Dunedin's old, cold housing stock has long been a cause for concern and provided fodder for an increasing number of negative reports through the years.
It is therefore welcome news this week that the Dunedin City Council is committing towards the likely implementation of a national housing warrant of fitness (Wof) assessment system aimed at lifting housing standards in rental properties.
The council, and its counterparts in Auckland, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch, are to be involved in a trial of the proposed national Wof system, involving 125 properties.
The Wof assessment tool has been developed by the NZ Green Building Council, University of Otago, the five councils, the Accident Compensation Corporation and other housing experts, and will cover insulation and heating, moisture and ventilation, electricity and safety in rental properties.
The trial is only to test the effectiveness of the assessment tool; there is still much to consider before any system is adopted nationwide, and rightly so.
Questions remain around implementation, enforcement and administration, the cost to landlords and tenants, and whether the scheme should extend beyond rental properties.
Detractors argue the scheme could be detrimental to lower-income tenants by pushing up rents, as landowners seek to pass on associated costs to tenants.
Some have argued some people choose to live in poorer-quality homes and pay less rent.
But many lower-income families and elderly have little choice about where they can afford to live - and children have no choice at all.
It is often argued Dunedin's student population, too, pays high rents to live in sometimes unsuitable properties, which have at times been seen as a ''cash cow'' for landlords.
There are many responsible landlords, who ensure their tenants are well catered for, but the scheme would ensure those being left in the cold have the basics.
There have been horror stories in this newspaper about the state of some rental properties.
It seems reasonable to expect a certain benchmark for properties, to which landlords should adhere in order that our more vulnerable members of society can expect a reasonable standard of living.
And it must be remembered the Government and councils are landlords, too, and their housing stock will also be under scrutiny.
But cost is rightly a major consideration: implementation, assessment and administration costs seem unclear at this stage, and private landlords in particular could well feel justified in increasing rents to cover them, although it would be disappointing if gross rent hikes occurred as a result.
But the main positive behind the scheme is surely the consideration of long-term economic and social costs.
There are considerable health costs associated with inadequate housing.
Cold, damp, mouldy homes are particularly harmful to children, causing asthma and other respiratory infections, skin conditions and other ailments, which impact on children's physical and mental development, affect learning, and contribute to further social costs down the line.
There has been recent positive work around healthy housing initiatives, through subsidised insulation and heating schemes for homeowners and landlords.
Work is also being done on upgrading state housing throughout the country, such as fencing of properties and separating of driveways.
Dunedin has been leading the charge in terms of a Wof, with Otago Property Management last month implementing a Wof rating system for its 200-odd Dunedin rental properties, ahead of any such government or council scheme.
Its scheme was developed and trialled in conjunction with property owners, and the company said it was a ''win-win'' for tenants and landlords alike.
Shelter is certainly one of the most fundamental human requirements, and in a first-world country that shelter should be safe, warm, healthy and affordable.
The Wof system has great potential, and the trial results in March and further details will be eagerly anticipated, particularly if they can help transform some of our poorest-quality houses into ''homes''.
