A strategy being developed for Dunedin's council housing includes a range of possibilities from selling and leaving it in the hands of "market forces" to making the council the sole provider of social housing, taking over the role of the State.
The draft social housing report has left the future of the council's policy wide open, something Cr Fliss Butcher, chairwoman of the working party that considered the matter, said was the plan.
"We're putting everything on the table with this one."
And while the change of government that led to Rodney Hide being named Minister for Local Government occurred late in the planning, councillors made clear yesterday if he wanted councils to keep rates down, as he had signalled, he could return to the State the provision of social housing.
"If Rodney Hide is saying put a cap on rates, let him see this report," Cr Michael Guest said at a full council meeting.
"Maybe the Government can pay 100%."
The report concluded there was a need to meet housing requirements by providing more one- and two-bedroom units.
"It is clear that a cash injection is required for this to occur.
"The council should work with central Government on this issue with a view to obtaining the funds needed."
But the report said the working party - Crs Butcher, Dave Cull, Teresa Stevenson and staff members - recommended not to include the $1 million required in next year's annual plan to retain the status quo, which was to build five to seven new units a year.
The council has 985 units, with an estimated market value of $64.5 million, and a policy that they pay for themselves through the rents.
There have been persistent rumours the council is planning to sell its social housing, although these appear to relate more to anger among councillors that the State has put money into housing in Wellington and Auckland, but not Dunedin, and to hopes the State could take the cost of Dunedin's housing stock.
Asked about option H in the report that reads: "Council sells existing units leaving the provision of social housing to market forces", Cr Butcher said it was not included to "scare the horses".
"The reason we've got all these houses is because central Government passed the buck to councils.
"That's why we want this to go out. We want it to be controversial.
"If people are concerned that's going to happen, we need to hear from them."
The council wanted to know what people really wanted in terms of social housing in the city, Cr Butcher said.
Cr Teresa Stevenson argued strongly option H should not be included in the policy, but faced derision from her colleagues, who noted she was on the working party that produced the report.
"I was a member," Cr Stevenson said.
"I actually read the minutes and turned up to the meeting."
But she said she raised concerns during working party meetings.
Cr Stevenson also questioned the legality of option E, which the report said could return $1 million a year to the council and which could be used to reduce debt in other parts of the council, or "fund other projects".
She was told by Mayor Peter Chin the report was prepared for public consultation and yesterday's meeting was not to debate the options.
Cr Syd Brown made his feelings on social housing clear when he told Cr Stevenson she was "conveniently forgetting" ratepayers had $70 million of capital in council housing on which they got no return.
The meeting approved the strategy for consultation, with Crs Butcher, Brown and Dave Cull to hear submissions, which will close in late February.
The options
Option A: Council only supplier of social housing, taking over Government's role.
Option B: Council builds 15-20 units a year.
Option C: Enters partnership with public, non-government organisations and private sector.
Option D: Status quo, build five to seven units a year.
Option E: Build no additional units.
Option F: Transfer all units to the State.
Option G: Sell units, invest money, provide subsidy to low-income earners.
Option H: Sell units, leave social housing to market forces.
