Dear Mr Dahya

 

Thank you for your enquiry. Could you please let me know the specific
address of the property in Mungavin Avenue next door to yours. This will
enable us to get all the details on our decision to remove these
particular trees, and provide the right answers to your questions.

 

Thanks

Emma

Advisor, Government Relations

 

 

[1][FOI #17520 email])

 

-----Original Message-----

From: D Dahya <[2][FOI #17520 email]>

Sent: Thursday, 11 November 2021 4:35 AM

To: Gru FYI <[3][email address]>

Subject: Official Information request - Kainga Ora - Unnecessary removal
of trees from tenancy & possible conflict of interest

 

[You don't often get email from
[4][FOI #17520 email]. Learn why this is
important at [5]http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentifica...

 

Dear Kâinga Ora–Homes and Communities,

 

Even though this relates to one particular tenancy it is typical of how
Kainga Ora treat most of their  properties.

 

In march this year a neighbour vacated the Kainga Ora property on Mungavin
Ave,Porirua, directly next door to us. Over the last 40 years weve seen so
many tenants come and go from this property which has always been a Kainga
Ora property and as usual the property is cleaned/tidied up,inside and out
for the new incoming tenants. However, this is the first time that such
significant(and unnecessary) changes were made to the yard.

 

This Mungavin Ave property(as noted in call number 513653), at the time of
vacation, had several tall trees that had stood for over 40 years  but for
some reason Kainga Ora decided to cut them all down leaving the property
bare and 'sparse', now completely exposed to wind and sun.

 

The concern I have is that as a longstanding neighbour of this property I
know (and experienced) the benefit these trees have provided to not only
the tenant, or to surrounding ones but also to the property itself. The
trees were especially important as they had protected  against wind, for
typically draft prone state homes, as well as providing shelter from
sun,rain, noise and maintained the privacy of the tenant(s). Now that the
'damage' has been done will Kainga Ora plan to install draft proof window
frames in homes directly affected by the unnecessary removal of these
trees?

 

They have removed any chance of continuing past activities that involved
these trees-activities typical of 'Kiwi kid' childhoods. These trees had
provided many years of enjoyable activites for the tenants and their
children especially (this property has always housed tenants with
children) who ran around them,hid behind them,swung from them -there was
always a rope swing in the front yard- typical Kiwi past times such as
'hide and seek',climbing, rope swings etc, but, just as important, they
had provided shelter from the sun in summer and served as wind shelters
from the cold blasts during winter, and, as Kainga Ora are fully aware,
these old ' state houses' are commonly known for their drafty
disposition/nature -where curtains are blown about even when the windows
closed.

 

With New Zealand's growing and ever changing ethnic diversity through
immigration etc the 'Kiwi way of old' has been gradually disappearing. By
removing 'Kiwi childhood' elements relating to outdoor activities (which
forms a integral part of their upbringing and character) you contribute to
the advancing and accelerating demise of such typical 'Kiwi kid'
upbringings just simply removing the trees. What you also do is force
them(indoors) to take up indoor activities to replace outdoor 'play'  such
as increasing their online screen time and most likely creating
lazy,obese,visually impaired, unfit disconnected future adults- if they
are prevented from connecting /enjoying outdoor activities in their
younger years  they will have no desire, motivation to take up outdoor
activities in adult life will they not?

 

Coincidentally, last nights News item the Minister of GCSB, mentioned
certain crimes are more likely to occur due to people having more
opportunity/time to spend online.

 

So, it makes absolutely no sense at all why Kainga Ora had arranged to cut
them all down at the stump -leaving no trace they ever existed- a
bare,sparse, and now wind prone area- and with the wind barrier gone all
neighbouring houses will now be affected to bear the wind unhindered as
well.

 

It would have made more sense to cut the trees down halfway rather than
remove them completely as this would have preserved the sun,wind
protection and privacy offered by the trees.

 

A short time after this maintenance work I witnessed another Mungavin
property down the road which had a longstanding (but short) tree which was
also completely and unnecessarily removed - so what was the reason for
removing this tree completely?

 

POINTS:

 

GENERAL

 

- As NZ largest landlord and NZ social housing provider Kainga Ora have an
obligation and responsibility to ensure the welfare of tenants 
and,especially their children in the properties or as they were known as
'HNZ' raised children'?

 

-Kainga Ora's pre-tenancy maintenance involved the complete removal of the
longstanding trees and along with it, any wind sun/heat protection
provided by them, including the removal of the makeshift garden (I had
built for the previous tenants)- removing any opportunity(and
encouragement) to grow their own vegetables this practice of growing your
garden instills respect and a sense of pride in the property.

 

-So such a small action,a common practice by Kainga Ora, our largest
landlord, you impact on a very large segment of NZ childrens populations
ie physical health,mental wellbeing, and their future 'adultness' -NZ's
future generation.

 

-By removing the trees, without giving the affected tenants the
opportunity voice their concerns, provide relevant,and therefore
meaningful area specific feedback you are treating them as, and only as,
mere tenants,their homes as just 'rentals' who cant afford to buy their
own homes(even if they do have continuous employment periods). A dig I was
often subjected to many years ago but no so much now as most, appear to be
in the same (house)boat.

 

-Removing all of the trees from the property you remove longstanding
iconic Kiwi childhood past times - hide and seek, rope swings etc the
removal of such options would discourage children from outdoor activities
leaving nothing for them to play on especially in a fully fenced property
directing them towards indoor activities instead.

 

The absence of the outdoor activity options will impact on the wellbeing
being of the tenants children and the tenants themselves increasing stress
levels and affecting general wellbeing overall which will have lasting
affects.

 

- Do you believe that as NZ's social housing provider, the largest
landlord in the country, have a responsibility to ensure the sustained
welfare of those in your tenancies, especially their children, or as they
were previously known as 'HNZ raised children ?

 

1. NZ HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (NZHUD)

 

'Good urban design'.

My understanding is that NZHUD is about good urban design,with
consideration to the particular place and community, avoiding the 'blanket
approach' and with the view to creating homes rather than rental
properties/financial assets.

 

NZHUD and Kainga Ora

Coincidentally, I have just recently found out (while writing this
information request) that both agencies are located in the same building
in Wellington and so I assume they do talk to each other and so why is
there such a misalignment of objectives between the two?

 

There is no point in good urban design when Kainga Ora,  NZ's largest
landlord, do not follow the objectives of NZHUD's good urban design. It
appears that Kainga Ora's common needless practice of removing
longstanding/any trees without thought to environment,tenants(and their
children) including surrounding tenants, opposes the principles of NZHUD.

 

By removing the trees, without discussion,thought, denying the opportunity
to accept meaningful area specific feedback you are treating them as,and
only as, mere tenants who cant afford to buy their own homes.

 

You have  removed sun,noise, wind protection and privacy from the tenancy
-all without condsideration or regard to health,privacy & wellbeing and by
denying the opportunity to accept meaningful area specific feedback from
those in the know.

 

Kainga Ora needs to align its property maintenance practices to that of
NZHUD otherwise you have two government agencies with  opposing goals who
both have impact on the NZ landscape and hence the Kiwi way of life?

 

The NZHUD website
([6]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...)
states ...

(I have noted relevant questions beside them for context purposes).

 

0.'Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) was established in 2018 to implement the Government’s housing and
urban development programme to end homelessness, make housing affordable
and make cities more liveable.'

 

1. 'The story behind our name

'HUD adopted a te reo Mâori name in November 2020. Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga
translates to ‘the foundation for a treasured home’.

 

The name comes from the Mâori proverb ‘he kura kâinga e hokia, he kura
tangata e kore e hokia’, or ‘a treasured home will endure, not so a
treasured person’.

 

It carries a strong connection to our purpose: he kâinga ora, he hapori
ora – thriving communities where everyone has a place to call home.

