ACT Housing continues to house those not entitled

People on high incomes pay market rents in these houses, as I was before I left public housing 5-6 years ago. So it doesn’t really concern me. What concerns me is using public housing, Centrelink income and subsidised rent as a percentage of it as an excuse never to better yourself. The number of trouble making 20 somethings in public housing bothers me a lot more than a few people paying market rents.

Fayne said :

blah blah fraud blah blah

Continuing to live in govvie housing with above-average income is not fraud because people like the EL1 you know pay rent according to their income, up to market value. Thus the govt makes money from such people, which they can use to – funnily enough – provide more housing.

Other posters here believe that the govt isn’t pricing the rent at market rates, and if so that requires fixing – but even if it’s true it’s hardly the fault of the legislation.

Where did you hear that people were being forced to leave govt housing at $80k? Have you read the legislation you claim isn’t being enforced? Can you provide a reference to it? As far as I can tell, you’re wrong: People are not asked to leave once their income reaches $N. All govt tenants are offered the chance to buy their property at independently-valued (IE market) price – and the $80k number you’ve heard is in the sale policy as the suggested point at which tenant is paying full market rent, and may be able to afford the purchase:
http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/hcs/buying

My real gripe is with people like my previous govt-tenant neighbour who spend their dole on booze and drugs, and have no interest in getting an income .. so, they don’t contribute anything to anyone.

#15
JC9:44 am, 15 Sep 13

OpenYourMind said :

Even if rent reaches market value, I’ll bet each of those houses is still making a massive loss. The cost of a bunch of public servants administering a rental has got to be massive.

And if they weren’t getting market value the those losses would be even greater…
—————————————————
You are missing the point, JC. Assuming that we accept that there is a need for subsidised housing for some people, that will always run at a loss. Any public housing that allegedly charges “market rent” may or may not make a profit, since not all rental housing makes a profit even in the private sector. But that represents millions and millions of dollars worth of public money tied up in owning and maintaining housing for people who can afford to rent privately.

The more housing units the government owns and manages, the greater the administrative overhead and opportunity for rorts and waste. It makes no difference to the cost of providing subsidised housing to the needy, except possibly to increase it. But is absorbs a massive amount of public money that could be turned to productive purposes, including to lowering taxes. If people could keep more of the money they earn, they can use it for investment – or even to buy a home of their own.

dtc said :

I’ll bet this comes down to it being the cheapest method for garbage collection (which is a surprisingly expensive activity) for the managers of the units, which of course has been contracted to the cheapest bidder who will point out the contract does not contain any restriction on the method of garbage collection and if the government wants to impose a different method then it will have to pay more money…

I think your right but the manager of the units is the ACT government and these units were designed specifically for the elderly so should be fit for use.

To the OP. There is currently one 4 bedroom property in Mawson listed for rent at around $750-$770 a week. Perhaps you should question if that is infact what she is paying. After all that would be ‘full market rent’

Anyone earning an EL1’s salary without children should easily be able to afford to rent outside ACT public housing.

I also find this frustrating and have expressed my annoyance several times in posts on this site. Sad reality is nothing will ever change.

People earning over a set amount should have to pay full market rent, and I mean FULL rent. I know of people barely paying $300 a week which is ‘full’ rent. Sorry but when you look at average rent being around $500 for something equivalent in the same suburb. It’s not full rent.

In my mothers street, her neighbour is living alone in a 3 beddy property while 2 others in the street are living alone in 4 beddy properties. All because they have been there for over a decade and the government ‘can’t do anything about it’ … Absolute BS ! These people should be downsized into smaller properties or be forced to pay a levy on the empty rooms. There are too many families who need properties like this that are stuck on emergency housing waiting lists

On the other hand, I also find it frustrating with the people who had 2 kids and got given a 3 beddy property many moons ago and are now expecting the government to find them a 5+ beddy property coz they kept having kids. If you’re on welfare and can’t afford things like rent. Stop breeding and expecting the government and taxpayers to fund them and upgrade your home.

plumtree said :

Being a nosy parker, I rang ACT Housing to report this situation, and was advised that ACT Housing will not force anyone to move, even to a smaller place; thus freeing up a family home…..is that what its called these days? It wascalled being a

talebearer, telltale, tattler, informer, snitch, rat, squealer,nark and dobber .

If I had been encouraged to go so far. I didn’t get past questioning the legislation. I was not asked to provide details. It seems ACT Housing is the one government welfare service agency that do not have a fraud report process. It is one of the reasons children remain in over crowded homes or are homeless. May I ask plumtree, are you claiming something you are not entitled too? This may explain your aggression. Chill love

OpenYourMind said :

Even if rent reaches market value, I’ll bet each of those houses is still making a massive loss. The cost of a bunch of public servants administering a rental has got to be massive.

And if they weren’t getting market value the those losses would be even greater…

MissChief said :

Don’t know if the system is still the same but a few years ago when someone I know tried to downsize from her 4 bedroom govie, she was told she’d have to join the queue and wait for a smaller house. The queue for non emergency housing was several years.

