Advertisement

Greens not thrilled by public housing reduction at Northbourne Flats

By 9 November 2011 70

northbourne flats concept drawing

The Greens’ Amanda Bresnan is expressing displeasure at the plans for the Northbourne Flats which will see public housing spaces drop from 248 to 90.

“I’m pleased to see the redevelopment of the Northbourne flats site awarded to a design that incorporates good sustainability principles. However the Government must not use the redevelopment as a way to reduce the number of public housing dwellings, especially as the flats are located close to Civic and to transport and services,” Ms Bresnan said today.

“We’ve seen a decrease in the number of public housing dwellings at the site of the ABC flats, and an increase in moving public housing stock into outer suburbs.

“It is disappointing to see this happen to Northbourne Flats as well, and it presents a major disadvantage for current and future public housing tenants.

“The Greens don’t support the continual relocation of public housing away from central services. People in public housing should benefit from redevelopments such as Northbourne Flats and be able to remain in a central location such as Civic if they choose to,” Ms Bresnan said.

Please login to post your comments
70 Responses to
Greens not thrilled by public housing reduction at Northbourne Flats
Erg0 10:18 am
09 Nov 11
#1

It says a lot about the Green mindset that she seems to believe that public housing tenants have a greater entitlement to be close to central services than people who aren’t living off the government’s largesse.

That said, I think she’s missing the upside here: moving public housing to outer suburbs will likely increase the use of public transport in those areas, and the wealthy car users who replace them in the central location will no doubt make fewer trips than if they were living further out. It’s environmental policy by stealth!

Thumper 10:22 am
09 Nov 11
#2

Somehow I don’t think the sunshine and lollipops illustration will be a reality.

sarahsarah 10:31 am
09 Nov 11
#3

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

chewy14 10:40 am
09 Nov 11
#4

Wow,
So the Greens believe that public housing tenants should have better access to services than the people actually paying for those services.
Awesome.

krats 10:41 am
09 Nov 11
#5

Moving Public Housing Tenants To The Outer Suburbs Would Increase Public Transport Usage.Would That Not Be A Good Thing?

Erg0 10:43 am
09 Nov 11
#6

Is there an echo in here?

chewy14 10:45 am
09 Nov 11
#7

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

TheDancingDjinn 10:58 am
09 Nov 11
#8

chewy14 said :

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

Ride it like you stole it

Grail 11:01 am
09 Nov 11
#9

chewy14 said :

So the Greens believe that public housing tenants should have better access to services than the people actually paying for those services.

No, the Greens believe that people living in public housing should have equal access to public services. In addition, the Greens believe that displacing public housing tenants is not going to help those people in any way. The relocation of public housing tenants is just an exercise in hiding the embarrassing problem rather than addressing it.

Kicking poor people out of their homes just so rich buggers can have an ugly and expensive apartment block to live in isn’t really sending a message of hope to the underprivileged in this town, is it?

sarahsarah 11:17 am
09 Nov 11
#10

TheDancingDjinn said :

chewy14 said :

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

Ride it like you stole it

The man in blue on the bike further back must be a policeman in hot pursuit.

MonarchRepublic 11:38 am
09 Nov 11
#11

chewy14 said :

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

Not to mention, they are riding on the footpath, not the on road cycle lanes! Oh, the humanity!

chewy14 11:45 am
09 Nov 11
#12

Grail said :

chewy14 said :

So the Greens believe that public housing tenants should have better access to services than the people actually paying for those services.

No, the Greens believe that people living in public housing should have equal access to public services. In addition, the Greens believe that displacing public housing tenants is not going to help those people in any way. The relocation of public housing tenants is just an exercise in hiding the embarrassing problem rather than addressing it.

Kicking poor people out of their homes just so rich buggers can have an ugly and expensive apartment block to live in isn’t really sending a message of hope to the underprivileged in this town, is it?

So if it’s meant to be equal access to services then why do they all have to be close to Civic or main town centres? They already get free public transport, so distance shouldn’t be an issue.

And how does someone struggling to pay a mortgage on a crap house in West McGregor have equal access to services as a public housing tenant in a brand new unit in these redeveloped Northbourne flats?

