The heading above is by Janine Starks (author of Moneytips and a financial commentator) in the Saturday Post on April 29th. It concurs with TRM’s view as recently expressed on 25 & 20 April, only she is a much better journalist expressing the hard facts more accurately than a tired old fisho struggling to promote the advantages of TRM’s cohousing proposal.
All the reactions are not a surprise as most of TRM’s inmates fit into the category of retirement village prospects. Most are elderly anglers, the ‘male, pale & stale’ brigade. Sometimes the lineup of fishos in the town pools resembles Dad’s Army. That is our market. So the response from this group should have been expected. Many are retired to follow their passion – trout fishing on the mighty Tongariro River. Many have been classified as MIA – missing in action – recently when the river has been flowing at twice the normal levels as the power company – Genesis – complete some maintenance work and closed off the canal to Lake Rotoaira. Most generally have the mature wisdom that comes only with retirement when they have more time to fully consider their future options and have stayed well away from retirement village financial traps as expressed in this informative and revealing opinion piece by Janine Starks.
Back to the article. The heart of the debate is over the harsh terms of legal tenure in retirement villages. She says: “We need to create structural and legal change in the industry. I don’t want to see my own generation faced with such unbalanced financial choices, in a market that’s grown organically into a co-joined monopoly. These units are sold at the market price of a home, but come with the rights of a renter. As a financial product, it’s a hybrid mess that doesn’t pass any sense of consumer fairness. The industry has become entrenched in its right to operate this way. Retirees provide them with free capital and they take the gains. On top of that, we have an exit fee route. Depending on the village, 25-30% of capital is lost, regardless of whether you live there for two years or twenty years…”
She could see through the RVA’s (Retirement Village Association) response by sixty residents claiming to represent 50,000 in retirement villages (as had TRM’s inmates). She claims – quote: “This was a cold hard industry stunt that lit up newspaper pages (and TRM’s blogs). As residents, you were pawns in that stunt. That isn’t your fault. It lacked believability and was a clear abuse of power by the Retirement Village Industry to get involved.”
That was also the main thread of TRM’s response, even if we did not express it so forcefully. We strongly recommend it to all of TRM’s Dad’s Army who are looking at their options for retirement lifestyle. TRM acknowledges any bias as we are waiting on resource consent approval for a cohousing option where the tenure options will be designed by our prospective residents’ committee, to be totally fair and equitable, to avoid any of the unfairness claims in the article above. We cannot do better than that.
