Zero sum. Whatever is gained by the tenant is lost by the landlord and vice versa.

In place of this the message is one of mutuality i.e. challenges faced by the landlord are also keenly felt by the tenant.

He waka eke noa

Observationally, it’s the same fingerprint as Government messaging over COVID-19.

[Perry]

That a certain someone needs a lesson in plain language is obvious.

Given your comment and the media release's arcane observation that renting is not a zero-sum game, what - I wonder - are the LL & tenant both losing or both gaining, according to K Sutherland?

[McDuck]

a zero-sum game, what - I wonder - are the LL & tenant both losing or both gaining, according to K Sutherland?

Ha, that made me laugh.
Yes, it can go both ways.

The main imbalance here, is that the the wages of the renter are taxed.
In contrast, with the right structure, the Income of the landlord is not.

Also, the savings of the renter are given a miserable return by the bank,
whereas the landlord is getting about 20% capital gain on at least a million dollars ...

So really, a little bad press should be soothed by the huge financial gain..
Don't you think.

Traditionally a group with a poor public image donates to charity or pays for some public work..
So that's your best path.

[Sanya]

That a certain someone needs a lesson in plain language is obvious.

Given your comment and the media release's arcane observation that renting is not a zero-sum game, what - I wonder - are the LL & tenant both losing or both gaining, according to K Sutherland?

I wouldn’t expend effort in trying to make sense of the incomprehensible Perry.

At its bones it is virtue signalling, tokenism and political correctness.

It’s like encouraging a debate on whether or not a "manhole cover" should include the word "man".

[Perry]

You're right, of course.

Perhaps the Peter Principle is at work?

Now, let's keep working on the sort and style of media release that PI Assns should be thinking of . . .

Did you know that the Residential Tenancies Act [RTA] empowers tenants to borrow money from the landlady:

* without notice
* without permission
* without a credit check
* without interest
* without a re-payment plan
* without even needing to pay the money back, in some cases.

How? Simple. Stop paying the rent.

Presume a weekly rent of $400. The tenant must have borrowed three weeks rent ($1200) before the LL can even apply to the Tenancy Tribunal [TT] to end the tenancy.

At best, allow another three weeks ($2400) to get a TT Hearing. If the LL is lucky and gets a termination Order, the TT might be generous with the LLs money and allow the tenant an extra week to vacate.

Net borrowings by tenant from LL: $2800 + the $20 TT application fee.

Any part of the TT Order that says the tenant must pay the LL $2820 isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Read and learn the pro-tenant and anti-LL biased provisions of the RTA to find out more.

[Sanya]

How about this Perry?

10,000 Private Landlords Flee Market

Information released under the Official Information Act shows that the number of landlords providing private rental accommodation in New Zealand declined by 10,000 for the period between 31 March 2018 and 31 March 2019.

NZPIF could then go on give reasons by the landlords are leaving based on surveys they have run and then continue on to discuss the consequences of this.

The release should also cite various Government ministers and Ministry of Housing reports which suggested no material impact expected in landlord numbers from Government intervention / policy in the market.

[Perry]

What's the source of that, Sanya?

You are (again) quite right. The problem is we cannot know and the NZPIF probably won't say why it's sitting on it hands instead of shouting from the diminishing number of residential rental rooftops.

Then again, they may not be diminishing . . .

In another thread, you mentioned that a reduction in private residential LLs did not necessarily mean a reduction in the number of residential rentals available.