 

It speaks to the importance of ensuring the wellbeing of people within the
home, and our connection with the land – acknowledging the generations of
people who have always called this place ‘home’ – and our commitment to
delivering for future generations of New Zealanders.'

 

Questions:

a, How can one have a treasured home without the benefit,safety and
welfare trees provide to both tenants and the environment?

 

2. Place-based approach

'Our place-based approach recognises that every community has their own
housing and urban development challenges and opportunities, and that a
‘one size fits all’ approach isn’t right to address them. We use what we
know about places to inform how we work with communities, and to determine
whether local action or broader changes are needed.'

 

Questions:

a, What place-based research did Kainga Ora conduct to educate themselves
regarding that particular property?

 

b, What knowledge about the specific place did you use to determine the
action taken?

 

3.We think about the long-term

We focus beyond just the immediate issues and short-term solutions.'

 

Questions:

a, What 'longterm' issues were applied in this instance?

 

4. We are people-centered

'When we design policies and services, we start with the people who will
be affected. Being people-centered also means taking care of those in
immediate need.'

 

Questions:

 

a, How were the longterm needs of the tenants met in this instance?

 

5. 'How does Kâinga Ora relate to Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga - Ministry of
Housing and Urban Development?'

'Kâinga Ora and Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga - Ministry of Housing and Urban
Development have complementary and interdependent roles.

 

The Ministry is responsible for leadership in the housing and urban
system, advising the Government on strategic direction and for Kâinga Ora,
policy advice, and monitoring the system including Kâinga Ora, purchasing
public housing places and regulatory oversight.

 

Kâinga Ora is the Government’s primary housing and urban development
delivery arm focused on providing public housing principally for those
most in need and initiating or undertaking urban development.'

 

6. 'Kâinga Ora has two key roles:

 

-being a public housing landlord

 

-partnering with the development community, Mâori, local and central
government and others on urban development projects of all sizes'

 

7. 'Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga - Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
works with central and local government agencies, the housing sector and
communities across New Zealand to improve housing affordability and
supply, ensure tenants live in warm, dry, healthy and safe rental housing,
and improve housing quality and choices for Mâori and their whânau.'

 

- 'Warm,dry,healthy and safe rental housing' - by removing trees you have
removed healthy outdoor activity resource/options for growing children as
well as sun shelter(skin protection) and wind barriers(essential for
maintaining warm houses).

 

-As children grow they need physical activities essential in maintaining
health and fitness which eliminates/significantly reduces potential health
problems later in life?

 

- It forces parents to purchase outdoor activity equipment for the
children placing more strain on household budget impacting on their
'affordability' in general as well as for housing.

 

Questions:

a, So is there communication between both agencies -Kainga ora and NZHUD
especially when they are located in the same building?

 

8."Ensure houses meet needs

Ensure that our houses are warm, dry, accessible, and affordable to run,
and meet the needs and changing life circumstances of families and
households."

 

Questions:

a, How does completely removing the trees meet the needs of changing
circumstances of families and households?

 

9.'Priorities

Ensure that rental houses support health and wellbeing Increase supply of
universally designed and accessible housing Ensure buildings are resilient
and resource efficient.'

 

- By removing trees you have removed healthy outdoor activity
resource/options for growing children as well as sun shelter(skin
protection) and wind barriers(essential in maintaining warm houses).

 

10.'Re-establish housing’s primary role as a home rather than a financial
asset'

 

- By removing trees, privacy,rope swings,eliminating outdoor activities
options,leaving the yard bare and sparse for tenants and their children
you have removed the 'home' element and treated (& perpetuated) it as just
another 'rental house'. In fact, prior to Kainga Ora's pre-tenancy
maintenance the yard was more of a home than a rental with flourishing
trees,shade and options for outdoor activities.

 

11. 'Plan and invest in our places

Ensure our neighbourhoods and places meet the needs of our communities
today and are well equipped to meet long-term climate, social, cultural,
environmental, and economic challenges and opportunities.'

 

- By compelling tenants to go out and purchase their own sun
protection,heating equipment & recreational items etc place more strain on
existing household budgets.

 

Questions:

a, How has Kainga Ora met the needs of growing children and the 'long term
climate' in this(their) tenancies when they continue their practice of
completely and unnecessarily removing trees?

 

12. 'Priorities

Plan for growth and change in places

Ensure infrastructure investment and planning support growth and change
Reduce emissions and support communities to adapt to the effects of
climate change.'

 

Questions:

a, How has Kainga Ora planned for growth for future tenancies by
permanently removing the trees?

 

b, Does Kainga Ora consider trees as an important part of the reducing
emissions and the impact on the environment?

 

13.
[7]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

'A place-based approach to housing and urban development policy Every
community has their own housing and urban development challenges and
opportunities and a 'one size fits all' approach will not work to address
them.

 

We're taking a deliberate, place-based approach to tackling New Zealand's
housing and urban development challenges. This approach uses an
understanding of places to inform how we work with communities.'

 

Questions:

a, How was the placed-based approach applied to this tenancy?

b, Was not the complete removal of the trees without regard to outdoor
activities and Kiwi past times a 'blanket approach' and treating the
tenancy as a 'rental' rather than a 'home'?

c, What effort did you make to gain an understanding of that particular
'place'?

d, Why did you not respond to my email that outlined my concerns and
feedback prior to the work commencing?

e, What action did you take regarding my email?

 

Questions:

a, Are your property maintenance practices currently aligned with NZHUDs
objectives?

 

b, Why were all the trees removed completely as part of the pre-tenancy
maintenance for this property?

 

c, By removing the trees what activities are the children able to
participate in for outdoor activities?

 

d, By removing the natural resources for outside activities what
replacement resources has Kainga Ora introduced for the new tenants and
their children?

 

e, Do you encourage/prefer tenants/children to spend more time online than
on outdoor activities in the yard?

 

f, Do you increase or decrease the likelihood of sunburn if you have
removed all natural tree shading from the property?

 

g, Why didn't Kainga Ora respond to the report of the smell of chemical
odour on the property- especially when they knew the tenants children
would obviously be outside in the yard?

 

h, Is Kainga Ora going to install new draft proof window frames on all the
properties now affected by the removal of the trees?

 

i, How have you maintained/encouraged Kiwi pasttimes & preserved outdoor
options for the tenants (and their children) that existed prior to the
removal of the trees?

 

***Example....

 

Here is a recent actual example highlighting the lack of process by Kainga
Ora to ensure alignment of NZHUD's principles/objectives, good urban
design, quality workmanship and a safe environment

 

Repaired fence.

 

Recently, due to careless driving, a corner section of fence bordering the
entrance to a neighbouring shared driveway was completely damaged/wiped
out- to be fair this was easily done as there is a common practice of
cutting the corner when entering the driveway  because there is nothing
preventing/obstructing the drivers from doing so.

 

We also discovered the fence was protecting electricity and
telecommunications pillars and we were fortunate both pillars to not have
been damaged at all. 9 days after notifying Kainga Ora the fence was
repaired(during which time the telecommunications pillar was left exposed
to vandalism - which did occur where the 'top' of the pillar had been
removed exposing wires and circuitry to weather elements) but Kainga Ora
did not check the quality of the work. Even though the fence was repaired
to Kainga Ora's standards, it did not meet NZHUD's criteria/principles of
'good urban design'.

 

The initial design of the fence consisted of square palings each 5 inches
apart allowing visibility through it of children about to walk across the
driveway in front of exiting vehicles- a safety feature in my view.The
repaired section of the fence was not consistant with the initial design -
flatboard palings without gaps obscuring any view through it.

 

Again, there was no process/effort or post work checks in place to ensure
quality of workmanship or,more importantly, consistency in design.

