The headline in today's Christchurch Press is 'Tenants Applaud Parkers's Apology' as opposed to 'Council To Consider Sale of Housing Units'.

The Press, which has already suggested that looking at selling some or all of the council's housing stock is a 'good idea', has highlighted Mayor Parker's apology for the invalid twenty-four percent rent rise.

"I want to say to the ratepayers, residents and citizens of Christchurch that I am sorry," Parker said. "We were wrong and therefore we should admit that and say we are sorry."

A contrite Mayor Sideshow Bob? Really?

Definitely not.

What Parker is apologising for is the shonky process that led to the decision to raise council rents - he's not apologising for the rent rise itself. In fact, he still believes that the massive rent rise was 'the right decision'.

Parker has now moved to 'Plan B'' - details of which are buried toward the end of the Press article.

Rents have now risen 2.3 percent but Sideshow Bob is now looking at increasing rents 14 percent in July next year - along with a number of other 'options', including a 27.5 percent rise.

But having been slapped on the wrist by the High Court, Parker is forced to send out these lousy proposals for community consultation.

Oh, and one of the 'options' to be 'considered' is - surprise - 'the possible sale of housing units'.

The big problem is that, as we have seen in the past, the Christchurch City Council can do some token 'consultation' then proceed to do what it likes anyway.

As I said in a previous post, this particular battle might of been won but the war continues.

Meanwhile the appalling and arrogant Councillor Barry Corbett still wants his pound of flesh - he thinks that even a 14 percent rise isn't big enough.

With the New Zealand economy sliding into a very big recession, Corbett doesn't have any problem at all inflicting even more economic pain on council tenants via large rent hikes.

What a creep.


  1. The issue of the proper rent for social housing is complex and there is no "right" answer. It's clear to me that these units will require both much more and much less maintenance by the landlord. It's also clear that many of these people would not be welcomed by private landlord as tenants. So there is a definite NEED for social housing.

    On the other hand many people who have disabilities are housed by private landlords, usually in the lowest quality flats in the city. So there is a trade-off here. If the council price is too low, the demand for Council flats will vastly exceed any possible supply. If the price is too high, our most disadvantaged citizens will be forced to pay excessive rents for housing that is far below acceptable standards.

    So the situation requires sensitivity and balance, and a single decision can't allow that adjustment to occur.


Comments are moderated.