If the housing crisis is a monetary deficit, then the gap could be stabilised by the social value of housing. But since it's a mere object of investment, those with needs shall continue to fall through the gaps.

Let's say the front person is well informed of the commercial role to promote the business and the interests of the shareholder, the corporate landlord.

In so doing, any rationale on social relations favours first and foremost business security. That is; the property manager would more than likely overlook the tenant's rights not only to look good in the eyes of the landlord, but may be also for one's job security.

This is a fact! All property managers that I have come across protect his/her colleagues and the owner's interest before the client. And for us small people, it is too expensive to accomplish justice. So we know we're up against it and there is not much else we can do about.

I'm not reproachful of property manager's role; I know some of them are very human and are trying to do their best in the heat of a housing crisis.

I know, we have the Tenancy Services but I don't know of any tenant who's using that service other than landlords. The property manager is the frontline face of corporate business lawyers against the small tenant is disproportional representation of social issues of society.

It is not a socialist society; it is more like a society dictated by corporate shareholders- bureaucratic and technocratic fascism. Tenants are not represented of their democratic right but are subjected to unequal representation.

If housing served a social value towards the organisation of society, it wouldn't evict the vulnerable out on the street. But by giving preference to those who can afford housing is securing the price of housing commodity to attract further investments.

I know this because I am not only a tenant, but I also fit the description of anti-social and tenants from hell stereotype. And having that hood to mistaken for one of the neighbours, I am in the front seat of tenancy disclosures by property managers.

One manager disclosed that the company doesn't offer tenancies to MSD clients because they are all trouble makers. I reminded the manager about the rights of the tenant under the Tenancy Act 1986, also human rights and the Bill of Rights, but she struggled to find words to explain herself.

The same complex has a built-in gym with a Bar next door and you are woken to the thump of weights at 0600 hrs. The place is mainly accommodated by students and visitors and you could imagine the social condition of the accommodation. The company has no policy for these tenants for obvious reasons!

Now, if you consider the so-called social relations of private housing, the only values they seemed to bind are investments and not stability of community organisation.

If the state can only regulate the public sector while the private sector is free to exploit and appropriate profit, then a dichotomy continues to separate society according to commercial or economic status.

Then the public sector depends upon religious missions or some philanthropists to develop alternatives social housing for the poor. And this is also temporary until tenants accumulate in public housing to affect the share of the market. And before you know it, a private sector agent government comes in and transfer social housing to the private sector again. And there we go, the same familiar cycle of homelessness and deterioration over and over.

The trouble is, those with genuine needs for housing among other things are overlooked by political and business generation such as the function of the property manager. But then, the very aspects of sorting out authentic needs from being taken for a ride is not fool proof and honest folks fall through the gaps.

They, the property managers have identified unreliable tenants. And at the same time, social housing have also identified the same folks as antisocial. The very people with housing needs are the first victims of housing.

This must demonstrate a system of housing that folks with needs are allocated according to the need until a business private party comes along and throw them on the street to inflate value of housing commodities.

This profit driven market would privatise anything of essential demand from houses, education, land, water, hospitals and so on; to make money for the shareholder. How about space and sunlight? Where's your freedom and democratic right if data of your culture is owned by a foreign corporation?

Now, the social approach has been to invest in that essential commodity but in turn the commodity binds a social value to the organisation of society; the organisation of the real economy.

It's clear that the dollar needs an object of value to balance its exchange trade. Thus housing can add value when serving a social need for everyone irrespective of status. In the same way, water can generate green energy, the local value tying the kiwi dollar.

Post your comments here


Dont drop your guard, covid-19 is hanging around