 

Another point is that the damage could have been prevented,again, through
'good urban design' and so have requested of the local Porirua City
Council to install a concrete post on the berm  that would protect the
damaged fence corner (and hence protecting the electricity &
telecommunications pillars also) by preventing vehicles from cutting the
corner when entering the driveway.

 

Despite the council's initial non-sensible response advising that the
concrete post would only present another hazard - I will ask Kainga Ora &
NZHUD to support my request for a concrete post.  I have lodged an
information request via this website - refer link
[8]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

The concrete post prevents cutting the corner and visibility through the
fence allows for safety of drivers and passing children,in other words - a
good urban design.

 

2. TREES/SHADE/Sun protection

 

By removing the trees you have removed the natural(cost free) sun
protection provided by them for the tenants and the many children that
have come and gone from this tenancy over the last 35 years. I have seen
them play in the yards, take shelter under the trees from a few months old
to their teens.

 

In this case you have increased the likelihood of sun exposure therefore
skin damage to tenants(and their children) who spend time in their own
backyards.

 

The absence of adequate sun shelter will force tenants(if they can afford
it) to buy sun protection items- not as effective or cost effective as
trees that were there already.

 

Cutting the trees halfway would have addressed  any issues and still
preserved the shelter offered by them.

 

Kainga Ora were advised by the contractors that the trees were the cause
of the mould and so all needed to be removed - these were the same
contractors  that would be removing the trees.

 

How did Kainga Ora address the conflict of interest in this advice?

 

The trees were removed to address longstanding mould on the interior and
exterior surfaces of the house - there was only one side of the house that
was in shade and that was due to it being so close to the neighbouring
house and so the trees were not the cause of the shade on that side of the
house.

 

For interior surfaces - surely this would involve replacing the gib walls
that were already infected with mould - removing the trees outside would
not remove the ingrained mould.

 

Questions:

a, What is the reason for removing all of the trees completely?

 

b, If it was to address mould would not cutting the trees halfway/thinning
them out have achieved your expectation of eliminating the mould?

 

c, Apparently Kainga Ora were advised by the contractors that the trees
were the cause of the mould and so all needed to be removed - these were
the same contractors that would be removing the trees.

 

How did Kainga Ora address the conflict of interest in this advice?

 

d, Did Kainga ora consult with NZHUD on this point?

 

e, By removing all of the trees have you increased the sun/heat impact on
the property (including neighbouring properties) increasing the likelihood
of sunburn?

 

f, Is Kainga Ora aware of the potential of sunburn/skin cancer in
properties that have no shade protection(ie trees) for their tenants?

 

g, How have you maintained the pre-existing levels of shade protection
offered by the property prior to the removal of the trees for the tenant
and for the neighbouring ones?

 

h, What sun protection have you left in place of the removal of the trees?

 

i, Did you consider the impact cutting down the trees ie the wind ,noise
and shade protection the trees provided and how have you maintained these
elements to pre-existing levels?

 

j, Was it possible to have the trees cut down half way and would it have
been more cost effective to do so?

 

k, Would this method have produced less waste needing to be shredded by
contractors?

 

l, Does shade/sun protection relate to the relative peace and comfort of
tenants?

 

3. WIND

 

By removing the trees you have; removed the natural(cost free) wind
barrier they have provided that tenancy and the neighbouring ones for over
35 years, have you increased the wind impact on the property-and the
neighbouring  tenancies.

 

The absence of the natural wind barrier will increase draft exposure and
heating requirements in the home.

 

Questions:

a, Is Kainga Ora aware of the cold drafty nature of old state houses.

 

b,  If Kainga Ora are aware that these old state houses are known for
their drafts why would you remove the only natural wind barriers providing
protection for over 40  years at no cost to Kainga Ora just prior to
winter?

 

c, Will the removal of the trees ie natural wind barriers increase the
amount of drafts entering the home changing the heating requirements for
the tenants?

 

d, Will the removal of the trees cause tenants to increase their heating
requirements(as well as their reliance on) on heat pumps,electric heaters,
fireplaces etc all at a cost to themselves?

 

e, Will Kainga Ora replace the drafty old wooden window framing with new
draft proof ones for those properties affected by the removal of the
natural wind barriers?

 

f, How have you maintained the same level of wind protection for the
tenancy (and the neighbouring one's) that existed prior to the removal of
the trees?

 

g, Do you expect the tenants themselves to maintain the same level of wind
protection for their home?

 

h, By removing the trees have you increased the wind impact on the
property-and the neighbouring tenancies?

 

i, Is Kainga Ora going to install new draft proof window frames on all the
properties now affected by the removal of the trees?

 

j, Does the removal of wind barriers relate to the relative peace and
comfort of tenants?

 

4.NOISE

 

By removing the trees you have removed the natural (cost free)noise
barrier the trees have provided the tenancy(and neighbouring ones) for
over 40 years thereby increasing the likelyhood of noise
occurances,reports, complaints to and from the property including that of
neighbouring tenancies?

 

Because of the complete removal of the trees and the noise barrier offered
by them you have increased the likelihood of noise issues from activities
that were not previously present.

 

I have noticed since the trees were removed significant increase in
vehicle stereo music throughout the day and night -originating  from
specific vehicles not as noticeable prior to the removal of the trees.

 

Questions:

a, By removing the trees have you increased the noise impact on this
property and neighbouring ones?

 

b, How have you maintained the same level of noise protection for the
tenancy (and the neighbouring one's) that existed prior to the removal of
the trees?

 

c, How do you expect the tenants to maintain the same level of noise
protection for their home?

 

d, Does removal of noise barriers relate to the relative peace and comfort
of tenants?

 

e, By removing the trees have you increased the likelihood of noise impact
on this property and neighbouring one's leading to noise complaints?

 

f, By removing the trees and hence the noise barrier have you increased
the likelihood of noise complaints to and from this property and
neighbouring one's?

 

g, Does the removal of noise barriers relate to the relative peace and
comfort of tenants?

 

5. ROPE SWING..

 

By removing the trees you have removed a longstanding iconic Kiwi
childhood past time - the rope swing contributing to the demise of the
typical Kiwi childhood.

 

The removal of rope swings/trees etc would discourage children from
outdoor activities leaving nothing for them to play on around especially
in a contained fully fenced property etc and therefore encourage indoor
activities instead.

 

No tenant will refuse a house tenancy if offered just because it doesn't
have a trees and a rope swing- especially more so in the currents/todays
housing/rental climate.

 

Questions:

a, Is it not in Kainga Ora interests to preserve traditional Kiwi past
times such as hide and seek etc?

 

b, Would the removal of rope swings/trees discourage/limit options for
children of available outdoor activities?

 

c, Would the removal of outdoor options compel tenants/children to take up
indoor activities?

 

d, By removing options for outdoor activities would you not force
tenants/children indoors to spend longer periods of time on computer
related activities which would impact on their general wellbeing?

 

e, If you remove options for outdoor activities will that not encourage
restless children,increase stress levels within the family and is that not
a h&s issue?

 

f, By removing outdoor options would this not increase the chances of
laziness,obesity,disconnectedness (later in life) and impact on general
wellbeing of the  children(and tenants)?

 

g, How do you expect the tenants to maintain the balance of indoor outdoor
activities for their children?

 

h, How do you expect tenants themselves to maintain the same level of Kiwi
past times/outdoor activity options for their children that existed prior
to the removal of the rope swing/trees?

 

i, What effect do you think it will have on children with limited/removed
outdoor options?

 

6. BEES..

 

There were atleast 2 contractor companies involved in the yard cleanup
work- the tree cutters and the yard maintenance contractor - who spent
some time 'cleaning up' the yard before the tree cutters arrived to remove
the trees.

