Summary of Arguments from Comments for 'None of the Above'

The comments from residents who did not select either of the proposed options for the Housing Reserve Fund changes reveal a variety of concerns and suggestions that do not align directly with the options provided. Here are the key themes and arguments extracted from these comments:

  1. Misalignment with Core Council Responsibilities:

  2. Several comments express the belief that providing housing or managing funds for vulnerable housing support is not a core function of the council. Residents feel that these responsibilities should be managed by central government or specialized organizations.

  3. Concerns Over Financial Management and Prioritization:

  4. There is a recurring concern about the council's financial management, particularly the use of the Housing Reserve Fund. Some residents are worried that the fund is being depleted for projects that do not have widespread community support or that the fund's capital should be preserved to generate ongoing support rather than being spent.

  5. Lack of Detailed Information and Transparency:

  6. A number of comments highlight a lack of sufficient information or clarity about how the proposed changes would be implemented and managed. This lack of detail leads to confusion and a reluctance to support either of the proposed options.

  7. Alternative Suggestions:

  8. Residents propose various alternatives, such as developing a comprehensive Housing Strategy, engaging in community-led housing projects, or focusing on economic measures like negotiating with banks to lower interest rates which they believe could more effectively address housing affordability.

  9. Distrust and Skepticism Towards Council Decisions:

  10. There is evident distrust and skepticism regarding the council’s decision-making processes. Some comments suggest that past decisions have not aligned with community preferences, leading to a lack of faith in the council's handling of the Housing Reserve Fund.

Debate Argument in Support of 'None of the Above'

Given the concerns and suggestions raised by the residents, there is a compelling case to be made for adopting a 'None of the Above' stance regarding the proposed changes to the Housing Reserve Fund. This stance is supported by the following arguments:

  1. Core Responsibilities and Expertise:

  2. The council should focus on its core responsibilities and leverage the expertise of specialized agencies and central government for managing complex social issues like vulnerable housing. This ensures that the interventions are effective, specialized, and managed by those with the right skills and mandates.

  3. Financial Stewardship and Long-term Sustainability:

  4. The council must demonstrate better financial stewardship by preserving the capital of the Housing Reserve Fund to ensure it can continue to generate benefits over the long term. Spending the capital on short-term projects could jeopardize the fund's ability to support future housing needs.

  5. Need for Comprehensive Strategy and Transparency:

  6. Before any changes are made to the Housing Reserve Fund, the council should develop a comprehensive Housing Strategy that is transparent, well-communicated, and based on robust community consultation. This strategy should explore all potential solutions, including innovative models like Community Lands Trusts, which have shown success in other regions.

  7. Addressing Root Causes of Housing Issues:

  8. The council should explore broader economic measures that address the root causes of housing affordability, such as advocating for lower interest rates and better financial terms for home buyers. This approach could have a more substantial impact on housing affordability than reallocating reserve funds.

  9. Restoring Trust Through Inclusive Decision-Making:

  10. To restore trust, the council must ensure that all decisions regarding the Housing Reserve Fund are made with genuine and broad-based community input. This includes being responsive to the concerns about transparency and the prioritization of projects that have clear community support.

In conclusion, adopting a 'None of the Above' stance allows for a reevaluation of the council's approach to housing issues, ensuring that any actions taken are in the best interest of the community, financially prudent, and aligned with the council's core responsibilities.

