Franklin P&C to fight housing proposal

TuggLife said :

29 apartments doesn’t seem like an excessively large development to me. As with any public housing, it seems like it’s a good idea for the housing to be geographically close to services, because a lack of access to transport and services is likely to exacerbate disadvantage.

At least this objection lacks the open bigotry we saw from Nicholls residents in May regarding the proposal for public housing close to Gold Creek School.

I am not convinced of the Franklin P&C’s grievance relating to the lack of consultation, when they are being provided with exactly that – an open opportunity to provide input into the proposal.

A word to the wise to Amy and the P&C, though – it is very difficult to publicly raise these objections without appearing predjudiced towards those experiencing disadvantage (and, less politely, a NIMBY concerned about their own house value.) The Franklin P&C flyer acknowledge that some of the residents may have children attend their school – I hope they are welcoming to the new pupils, and that the pupils don’t find out how hard their own school’s P&C lobbied to keep them away.

After all, there, but for the grace of God, go I.

Seeing this months later, but thought worth responding to. The Franklin community had been lobbying 12 months prior to the public housing proposal announcement to expand the school. The residents are very concerned about school capacity issues and quality education (ie overcrowded schools – specialty areas used for classrooms, teachers as resources are stretched, decreased outcomes for students – very simplistic explanation). It was unfortunate the proposal was for public housing as we would have opposed anything (tennis courts, gyms, cafes, childcare centres) that wasn’t going to provide more classrooms for the students at Franklin. The reason why there was no open bigotry is because there wasn’t any. The Franklin community is diverse, close-knit and very welcoming. As it was, the majority of the p&c executive committee did not reside in Franklin and nor are their children at the school in 2017. We had a very clear objective that we wanted a bigger school and because of a successful campaign the ACT government will be using that land to expand the school.

TuggLife said :

I suspect we’re not going to agree on this issue, but I stand by calling statements by the Nicholls residents such as “I am baffled as to why the government thinks this would be a good idea to put possibly drug addicts, paedophiles and other people with mental disabilities within the same precinct” open bigotry.

Correct. We will not agree. I think existing residents of any area that might have the likes of as u say “drug addicts, paedophiles and other people with mental disabilities” potentially concentrated in a new development near me (especially if I had children) have a right to be concerned and raise the issue strongly. Without being labelled bigots.

See also post #17 for more info on potential occupants of these developments.

rommeldog56 said :

TuggLife said :

29 apartments doesn’t seem like an excessively large development to me. As with any public housing, it seems like it’s a good idea for the housing to be geographically close to services, because a lack of access to transport and services is likely to exacerbate disadvantage.

At least this objection lacks the open bigotry we saw from Nicholls residents in May regarding the proposal for public housing close to Gold Creek School.

I am not convinced of the Franklin P&C’s grievance relating to the lack of consultation, when they are being provided with exactly that – an open opportunity to provide input into the proposal.

A word to the wise to Amy and the P&C, though – it is very difficult to publicly raise these objections without appearing predjudiced towards those experiencing disadvantage (and, less politely, a NIMBY concerned about their own house value.) The Franklin P&C flyer acknowledge that some of the residents may have children attend their school – I hope they are welcoming to the new pupils, and that the pupils don’t find out how hard their own school’s P&C lobbied to keep them away.

After all, there, but for the grace of God, go I.

That’s pretty good – in the one post, NIMBY and BIGOTRY used to describe anyone who dares to raise a voice in opposition – anyone who dares to seek to protect the value of their greatest asset, their house – anyone who dares to want to defend urban open spaces instead of giving them up to developers, etc.

Yeah – well done.

Re protecting urban open space if those in Franklin were complaining about that they would be hypocrites. After all their land was not all that long ago urban open space.

Besides rather moot point in this case as across the road is a massive reserve that will never be built on.

In this case the issue is the fact it is public housing. Nothing more, to me that is very much Nibyism and bigotry.