 

By the time the tree cutters had completed their work and left after a
week I noticed the beehive entrance had been covered in dirt -  most
likely to suffocate the bees. I had also reported another matter -smelling
a chemical on the property - both points went unresponded to by Kainga Ora
(call number Call 513653).

 

I had discovered a beehive on the property after work began.

 

It appears that the Kainga Ora/contractors have addressed the beehive
hazard themselves without reporting to the appropriate agencies.

 

- Kainga Ora failed to warn the new tenants -who had children -of the
details of the presence of a beehive on the property.

 

- I had also reported a chemical odour from the property but received no
response to that nor to my reports of the beehive. They then allowed
tenants with children to move in to the property without
notifying/addressing  them of the beehive or chemical odour.

 

-The only response I received from Kainga Ora, was after the trees had
already been cut, during a phone call I  received which resulted in a
fruitless(and pointless) conversation with a staff member (by the name of
Sina?) who failed to identify herself adequately neither giving me her
full name(for future follow ups) nor title - I had asked whether they
received any reports of bees on the property or any chemical odours - she
told me she couldn't tell me because it didn't relate to our tenancy & was
a 'privacy issue' and was generally uninformative on simple points.

 

She didn't realise that this was a health and safety issue -and affects
neighbouring tenants also, which means I had a right to know, hence this
OI request.

 

-This is an health and safety affecting other neighbouring tenants because
as far as I know bees have the ability to fly, and fly well over fences to
neighbouring properties without consideration to 'privacy issues'- even
though Kainga Ora should have considered tenant's 'privacy' when they
removed the trees. It appears Kainga Ora's respect for 'privacy' only
applies to their own.

 

-There appears to be a lack of accountability or process ensuring Kainga
Ora are kept informed of unexpected  developments - as in this case where
Kainga Ora had no measures in place to ensure they be kept informed of
such updates from contractors(or are Kainga Ora not interested in any
'problems' that would hamper the tenanting of properties?).

 

-There doesn't appear to be any monitoring or post checks of work that is
done/completed on the property perhaps this is because staff feel that it
would not be assessed in their annual performance reviews -which generally
depends on the expectations/requirements of senior staff. Refer to 'NZ
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - Good urban design' above regarding the
repaired fence.

 

Questions:

a, Was Kainga Ora aware of a beehive on the property,if so, from who,when
& what action was taken?

 

b, Did Kainga Ora alert the new tenants(which included children) of the
beehive,if so, how long after they had moved in?

 

c, Are Kainga Ora required to be notified of the presence of a beehive on
the property by its workers?

 

d, Are workers hired by Kainga Ora allowed to dispose of the beehive
hazard themselves?

 

e, If bees were 'disposed' of by contractors without Kainga Ora knowledge
- what action would be taken?

 

f, What is the process when a beehive is discovered on a Kainga Ora
property?

 

g, What process is in place to ensure Kainga Ora are kept informed of
relevant updates from workers?

 

h, If a beehive is discovered on a Kainga Ora property are nearby
neighbours required to be notified?

 

i, Is a beehive on a Kainga Ora property considered a health and safety
issue?

 

j, How do new tenants ensure their own safety if they are not advised of
the bee hazard?

 

k, Did you find the source of the chemical odour why did Kainga Ora not
act on this information?

 

l, What action was taken regarding the call number 513653 relating to bees
and chemical odour?

 

7. GARDEN:

 

There was a freshly dug garden (fenced off with recycled old concrete
blocks from a previous housing renewals project) left by the previous
tenants prior to the maintenance work beginning but was completely removed
by the contractors in preparation for the incoming tenants.

 

The removal of the makeshift garden (which I had dug at the request of the
previous tenants so that they could to grow their own food etc) removes
any opportunity-and encouragement- to grow their own vegetables etc.

 

The practice of growing your garden instills respect and a sense of pride
in the property - which typically is associated with significant
maintenance costs/expenses (through viewing the tenancy property as just
another 'rental') prior,during and after tenancy occupation.

 

The concrete blocks were disposed of at the landfill only add to another
unnecessary impact on the environment.

 

- The removal of the garden meant:

 

The nonsensical & unnecessary collection and disposal by the contractor of
broken up concrete paving (that was re-used to border the garden), at the
landfill.

 

Removing any opportunity(and encouragement) to grow their own vegetables.
The practice of growing your garden instills respect and a sense of pride
in the property.

 

Denying the new tenant the opportunity to continue using the garden that
had already existed.

 

Questions:

a,Why didn't Kainga Ora leave the garden for the new tenants giving them
the choice whether to continue maintaining it or not?

 

b, Does Kainga Ora consider a garden important and beneficial?

 

8. PRIVACY:

 

Without the opportunity of discussion the removal of the trees have
allowed visual access to property,removal of surrounding tenants privacy,
and initiated potential complaints of what is seen in other tenants
properties and allowing it to be come more vulnerable to burglaries though
visual access

 

- the complete removal of trees has visually opened up the surroundings
yards  to prying eyes  and has removed the longstanding privacy tenants
are rightly entitled to and were accustomed to it has also placed family
pets at risk to passing stray dogs.

 

By allowing significant visual access to the property you place family
pets at risk of passing unrestrained dogs.

 

Questions:

 

a, What importance does Kainga Ora place on the privacy of tenants?

 

b, After removing the trees how have you maintained the pre-existing
levels of privacy for the tenant and surrounding residents?

 

c, Has the removal of the trees allowed more visual access to property
removing privacy from surrounding tenants also?

 

d, Has the removal of the trees increased the likelihood of potential
complaints (by other tenants) of what is now seen(or heard) in other
tenants properties?

 

e, Has the removal of the trees which now allows significant visual access
to the property placed family pets at risk from passing unrestrained stray
dogs?

 

f, Does Kainga Ora consider the privacy of tenants directly related to
their relative peace,comfort and enjoyment?

 

LAST WORD

 

Kainga Ora have affected a tenants right to peace and comfort,enjoyment.

 

You are contributing to the demise of old Kiwi past times, impacting on
health and general wellbeing and opposing the principles of NZHUD.

 

Referring back to a TV news item some months ago of a lady in a Kainga
Ora  property who received a letter last year advising her rent has
increased by an extra $200 per week - despite numerous efforts to contact
and discuss the matter with Kainga Ora in various forms no response was
received and where numerous issues raised about inadequate heating for
some time also went unanswered. It was only when the TV news got involved
did Kainga Ora finally respond and advised it was a 'mistake' ie the
letter was incorrect and even then Kainga Ora only responded back to the
TV news person and not the tenant in the first instance. I recalled this
tenants message to Kainga Ora..'We are humans too'.

 

The problem is,and has always been, that HNZ/Kainga Ora treat tenants as
renters living in state properties- and not people who live in homes and
we should be because ...We are humans too.

 

And if their response is that these state houses were never meant to serve
as permanent homes,only temporary housing solutions, then why doesn't
Kainga Ora(and other related governments agencies) get rid of all
discrimination in NZ and hence, all unemployment?

 

And why doesn't Kainga Ora EVER promote its tenants for fulltime
employment so that they can qualify for housing loans & could they not
start by hiring its tenants to work for Kainga Ora -would they not be
proven to have better insight(and compassion) as a Kainga Ora tenant?

 

The fact is when you keep someone unemployed ie poor, you keep them
desperate, vulnerable, at risk, and compliant -at the mercy of government
agencies.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

D Dahya

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

 

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[9][FOI #17520 email]

 

Is [10][Kāinga Ora request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Kâinga Ora–Homes and Communities? If so, please contact us
using this form:

[11]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[12]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you
recognise the sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the
Report Phishing button.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #17520 email]
2. mailto:[FOI #17520 email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[FOI #17520 email]
5. http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentifica...
6. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
9. mailto:[FOI #17520 email]
10. mailto:[Kāinga Ora request email]
11. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
12. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

hide quoted sections

Dear Mr Dahya

 

Please find attached a response from Rachel Kelly of Kâinga Ora – Homes
and Communities to your request for information.

