Much fanfare accompanied the announcement of the Tamaki urban regeneration project two years ago. The low-income suburbs of Glen Innes and Panmure were to be transformed by what was touted as Auckland's biggest housing development to date. Spearheading a lift in the number of houses in the area from 5000 to 11,000 was to be the Tamaki Redevelopment Company, owned 59 per cent by the Government and 41 per cent by the Auckland Council. But progress has not matched expectation and the Government has set about rectifying flaws in its blueprint.
The Housing Minister, Nick Smith, originally envisaged the development would be done by public-private partnerships, as at Hobsonville, where a Housing New Zealand subsidiary contracted with private developers to build houses. The Government, he said, would be in control of the big picture and would "not necessarily be making significant investments around housing redevelopment". For its part, the redevelopment company saw itself as having "a leadership facilitation and land management role". In keeping with that, its capital on formation was $8.5 million.
Now, there has been a major rethink. Dr Smith has announced that to accelerate development, the company will be given the financial leverage of a $200 million loan, plus ownership of state houses worth $1.2 billion. The company will take possession of Housing NZ's 2800 state houses between West Tamaki Rd and the Panmure Basin. The intention is to build 7500 houses over the next 10 to 15 years to replace 2500 existing ones. Most will be sold to private buyers, but the Government says there will be at least as many social houses in Tamaki as the 2800 now. The loan facility is designed to allow the company "to move more quickly on detailed planning, acquiring land, and starting to build more houses and related infrastructure".
The decision is significant on several counts. First, it recognises that the building of affordable housing in Auckland in the manner that the Government would prefer is taking far too long. As with its plan for community providers to play a role in the supply of social housing, there has not been the anticipated take-up. In the latter case, it appears that it may have to provide financial incentives to potential providers.
With the Tamaki rejuvenation project, the Government has recognised that a large sum of capital must be injected. Thus the loan facility, which should provide the necessary impetus. All this does, however, throw a considerable responsibility on the redevelopment company. Property development, whether under its own auspices or through partnerships with private developers and community providers, was not its intended purpose. Nor was taking over existing houses.