Comments

ID Comment
28.5 As council staff have previously stated, this is not core business and should not be funded by council.
72.5 I do not have a view on this issue.
77.11 Very disappointed to hear the council has not only supported the housing development up the Maitai Valley but has even allocated $24 million in funding. This is a disgrace considering a huge number of people were against this development and also because the council is always crowing about reducing rates. Just shows that the council will do what it likes despite the views of ratepayers, so this long term plan survey will also be a waste of time as it will not be heeded but councillors elected by the ratepayers.
223.4 This concept is not working in todays marketoriented reality. Forget it.
275.5 unsure
297.5 What the xxxx is this survey? Provide details if you want me to vote on something. Broaden doesn't mean "increase spending" I'm in favour of spending more to support vulnerable people. Please select this option for me.
408.4 green field subdivision is a disaster in terms of community. I support building communities with mixed use, so that people can live and work in the same place to avoid unnecessary commuting.
413.5 not enough info
450.5 Make air b&b highly taxed then long term rentals will become available again. Cap the number of property people can own
464.5 I dont know enough about it
631.5 Change the funding structure to get perpetual benefit long term. strengthen the decision making and make it more robust, not so easy for council to choose pet projects or be swayed by personal relationships.
641.5 How about re-zoning the North side of Nelson for subdividing. This council is corrupt when it comes to small developments. Need people on the North side so they shope etc in Nelson. Mitre 10 mall...Tahuna people wont shop in Nelson. Richmond wont shop in Nelson.  This council is suffocating  NELSON
647.5 I don't know enough about the Housing reserve fund to answer this question. I would support extra funding for Humanity Housing which provide a great option for vulnerable families
675.5 I do support both of the options but think that the council needs a Housing Strategy rather than a piecemeal approach.  My first recommendation, as a professional working in housing and community development, is to develop the community-led housing sector and set up a Community Lands Trust.  This ensures a better use of funds, benefitting more people over a longer period of time, and makes for perpetually affordable housing.  One can look at Queenstown District and the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust as well as Hamilton City Council and Kapiti Coast District Council for good examples of what's going well regarding the Council's involvement with the Land Trust model.  There is a report that says that for every $1 of public money invested in community-led housing, $3 are returned--ROI.  This is a great benefit to the wider community.  I have many reports that I can make available to Council to help them understand the benefits of community-led housing and these better ways of developing long-term housing strategy.
682.5 Unsure
729.5 Encourage private enterprise to provide this services.
847.5 I don't know enough to have an opinion
880.1 I’m writing on behalf of Abbeyfield New Zealand in relation to the proposed change to widen the scope of the Housing Reserve Fund, to enable it to provide vulnerable housing support. We do not support this change, as this kind of housing is very complex, and to be effective draws on a range of services, which are or should be funded by central government. The Housing First programme run in Nelson by the Salvation Army is supported through central government funding streams. Ultimately however, there needs to be increased housing supply to make it possible for the homeless to move through the housing continuum. The Nelson Tasman Housing Trust and Habitat for Humanity have already been supported by the HRF to increase affordable housing in Nelson and have proven the value they add – we applaud their efforts. Abbeyfield also hopes to be able to provide more housing for older people – the group that previously was provided for via the council flats that have been sold to Kainga Ora for wider use. While there is little detail on how council sees this working (ie – services? Or property?) extending the HRF into vulnerable housing will certainly dilute the funding available for wider community housing under the current terms of the HRF.  This is a unique fund and we believe it will be more usefully reserved for the current purpose.
934.5 The option that has the lowest council contribution.
1009.5 I would much prefer that a higher percentage rates was paid into this, so that it can be properly funded. It is incredibly important that we provide good, safe and accessible housing for all (from my own experience, I can tell you that it is pretty much impossible to find accessible housing on the private rental market - the government should do much more on this).
1072.5 This started as a $12m fund but has been whittled away over the years handing money out to various groups. It should HAVE ONLY BEEN THE ITEREST ON THE FUND THAT WAS USED FOR THIS SUPPORT AND THE CAPITAL RETAINED so the benefits could be on going and well scrutenised recitents.
1157.5 NA
1206.5 Choose not to answer.
1225.5 I support Option 3 – i.e. neither of the two suggested Options.If forced to choose between the 2 Options I would support Option 1My Comments are that the recent Councils have made clear that they look on the capital asset built up by Councils over many decades, simply as a “slush fund” to help finance well-meaning (and currently generally well performing) organizations and Iwi entities, in providing social type housing.Council however completely loses control of the funds as they are disbursed to such entities.I sincerely hope I will not be around when one or more of the recipients of Council’s largesse - goes “broke”; or- makes public any decision to grant tenancy rights based principally on “race” - rather than “need”.
1250.5 Negotiate with the banks who report billions of dollars of profit each year while families cant afford to buy a home due to high interest and out of control prices. We don't need  affordable housing this is just another money grab...Deal with the real issues get interest rates down and bank fees in check so that housing becomes affordable for all. This will not only solve a housing problem it will also solve the escalating crime problem.
1254.5 providing housing is not a core council activity. Council should use the money for core services only and exit all these money wasting schemes
1255.5 The hypocrisy of talking about affordable housing while skyrocketing the rates is beyond belief. Giving money to trusts and religious organizations to build their housing stock off past ratepayers contributions quite frankly is sickening, not to mention the current ratepayers subsidizing all manner of rorts to ensure these organisations dont have to meet the usual costs of building and ongoing requests for funding.
1412.5 I don't think council should be involved in housing. Leave it to social services, habitat for humanity etc
1423.5 unsure here sorry