 

Thank you

Kâinga Ora

 

-----Original Message-----

From: D Dahya <[1][FOI #17520 email]>

Sent: Thursday, 11 November 2021 4:35 AM

Subject: Official Information request - Kainga Ora - Unnecessary removal
of trees from tenancy & possible conflict of interest

 

[You don't often get email from
[2][FOI #17520 email]. Learn why this is
important at [3]http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentifica...

 

Dear Kâinga Ora–Homes and Communities,

 

Even though this relates to one particular tenancy it is typical of how
Kainga Ora treat most of their  properties.

 

In march this year a neighbour vacated the Kainga Ora property on Mungavin
Ave,Porirua, directly next door to us. Over the last 40 years weve seen so
many tenants come and go from this property which has always been a Kainga
Ora property and as usual the property is cleaned/tidied up,inside and out
for the new incoming tenants. However, this is the first time that such
significant(and unnecessary) changes were made to the yard.

 

This Mungavin Ave property(as noted in call number 513653), at the time of
vacation, had several tall trees that had stood for over 40 years  but for
some reason Kainga Ora decided to cut them all down leaving the property
bare and 'sparse', now completely exposed to wind and sun.

 

The concern I have is that as a longstanding neighbour of this property I
know (and experienced) the benefit these trees have provided to not only
the tenant, or to surrounding ones but also to the property itself. The
trees were especially important as they had protected  against wind, for
typically draft prone state homes, as well as providing shelter from
sun,rain, noise and maintained the privacy of the tenant(s). Now that the
'damage' has been done will Kainga Ora plan to install draft proof window
frames in homes directly affected by the unnecessary removal of these
trees?

 

They have removed any chance of continuing past activities that involved
these trees-activities typical of 'Kiwi kid' childhoods. These trees had
provided many years of enjoyable activites for the tenants and their
children especially (this property has always housed tenants with
children) who ran around them,hid behind them,swung from them -there was
always a rope swing in the front yard- typical Kiwi past times such as
'hide and seek',climbing, rope swings etc, but, just as important, they
had provided shelter from the sun in summer and served as wind shelters
from the cold blasts during winter, and, as Kainga Ora are fully aware,
these old ' state houses' are commonly known for their drafty
disposition/nature -where curtains are blown about even when the windows
closed.

 

With New Zealand's growing and ever changing ethnic diversity through
immigration etc the 'Kiwi way of old' has been gradually disappearing. By
removing 'Kiwi childhood' elements relating to outdoor activities (which
forms a integral part of their upbringing and character) you contribute to
the advancing and accelerating demise of such typical 'Kiwi kid'
upbringings just simply removing the trees. What you also do is force
them(indoors) to take up indoor activities to replace outdoor 'play'  such
as increasing their online screen time and most likely creating
lazy,obese,visually impaired, unfit disconnected future adults- if they
are prevented from connecting /enjoying outdoor activities in their
younger years  they will have no desire, motivation to take up outdoor
activities in adult life will they not?

 

Coincidentally, last nights News item the Minister of GCSB, mentioned
certain crimes are more likely to occur due to people having more
opportunity/time to spend online.

 

So, it makes absolutely no sense at all why Kainga Ora had arranged to cut
them all down at the stump -leaving no trace they ever existed- a
bare,sparse, and now wind prone area- and with the wind barrier gone all
neighbouring houses will now be affected to bear the wind unhindered as
well.

 

It would have made more sense to cut the trees down halfway rather than
remove them completely as this would have preserved the sun,wind
protection and privacy offered by the trees.

 

A short time after this maintenance work I witnessed another Mungavin
property down the road which had a longstanding (but short) tree which was
also completely and unnecessarily removed - so what was the reason for
removing this tree completely?

 

POINTS:

 

GENERAL

 

- As NZ largest landlord and NZ social housing provider Kainga Ora have an
obligation and responsibility to ensure the welfare of tenants 
and,especially their children in the properties or as they were known as
'HNZ' raised children'?

 

-Kainga Ora's pre-tenancy maintenance involved the complete removal of the
longstanding trees and along with it, any wind sun/heat protection
provided by them, including the removal of the makeshift garden (I had
built for the previous tenants)- removing any opportunity(and
encouragement) to grow their own vegetables this practice of growing your
garden instills respect and a sense of pride in the property.

 

-So such a small action,a common practice by Kainga Ora, our largest
landlord, you impact on a very large segment of NZ childrens populations
ie physical health,mental wellbeing, and their future 'adultness' -NZ's
future generation.

 

-By removing the trees, without giving the affected tenants the
opportunity voice their concerns, provide relevant,and therefore
meaningful area specific feedback you are treating them as, and only as,
mere tenants,their homes as just 'rentals' who cant afford to buy their
own homes(even if they do have continuous employment periods). A dig I was
often subjected to many years ago but no so much now as most, appear to be
in the same (house)boat.

 

-Removing all of the trees from the property you remove longstanding
iconic Kiwi childhood past times - hide and seek, rope swings etc the
removal of such options would discourage children from outdoor activities
leaving nothing for them to play on especially in a fully fenced property
directing them towards indoor activities instead.

 

The absence of the outdoor activity options will impact on the wellbeing
being of the tenants children and the tenants themselves increasing stress
levels and affecting general wellbeing overall which will have lasting
affects.

 

- Do you believe that as NZ's social housing provider, the largest
landlord in the country, have a responsibility to ensure the sustained
welfare of those in your tenancies, especially their children, or as they
were previously known as 'HNZ raised children ?

 

1. NZ HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (NZHUD)

 

'Good urban design'.

My understanding is that NZHUD is about good urban design,with
consideration to the particular place and community, avoiding the 'blanket
approach' and with the view to creating homes rather than rental
properties/financial assets.

 

NZHUD and Kainga Ora

Coincidentally, I have just recently found out (while writing this
information request) that both agencies are located in the same building
in Wellington and so I assume they do talk to each other and so why is
there such a misalignment of objectives between the two?

 

There is no point in good urban design when Kainga Ora,  NZ's largest
landlord, do not follow the objectives of NZHUD's good urban design. It
appears that Kainga Ora's common needless practice of removing
longstanding/any trees without thought to environment,tenants(and their
children) including surrounding tenants, opposes the principles of NZHUD.

 

By removing the trees, without discussion,thought, denying the opportunity
to accept meaningful area specific feedback you are treating them as,and
only as, mere tenants who cant afford to buy their own homes.

 

You have  removed sun,noise, wind protection and privacy from the tenancy
-all without condsideration or regard to health,privacy & wellbeing and by
denying the opportunity to accept meaningful area specific feedback from
those in the know.

 

Kainga Ora needs to align its property maintenance practices to that of
NZHUD otherwise you have two government agencies with  opposing goals who
both have impact on the NZ landscape and hence the Kiwi way of life?

 

The NZHUD website
([4]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...)
states ...

(I have noted relevant questions beside them for context purposes).

 

0.'Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) was established in 2018 to implement the Government’s housing and
urban development programme to end homelessness, make housing affordable
and make cities more liveable.'

 

1. 'The story behind our name

'HUD adopted a te reo Mâori name in November 2020. Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga
translates to ‘the foundation for a treasured home’.

 

The name comes from the Mâori proverb ‘he kura kâinga e hokia, he kura
tangata e kore e hokia’, or ‘a treasured home will endure, not so a
treasured person’.

 

It carries a strong connection to our purpose: he kâinga ora, he hapori
ora – thriving communities where everyone has a place to call home.