TuggLife, as a former public housing tenant I emphatically disagree with you. See my comment at #10. I qualified as one of my children had a long term serious illness and I had two other children, which meant I could not work. However, when I had dealings with Housing in 2012/13 over an problematic development in my street, I was told in no uncertain terms that there is no way I would qualify now. They basically are so chronically low in stock the only people who get into public housing are those on the priority list, i.e. with a mixture of problems that may include being unemployable for anti-social reasons, drug addicts, released prisoners, people with serious mental health issues etc (i.e. can’t get or hold a private tenancy). The only non-problematic public housing tenants these days are the elderly and physically disabled.
However, being chronically low in stock does not mean they should create large developments solely of public tenants – that would be a huge mistake. All developments – like the ones planned for Chisholm, Franklin and Greenway – should be a mix of social and private housing. If they did it right for a change people would not be so angry. But people do not trust this government any more.

rommeldog56 said :

That’s pretty good – in the one post, NIMBY and BIGOTRY used to describe anyone who dares to raise a voice in opposition – anyone who dares to seek to protect the value of their greatest asset, their house – anyone who dares to want to defend urban open spaces instead of giving them up to developers, etc.

Yeah – well done.

That wasn’t actually what I said – I was highlighting the impression that voicing such opposition can create, especially when the objection is raised in relation to public housing. If I’m not mistaken, the P and C isn’t proposing that the site should be retained for urban open space, but rather reserve the land for future development by the school.

I suspect we’re not going to agree on this issue, but I stand by calling statements by the Nicholls residents such as “I am baffled as to why the government thinks this would be a good idea to put possibly drug addicts, paedophiles and other people with mental disabilities within the same precinct” open bigotry.

TuggLife said :

29 apartments doesn’t seem like an excessively large development to me. As with any public housing, it seems like it’s a good idea for the housing to be geographically close to services, because a lack of access to transport and services is likely to exacerbate disadvantage.

At least this objection lacks the open bigotry we saw from Nicholls residents in May regarding the proposal for public housing close to Gold Creek School.

I am not convinced of the Franklin P&C’s grievance relating to the lack of consultation, when they are being provided with exactly that – an open opportunity to provide input into the proposal.

A word to the wise to Amy and the P&C, though – it is very difficult to publicly raise these objections without appearing predjudiced towards those experiencing disadvantage (and, less politely, a NIMBY concerned about their own house value.) The Franklin P&C flyer acknowledge that some of the residents may have children attend their school – I hope they are welcoming to the new pupils, and that the pupils don’t find out how hard their own school’s P&C lobbied to keep them away.

After all, there, but for the grace of God, go I.

That’s pretty good – in the one post, NIMBY and BIGOTRY used to describe anyone who dares to raise a voice in opposition – anyone who dares to seek to protect the value of their greatest asset, their house – anyone who dares to want to defend urban open spaces instead of giving them up to developers, etc.

Yeah – well done.

29 apartments doesn’t seem like an excessively large development to me. As with any public housing, it seems like it’s a good idea for the housing to be geographically close to services, because a lack of access to transport and services is likely to exacerbate disadvantage.

At least this objection lacks the open bigotry we saw from Nicholls residents in May regarding the proposal for public housing close to Gold Creek School.

I am not convinced of the Franklin P&C’s grievance relating to the lack of consultation, when they are being provided with exactly that – an open opportunity to provide input into the proposal.

A word to the wise to Amy and the P&C, though – it is very difficult to publicly raise these objections without appearing predjudiced towards those experiencing disadvantage (and, less politely, a NIMBY concerned about their own house value.) The Franklin P&C flyer acknowledge that some of the residents may have children attend their school – I hope they are welcoming to the new pupils, and that the pupils don’t find out how hard their own school’s P&C lobbied to keep them away.

After all, there, but for the grace of God, go I.

Thanks JC, that’s even more worrying as it would mean they are in fact prevented from, properly salt and peppering residential public housing developments on ‘community’ zoned land? So they are getting a land grab and not complying with their own salt and pepper policies?
If so, that simply cunning and devious and, I note, proposed around Christmas which is clearly strategy in the most dodgy form. Completely unacceptable. Where is the Housing Minister on this?

miz said :

‘Community use’ = child care centre etc, not residential, see definitions here

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2008-27/copy/93028/pdf/2008-27.pdf

So this means the Franklin community is also losing land for community use.

Bzzt.Think you will find the Territory Plan holds the definitive definition:

The land in question is zoned CFZ: The full meaning is below.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2008-27/copy/96341/pdf/2008-27.pdf

See first page objective e.

“e) To encourage adaptable and affordable housing for persons in need of residential support or
care.”

Then go down further for a more complete list of what is and isn’t allowed, see supportive housing, that’s government housing, also know as social housing etc. So very much allowed.

What isn’t allowed is a (commercial) residential development among other things, but government housing is well within the definition.

‘Community use’ = child care centre etc, not residential, see definitions here

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2008-27/copy/93028/pdf/2008-27.pdf

So this means the Franklin community is also losing land for community use.