I think kicking poor people out of these homes provides a better incentive than allowing them to enjoy government funded dwellings right next to the city, when others have to struggle to get by without the government help.
Public housing should be kept to an absolute minimum, with only the truly needy given a house/unit.

TheDancingDjinn 12:20 pm
09 Nov 11
#13

chewy14 said :

Grail said :

chewy14 said :

So the Greens believe that public housing tenants should have better access to services than the people actually paying for those services.

No, the Greens believe that people living in public housing should have equal access to public services. In addition, the Greens believe that displacing public housing tenants is not going to help those people in any way. The relocation of public housing tenants is just an exercise in hiding the embarrassing problem rather than addressing it.

Kicking poor people out of their homes just so rich buggers can have an ugly and expensive apartment block to live in isn’t really sending a message of hope to the underprivileged in this town, is it?

They already get free public transport, so distance shouldn’t be an issue.

What? who get’s free pblic transport? Pensioners – Elderly, single parent, and medical get 4 free trips on interstate routes, but as far as i am aware no one in this town gets free bus rides – am i wrong ? please provide something that backs that claim

Chop71 12:30 pm
09 Nov 11
#14

Where do I sign up?

Seems paying off my home has been a total waste of time.

Chop71 12:30 pm
09 Nov 11
#15

….and the kids on the hill are selling crack

Holden Caulfield 1:17 pm
09 Nov 11
#16

Erg0 said :

Is there an echo in here?

Yes I Think There Is.

chewy14 1:36 pm
09 Nov 11
#17

TheDancingDjinn said :

What? who get’s free pblic transport? Pensioners – Elderly, single parent, and medical get 4 free trips on interstate routes, but as far as i am aware no one in this town gets free bus rides – am i wrong ? please provide something that backs that claim

OK, not free but pretty close. It costs 55c~ for a 90 minute transfer on a concession card.
http://www.transport.act.gov.au/myway/concession.html

peterepete 1:45 pm
09 Nov 11
#18

sarahsarah said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

chewy14 said :

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

Ride it like you stole it

The man in blue on the bike further back must be a policeman in hot pursuit.

Pretty sure a helmet doesn’t do much at warp. Never heard Jean Luc say “helmets on – engage”

Mysteryman 1:50 pm
09 Nov 11
#19

chewy14 said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

What? who get’s free pblic transport? Pensioners – Elderly, single parent, and medical get 4 free trips on interstate routes, but as far as i am aware no one in this town gets free bus rides – am i wrong ? please provide something that backs that claim

OK, not free but pretty close. It costs 55c~ for a 90 minute transfer on a concession card.
http://www.transport.act.gov.au/myway/concession.html

It’s basically free because they are just going to scab the money of people in the interchange anyway.

JazzyJess 2:12 pm
09 Nov 11
#20

Wow people really have it in for public housing tenants. It’s worth remembering that a good percentage (and no I don’t know what the exact figure is) of the existing tenants have limited mobility and living nearer to Civic makes life that much easier for them.

Stevian 2:25 pm
09 Nov 11
#21

Mysteryman said :

[
It’s basically free because they are just going to scab the money of people in the interchange anyway.

Does that still go on? The last time it happened to me was over a year ago. It had gotten so bad I’d stopped saying “NO”, and just turned and walked away. Perhaps they leave me alone now because the can’t stand the rejection?

dbee 2:48 pm
09 Nov 11
#22

How can so many people over look the fact that most of the people living in those flats have been given a tenancy there because they had no other choice?
Housing isn’t just for “junkies”- its for people who need help. For people who need government assistance. Should single mothers with young children, domestic abuse victims and the mentally ill or physically handicapped members of our community be forced out of their homes because developers want the land that their homes are built on?
It is true, some people take advantage of public housing. But most of the people who are living there count themselves lucky for the opportunity. Let the people who can afford to pick and choose where they live pick and choose somewhere else.

Buzz2600 3:03 pm
09 Nov 11
#23

Does anyone else here think these apartments look hideous? What’s up with Canberra architecture? Why does every building in Canberra end up looking so mind-numbingly boring, dull and box-shape?

eh_steve 3:08 pm
09 Nov 11
#24

It’s not the proximity to the City Centre that irks me, but the prominence of it.

Northbourne Avenue is our St Kilda Road, and should be something great, a gateway to the Nation’s Capital.