 

It speaks to the importance of ensuring the wellbeing of people within the
home, and our connection with the land – acknowledging the generations of
people who have always called this place ‘home’ – and our commitment to
delivering for future generations of New Zealanders.'

 

Questions:

a, How can one have a treasured home without the benefit,safety and
welfare trees provide to both tenants and the environment?

 

2. Place-based approach

'Our place-based approach recognises that every community has their own
housing and urban development challenges and opportunities, and that a
‘one size fits all’ approach isn’t right to address them. We use what we
know about places to inform how we work with communities, and to determine
whether local action or broader changes are needed.'

 

Questions:

a, What place-based research did Kainga Ora conduct to educate themselves
regarding that particular property?

 

b, What knowledge about the specific place did you use to determine the
action taken?

 

3.We think about the long-term

We focus beyond just the immediate issues and short-term solutions.'

 

Questions:

a, What 'longterm' issues were applied in this instance?

 

4. We are people-centered

'When we design policies and services, we start with the people who will
be affected. Being people-centered also means taking care of those in
immediate need.'

 

Questions:

 

a, How were the longterm needs of the tenants met in this instance?

 

5. 'How does Kâinga Ora relate to Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga - Ministry of
Housing and Urban Development?'

'Kâinga Ora and Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga - Ministry of Housing and Urban
Development have complementary and interdependent roles.

 

The Ministry is responsible for leadership in the housing and urban
system, advising the Government on strategic direction and for Kâinga Ora,
policy advice, and monitoring the system including Kâinga Ora, purchasing
public housing places and regulatory oversight.

 

Kâinga Ora is the Government’s primary housing and urban development
delivery arm focused on providing public housing principally for those
most in need and initiating or undertaking urban development.'

 

6. 'Kâinga Ora has two key roles:

 

-being a public housing landlord

 

-partnering with the development community, Mâori, local and central
government and others on urban development projects of all sizes'

 

7. 'Te Tûâpapa Kura Kâinga - Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
works with central and local government agencies, the housing sector and
communities across New Zealand to improve housing affordability and
supply, ensure tenants live in warm, dry, healthy and safe rental housing,
and improve housing quality and choices for Mâori and their whânau.'

 

- 'Warm,dry,healthy and safe rental housing' - by removing trees you have
removed healthy outdoor activity resource/options for growing children as
well as sun shelter(skin protection) and wind barriers(essential for
maintaining warm houses).

 

-As children grow they need physical activities essential in maintaining
health and fitness which eliminates/significantly reduces potential health
problems later in life?

 

- It forces parents to purchase outdoor activity equipment for the
children placing more strain on household budget impacting on their
'affordability' in general as well as for housing.

 

Questions:

a, So is there communication between both agencies -Kainga ora and NZHUD
especially when they are located in the same building?

 

8."Ensure houses meet needs

Ensure that our houses are warm, dry, accessible, and affordable to run,
and meet the needs and changing life circumstances of families and
households."

 

Questions:

a, How does completely removing the trees meet the needs of changing
circumstances of families and households?

 

9.'Priorities

Ensure that rental houses support health and wellbeing Increase supply of
universally designed and accessible housing Ensure buildings are resilient
and resource efficient.'

 

- By removing trees you have removed healthy outdoor activity
resource/options for growing children as well as sun shelter(skin
protection) and wind barriers(essential in maintaining warm houses).

 

10.'Re-establish housing’s primary role as a home rather than a financial
asset'

 

- By removing trees, privacy,rope swings,eliminating outdoor activities
options,leaving the yard bare and sparse for tenants and their children
you have removed the 'home' element and treated (& perpetuated) it as just
another 'rental house'. In fact, prior to Kainga Ora's pre-tenancy
maintenance the yard was more of a home than a rental with flourishing
trees,shade and options for outdoor activities.

 

11. 'Plan and invest in our places

Ensure our neighbourhoods and places meet the needs of our communities
today and are well equipped to meet long-term climate, social, cultural,
environmental, and economic challenges and opportunities.'

 

- By compelling tenants to go out and purchase their own sun
protection,heating equipment & recreational items etc place more strain on
existing household budgets.

 

Questions:

a, How has Kainga Ora met the needs of growing children and the 'long term
climate' in this(their) tenancies when they continue their practice of
completely and unnecessarily removing trees?

 

12. 'Priorities

Plan for growth and change in places

Ensure infrastructure investment and planning support growth and change
Reduce emissions and support communities to adapt to the effects of
climate change.'

 

Questions:

a, How has Kainga Ora planned for growth for future tenancies by
permanently removing the trees?

 

b, Does Kainga Ora consider trees as an important part of the reducing
emissions and the impact on the environment?

 

13.
[5]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

'A place-based approach to housing and urban development policy Every
community has their own housing and urban development challenges and
opportunities and a 'one size fits all' approach will not work to address
them.

 

We're taking a deliberate, place-based approach to tackling New Zealand's
housing and urban development challenges. This approach uses an
understanding of places to inform how we work with communities.'

 

Questions:

a, How was the placed-based approach applied to this tenancy?

b, Was not the complete removal of the trees without regard to outdoor
activities and Kiwi past times a 'blanket approach' and treating the
tenancy as a 'rental' rather than a 'home'?

c, What effort did you make to gain an understanding of that particular
'place'?

d, Why did you not respond to my email that outlined my concerns and
feedback prior to the work commencing?

e, What action did you take regarding my email?

 

Questions:

a, Are your property maintenance practices currently aligned with NZHUDs
objectives?

 

b, Why were all the trees removed completely as part of the pre-tenancy
maintenance for this property?

 

c, By removing the trees what activities are the children able to
participate in for outdoor activities?

 

d, By removing the natural resources for outside activities what
replacement resources has Kainga Ora introduced for the new tenants and
their children?

 

e, Do you encourage/prefer tenants/children to spend more time online than
on outdoor activities in the yard?

 

f, Do you increase or decrease the likelihood of sunburn if you have
removed all natural tree shading from the property?

 

g, Why didn't Kainga Ora respond to the report of the smell of chemical
odour on the property- especially when they knew the tenants children
would obviously be outside in the yard?

 

h, Is Kainga Ora going to install new draft proof window frames on all the
properties now affected by the removal of the trees?

 

i, How have you maintained/encouraged Kiwi pasttimes & preserved outdoor
options for the tenants (and their children) that existed prior to the
removal of the trees?

 

***Example....

 

Here is a recent actual example highlighting the lack of process by Kainga
Ora to ensure alignment of NZHUD's principles/objectives, good urban
design, quality workmanship and a safe environment

 

Repaired fence.

 

Recently, due to careless driving, a corner section of fence bordering the
entrance to a neighbouring shared driveway was completely damaged/wiped
out- to be fair this was easily done as there is a common practice of
cutting the corner when entering the driveway  because there is nothing
preventing/obstructing the drivers from doing so.

 

We also discovered the fence was protecting electricity and
telecommunications pillars and we were fortunate both pillars to not have
been damaged at all. 9 days after notifying Kainga Ora the fence was
repaired(during which time the telecommunications pillar was left exposed
to vandalism - which did occur where the 'top' of the pillar had been
removed exposing wires and circuitry to weather elements) but Kainga Ora
did not check the quality of the work. Even though the fence was repaired
to Kainga Ora's standards, it did not meet NZHUD's criteria/principles of
'good urban design'.

 

The initial design of the fence consisted of square palings each 5 inches
apart allowing visibility through it of children about to walk across the
driveway in front of exiting vehicles- a safety feature in my view.The
repaired section of the fence was not consistant with the initial design -
flatboard palings without gaps obscuring any view through it.

 

Again, there was no process/effort or post work checks in place to ensure
quality of workmanship or,more importantly, consistency in design.

 

Another point is that the damage could have been prevented,again, through
'good urban design' and so have requested of the local Porirua City
Council to install a concrete post on the berm  that would protect the
damaged fence corner (and hence protecting the electricity &
telecommunications pillars also) by preventing vehicles from cutting the
corner when entering the driveway.

 

Despite the council's initial non-sensible response advising that the
concrete post would only present another hazard - I will ask Kainga Ora &
NZHUD to support my request for a concrete post.  I have lodged an
information request via this website - refer link
[6]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

The concrete post prevents cutting the corner and visibility through the
fence allows for safety of drivers and passing children,in other words - a
good urban design.

 

2. TREES/SHADE/Sun protection

 

By removing the trees you have removed the natural(cost free) sun
protection provided by them for the tenants and the many children that
have come and gone from this tenancy over the last 35 years. I have seen
them play in the yards, take shelter under the trees from a few months old
to their teens.

 

In this case you have increased the likelihood of sun exposure therefore
skin damage to tenants(and their children) who spend time in their own
backyards.

 

The absence of adequate sun shelter will force tenants(if they can afford
it) to buy sun protection items- not as effective or cost effective as
trees that were there already.

 

Cutting the trees halfway would have addressed  any issues and still
preserved the shelter offered by them.

 

Kainga Ora were advised by the contractors that the trees were the cause
of the mould and so all needed to be removed - these were the same
contractors  that would be removing the trees.

 

How did Kainga Ora address the conflict of interest in this advice?

 

The trees were removed to address longstanding mould on the interior and
exterior surfaces of the house - there was only one side of the house that
was in shade and that was due to it being so close to the neighbouring
house and so the trees were not the cause of the shade on that side of the
house.

 

For interior surfaces - surely this would involve replacing the gib walls
that were already infected with mould - removing the trees outside would
not remove the ingrained mould.

 

Questions:

a, What is the reason for removing all of the trees completely?

 

b, If it was to address mould would not cutting the trees halfway/thinning
them out have achieved your expectation of eliminating the mould?

 

c, Apparently Kainga Ora were advised by the contractors that the trees
were the cause of the mould and so all needed to be removed - these were
the same contractors that would be removing the trees.

 

How did Kainga Ora address the conflict of interest in this advice?

 

d, Did Kainga ora consult with NZHUD on this point?

 

e, By removing all of the trees have you increased the sun/heat impact on
the property (including neighbouring properties) increasing the likelihood
of sunburn?

 

f, Is Kainga Ora aware of the potential of sunburn/skin cancer in
properties that have no shade protection(ie trees) for their tenants?

 

g, How have you maintained the pre-existing levels of shade protection
offered by the property prior to the removal of the trees for the tenant
and for the neighbouring ones?

 

h, What sun protection have you left in place of the removal of the trees?

 

i, Did you consider the impact cutting down the trees ie the wind ,noise
and shade protection the trees provided and how have you maintained these
elements to pre-existing levels?

 

j, Was it possible to have the trees cut down half way and would it have
been more cost effective to do so?

 

k, Would this method have produced less waste needing to be shredded by
contractors?

 

l, Does shade/sun protection relate to the relative peace and comfort of
tenants?

 

3. WIND

 

By removing the trees you have; removed the natural(cost free) wind
barrier they have provided that tenancy and the neighbouring ones for over
35 years, have you increased the wind impact on the property-and the
neighbouring  tenancies.

 

The absence of the natural wind barrier will increase draft exposure and
heating requirements in the home.

 

Questions:

a, Is Kainga Ora aware of the cold drafty nature of old state houses.

 

b,  If Kainga Ora are aware that these old state houses are known for
their drafts why would you remove the only natural wind barriers providing
protection for over 40  years at no cost to Kainga Ora just prior to
winter?

 

c, Will the removal of the trees ie natural wind barriers increase the
amount of drafts entering the home changing the heating requirements for
the tenants?

 

d, Will the removal of the trees cause tenants to increase their heating
requirements(as well as their reliance on) on heat pumps,electric heaters,
fireplaces etc all at a cost to themselves?

 

e, Will Kainga Ora replace the drafty old wooden window framing with new
draft proof ones for those properties affected by the removal of the
natural wind barriers?

 

f, How have you maintained the same level of wind protection for the
tenancy (and the neighbouring one's) that existed prior to the removal of
the trees?

 

g, Do you expect the tenants themselves to maintain the same level of wind
protection for their home?

 

h, By removing the trees have you increased the wind impact on the
property-and the neighbouring tenancies?

 

i, Is Kainga Ora going to install new draft proof window frames on all the
properties now affected by the removal of the trees?

 

j, Does the removal of wind barriers relate to the relative peace and
comfort of tenants?

 

4.NOISE

 

By removing the trees you have removed the natural (cost free)noise
barrier the trees have provided the tenancy(and neighbouring ones) for
over 40 years thereby increasing the likelyhood of noise
occurances,reports, complaints to and from the property including that of
neighbouring tenancies?

 

Because of the complete removal of the trees and the noise barrier offered
by them you have increased the likelihood of noise issues from activities
that were not previously present.

 

I have noticed since the trees were removed significant increase in
vehicle stereo music throughout the day and night -originating  from
specific vehicles not as noticeable prior to the removal of the trees.

 

Questions:

a, By removing the trees have you increased the noise impact on this
property and neighbouring ones?

 

b, How have you maintained the same level of noise protection for the
tenancy (and the neighbouring one's) that existed prior to the removal of
the trees?

 

c, How do you expect the tenants to maintain the same level of noise
protection for their home?

 

d, Does removal of noise barriers relate to the relative peace and comfort
of tenants?

 

e, By removing the trees have you increased the likelihood of noise impact
on this property and neighbouring one's leading to noise complaints?

 

f, By removing the trees and hence the noise barrier have you increased
the likelihood of noise complaints to and from this property and
neighbouring one's?

 

g, Does the removal of noise barriers relate to the relative peace and
comfort of tenants?

 

5. ROPE SWING..

 

By removing the trees you have removed a longstanding iconic Kiwi
childhood past time - the rope swing contributing to the demise of the
typical Kiwi childhood.

 

The removal of rope swings/trees etc would discourage children from
outdoor activities leaving nothing for them to play on around especially
in a contained fully fenced property etc and therefore encourage indoor
activities instead.

 

No tenant will refuse a house tenancy if offered just because it doesn't
have a trees and a rope swing- especially more so in the currents/todays
housing/rental climate.

 

Questions:

a, Is it not in Kainga Ora interests to preserve traditional Kiwi past
times such as hide and seek etc?

 

b, Would the removal of rope swings/trees discourage/limit options for
children of available outdoor activities?

 

c, Would the removal of outdoor options compel tenants/children to take up
indoor activities?

 

d, By removing options for outdoor activities would you not force
tenants/children indoors to spend longer periods of time on computer
related activities which would impact on their general wellbeing?

 

e, If you remove options for outdoor activities will that not encourage
restless children,increase stress levels within the family and is that not
a h&s issue?

 

f, By removing outdoor options would this not increase the chances of
laziness,obesity,disconnectedness (later in life) and impact on general
wellbeing of the  children(and tenants)?

 

g, How do you expect the tenants to maintain the balance of indoor outdoor
activities for their children?

 

h, How do you expect tenants themselves to maintain the same level of Kiwi
past times/outdoor activity options for their children that existed prior
to the removal of the rope swing/trees?

 

i, What effect do you think it will have on children with limited/removed
outdoor options?

 

6. BEES..

 

There were atleast 2 contractor companies involved in the yard cleanup
work- the tree cutters and the yard maintenance contractor - who spent
some time 'cleaning up' the yard before the tree cutters arrived to remove
the trees.