First impressions last, and while less people would be seeing the city for the first time along that route than previously, it currently doesn’t really sell Canberra. In fact as far as sterotypes of the city as being an outdated town full of bureaucrats and junkies goes, a gateway lined by outdated flats with garbage hanging out the windows and outdated office buildings doesn’t do too much to dispel the image.

I’m a proud Canberran, but it’s hard to convince people of the good parts when that side of it is put so prominently on display. At least the Northbourne side doesn’t look as bad as the other side, driving down Karuah street can be a fun experience.

I lived briefly in the apartments on Henty street, there was always a fair bit of unwanted activity happening on that side of the street too.

I’m not suggesting that they should be exiled to the outer reaches, but this is a missed opportunity to rejuvinate Northbourne and do something that will have a real and lasting impact.

Eppo 3:13 pm
09 Nov 11
#25

dbee said :

How can so many people over look the fact that most of the people living in those flats have been given a tenancy there because they had no other choice?
Housing isn’t just for “junkies”- its for people who need help. For people who need government assistance. Should single mothers with young children, domestic abuse victims and the mentally ill or physically handicapped members of our community be forced out of their homes because developers want the land that their homes are built on?
It is true, some people take advantage of public housing. But most of the people who are living there count themselves lucky for the opportunity. Let the people who can afford to pick and choose where they live pick and choose somewhere else.

Yes, absoloutely they should. They’re sitting on prime real estate.

It’s not as though they’re being turfed out and not given someplace new to live. They’ll be relocated. Part and parcel of living in tax payer funded accomodation is that you might not live in the most convenient location or have a great deal of a say in where you end up.

creative_canberran 3:13 pm
09 Nov 11
#26

“We’ve seen a decrease in the number of public housing dwellings at the site of the ABC flats, and an increase in moving public housing stock into outer suburbs.”

oh, poor things, They can’t enjoy inner city living. They’ll have to use public transport… wait a minute.

Let me be blunt: Amanda Bresnan and her Greens colleagues are the most useless, wasteful and illogical reptoids to be in Canberra politics since the Fried Green Tomato party was on the ballot.

Thumper 3:13 pm
09 Nov 11
#27

I think kicking poor people out of these homes provides a better incentive than allowing them to enjoy government funded dwellings right next to the city, when others have to struggle to get by without the government help.
Public housing should be kept to an absolute minimum, with only the truly needy given a house/unit.

I can understand your sentiments but with housing, even renting, so expensive, due in part to this government’s obsession with land sales revenue, I think that the government should be providing more government housing and not less. After all, shouldn’t everyone be entitled to a roof over their heads?

chewy14 3:16 pm
09 Nov 11
#28

dbee said :

How can so many people over look the fact that most of the people living in those flats have been given a tenancy there because they had no other choice?
Housing isn’t just for “junkies”- its for people who need help. For people who need government assistance. Should single mothers with young children, domestic abuse victims and the mentally ill or physically handicapped members of our community be forced out of their homes because developers want the land that their homes are built on?
It is true, some people take advantage of public housing. But most of the people who are living there count themselves lucky for the opportunity. Let the people who can afford to pick and choose where they live pick and choose somewhere else.

That’s sort of the point. It’s not their homes, they are owned by the government.
If I’m renting a house and the landlord decides to sell, then I just can’t say “No, I don’t want to leave this is my home”.

Why should public housing tenants be different?

Erg0 3:18 pm
09 Nov 11
#29

JazzyJess said :

Wow people really have it in for public housing tenants. It’s worth remembering that a good percentage (and no I don’t know what the exact figure is) of the existing tenants have limited mobility and living nearer to Civic makes life that much easier for them.

Would there be more than 90 of them? I’m all for the allocation of central public housing based on genuine need, but that might not be socialist enough for some.

Classified 3:21 pm
09 Nov 11
#30

Eppo said :

It’s not as though they’re being turfed out and not given someplace new to live. They’ll be relocated. Part and parcel of living in tax payer funded accomodation is that you might not live in the most convenient location or have a great deal of a say in where you end up.

Given the $$ govco will make from redeveloping the land it would seem sensible that public housing tenants could be relocated to better quality accomodation anyway.

It’s not like they’re being chucked out onto the street.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.