 

By the time the tree cutters had completed their work and left after a
week I noticed the beehive entrance had been covered in dirt -  most
likely to suffocate the bees. I had also reported another matter -smelling
a chemical on the property - both points went unresponded to by Kainga Ora
(call number Call 513653).

 

I had discovered a beehive on the property after work began.

 

It appears that the Kainga Ora/contractors have addressed the beehive
hazard themselves without reporting to the appropriate agencies.

 

- Kainga Ora failed to warn the new tenants -who had children -of the
details of the presence of a beehive on the property.

 

- I had also reported a chemical odour from the property but received no
response to that nor to my reports of the beehive. They then allowed
tenants with children to move in to the property without
notifying/addressing  them of the beehive or chemical odour.

 

-The only response I received from Kainga Ora, was after the trees had
already been cut, during a phone call I  received which resulted in a
fruitless(and pointless) conversation with a staff member (by the name of
Sina?) who failed to identify herself adequately neither giving me her
full name(for future follow ups) nor title - I had asked whether they
received any reports of bees on the property or any chemical odours - she
told me she couldn't tell me because it didn't relate to our tenancy & was
a 'privacy issue' and was generally uninformative on simple points.

 

She didn't realise that this was a health and safety issue -and affects
neighbouring tenants also, which means I had a right to know, hence this
OI request.

 

-This is an health and safety affecting other neighbouring tenants because
as far as I know bees have the ability to fly, and fly well over fences to
neighbouring properties without consideration to 'privacy issues'- even
though Kainga Ora should have considered tenant's 'privacy' when they
removed the trees. It appears Kainga Ora's respect for 'privacy' only
applies to their own.

 

-There appears to be a lack of accountability or process ensuring Kainga
Ora are kept informed of unexpected  developments - as in this case where
Kainga Ora had no measures in place to ensure they be kept informed of
such updates from contractors(or are Kainga Ora not interested in any
'problems' that would hamper the tenanting of properties?).

 

-There doesn't appear to be any monitoring or post checks of work that is
done/completed on the property perhaps this is because staff feel that it
would not be assessed in their annual performance reviews -which generally
depends on the expectations/requirements of senior staff. Refer to 'NZ
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - Good urban design' above regarding the
repaired fence.

 

Questions:

a, Was Kainga Ora aware of a beehive on the property,if so, from who,when
& what action was taken?

 

b, Did Kainga Ora alert the new tenants(which included children) of the
beehive,if so, how long after they had moved in?

 

c, Are Kainga Ora required to be notified of the presence of a beehive on
the property by its workers?

 

d, Are workers hired by Kainga Ora allowed to dispose of the beehive
hazard themselves?

 

e, If bees were 'disposed' of by contractors without Kainga Ora knowledge
- what action would be taken?

 

f, What is the process when a beehive is discovered on a Kainga Ora
property?

 

g, What process is in place to ensure Kainga Ora are kept informed of
relevant updates from workers?

 

h, If a beehive is discovered on a Kainga Ora property are nearby
neighbours required to be notified?

 

i, Is a beehive on a Kainga Ora property considered a health and safety
issue?

 

j, How do new tenants ensure their own safety if they are not advised of
the bee hazard?

 

k, Did you find the source of the chemical odour why did Kainga Ora not
act on this information?

 

l, What action was taken regarding the call number 513653 relating to bees
and chemical odour?

 

7. GARDEN:

 

There was a freshly dug garden (fenced off with recycled old concrete
blocks from a previous housing renewals project) left by the previous
tenants prior to the maintenance work beginning but was completely removed
by the contractors in preparation for the incoming tenants.

 

The removal of the makeshift garden (which I had dug at the request of the
previous tenants so that they could to grow their own food etc) removes
any opportunity-and encouragement- to grow their own vegetables etc.

 

The practice of growing your garden instills respect and a sense of pride
in the property - which typically is associated with significant
maintenance costs/expenses (through viewing the tenancy property as just
another 'rental') prior,during and after tenancy occupation.

 

The concrete blocks were disposed of at the landfill only add to another
unnecessary impact on the environment.

 

- The removal of the garden meant:

 

The nonsensical & unnecessary collection and disposal by the contractor of
broken up concrete paving (that was re-used to border the garden), at the
landfill.

 

Removing any opportunity(and encouragement) to grow their own vegetables.
The practice of growing your garden instills respect and a sense of pride
in the property.

 

Denying the new tenant the opportunity to continue using the garden that
had already existed.

 

Questions:

a,Why didn't Kainga Ora leave the garden for the new tenants giving them
the choice whether to continue maintaining it or not?

 

b, Does Kainga Ora consider a garden important and beneficial?

 

8. PRIVACY:

 

Without the opportunity of discussion the removal of the trees have
allowed visual access to property,removal of surrounding tenants privacy,
and initiated potential complaints of what is seen in other tenants
properties and allowing it to be come more vulnerable to burglaries though
visual access

 

- the complete removal of trees has visually opened up the surroundings
yards  to prying eyes  and has removed the longstanding privacy tenants
are rightly entitled to and were accustomed to it has also placed family
pets at risk to passing stray dogs.

 

By allowing significant visual access to the property you place family
pets at risk of passing unrestrained dogs.

 

Questions:

 

a, What importance does Kainga Ora place on the privacy of tenants?

 

b, After removing the trees how have you maintained the pre-existing
levels of privacy for the tenant and surrounding residents?

 

c, Has the removal of the trees allowed more visual access to property
removing privacy from surrounding tenants also?

 

d, Has the removal of the trees increased the likelihood of potential
complaints (by other tenants) of what is now seen(or heard) in other
tenants properties?

 

e, Has the removal of the trees which now allows significant visual access
to the property placed family pets at risk from passing unrestrained stray
dogs?

 

f, Does Kainga Ora consider the privacy of tenants directly related to
their relative peace,comfort and enjoyment?

 

LAST WORD

 

Kainga Ora have affected a tenants right to peace and comfort,enjoyment.

 

You are contributing to the demise of old Kiwi past times, impacting on
health and general wellbeing and opposing the principles of NZHUD.

 

Referring back to a TV news item some months ago of a lady in a Kainga
Ora  property who received a letter last year advising her rent has
increased by an extra $200 per week - despite numerous efforts to contact
and discuss the matter with Kainga Ora in various forms no response was
received and where numerous issues raised about inadequate heating for
some time also went unanswered. It was only when the TV news got involved
did Kainga Ora finally respond and advised it was a 'mistake' ie the
letter was incorrect and even then Kainga Ora only responded back to the
TV news person and not the tenant in the first instance. I recalled this
tenants message to Kainga Ora..'We are humans too'.

 

The problem is,and has always been, that HNZ/Kainga Ora treat tenants as
renters living in state properties- and not people who live in homes and
we should be because ...We are humans too.

 

And if their response is that these state houses were never meant to serve
as permanent homes,only temporary housing solutions, then why doesn't
Kainga Ora(and other related governments agencies) get rid of all
discrimination in NZ and hence, all unemployment?

 

And why doesn't Kainga Ora EVER promote its tenants for fulltime
employment so that they can qualify for housing loans & could they not
start by hiring its tenants to work for Kainga Ora -would they not be
proven to have better insight(and compassion) as a Kainga Ora tenant?

 

The fact is when you keep someone unemployed ie poor, you keep them
desperate, vulnerable, at risk, and compliant -at the mercy of government
agencies.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

D Dahya

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

 

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[7][FOI #17520 email]

 

Is [8][Kāinga Ora request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Kâinga Ora–Homes and Communities? If so, please contact us
using this form:

[9]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[10]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you
recognise the sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the
Report Phishing button.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #17520 email]
2. mailto:[FOI #17520 email]
3. http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentifica...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7. mailto:[FOI #17520 email]
8. mailto:[Kāinga Ora request email]
9. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
10. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

hide quoted sections