I also understand that rent on govie houses increases with income up to market value, so it would be unfair to assume the person in question is getting a free ride. In fact, it’s more likely she’s saving the taxpayer, and at least the house isn’t at risk of being an exploding meth lab.

Even if rent reaches market value, I’ll bet each of those houses is still making a massive loss. The cost of a bunch of public servants administering a rental has got to be massive.

The “market rents are subsidising the rest” argument is nonsense.

Firstly, the so-called “market rents” are significantly lower than real market rents. Remember the Greens politician who was living in a public, free-standing 3 bedroom house in Yarralumla? She was paying something like $300 per week, allegedly a “market rent.” You might just find a privately owned 1 bedroom flat in Yarralumla for $300 a week.

Secondly, it is assumed that private landlords make a profit on rents. Some do, but many don’t. Either they make bad decisions in what they paid for the property, or they are really after somewhere to park excess cash (an asset) with the hope of capital gain down the track.

Thirdly, all public housing represents taxpayer money. The assumption that governments should be in the real estate business (or any other business) using our money, in the hope that they will make a profit, is certainly the triumph of hope over experience – plus, it’s our money!

That money in the hands of private individuals and corporations (to whom it actually belongs) has the potential to generate real economic activity and wealth. We all know what happens to it once it disappears into the maw of government. The chance of that is vanishingly small, while the chance of waste and losses is correspondingly high.

Being a nosy parker, I rang ACT Housing to report this situation, and was advised that ACT Housing will not force anyone to move, even to a smaller place; thus freeing up a family home…..is that what its called these days? It wascalled being a talebearer, telltale, tattler, informer, snitch, rat, squealer,nark and dobber .

They need a bedroom tax like they have in the UK. If you are in public housing and are single and have four bedrooms you pay a levy for the 3 empty bedrooms.

thehutch said :

breda said :

For historical reasons, the ACT has (perhaps excluding SA) the highest proportion of public housing of any jurisdiction. It also has one of the highest average incomes.

It is not cost-free. When those of us not in public housing pay our rates or our rents, we are subsidising public housing – by way of foregone income from rates, free construction and maintenance, administrative overheads, fixing up places that have been trashed, and so on.
It runs into millions of dollars every year.

Public housing in the ACT needs root and branch reform, but every party seems to have a friend or a rellie who is living off the rest of us, so nothing substantive ever happens.

Without going in the specifics of this case, previously around 10% of Housing ACT tenants paid full rent (not subsidised). In comparison, a single person on Centrelink (newstart) may only pay $50-60per week. By moving all the full renters out of public housing, there will be a shortfall of revenue.

So whilst I agree with the principle that public housing should be for the needy and not people employed in 80K plus jobs, they are actually providing a stream of income to Housing ACT which is badly needed to fund the system.

There was some guy on a radio program on Radio National a few weeks ago discussing public housing. I think he was from the UK, basically what he said was that for social (public) housing you should have a combination of low and middle income tenants. The middle income tenants pay full rent and essentially subsidise the low income tenants. This way social housing is a lot more affordable for governments and they can have more of it, which in turn helps the waiting lists for social housing. It also helps destigmatise social housing.

Link to the program and the comment is at about 14:40
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/affordable-housing-and-election-2013/4915994

Don’t know if the system is still the same but a few years ago when someone I know tried to downsize from her 4 bedroom govie, she was told she’d have to join the queue and wait for a smaller house. The queue for non emergency housing was several years.

I also understand that rent on govie houses increases with income up to market value, so it would be unfair to assume the person in question is getting a free ride. In fact, it’s more likely she’s saving the taxpayer, and at least the house isn’t at risk of being an exploding meth lab.

JC said :

PS The new old people units leave a lot to be desired, so much so I have sent the housing minister a letter. One thing that has irked me is the garbage arrangements, as the rubbish bin is an industrial hopper. Not sure how they expect the oldies (who these places were designed for) are meant to hold a heavy lid up and then get a rubbish bag up 1m and up and over into the bin. Will be interesting to see what ACT housing has to say about it.

I’ll bet this comes down to it being the cheapest method for garbage collection (which is a surprisingly expensive activity) for the managers of the units, which of course has been contracted to the cheapest bidder who will point out the contract does not contain any restriction on the method of garbage collection and if the government wants to impose a different method then it will have to pay more money…

breda said :

For historical reasons, the ACT has (perhaps excluding SA) the highest proportion of public housing of any jurisdiction. It also has one of the highest average incomes.

It is not cost-free. When those of us not in public housing pay our rates or our rents, we are subsidising public housing – by way of foregone income from rates, free construction and maintenance, administrative overheads, fixing up places that have been trashed, and so on.
It runs into millions of dollars every year.

Public housing in the ACT needs root and branch reform, but every party seems to have a friend or a rellie who is living off the rest of us, so nothing substantive ever happens.

Without going in the specifics of this case, previously around 10% of Housing ACT tenants paid full rent (not subsidised). In comparison, a single person on Centrelink (newstart) may only pay $50-60per week. By moving all the full renters out of public housing, there will be a shortfall of revenue.

So whilst I agree with the principle that public housing should be for the needy and not people employed in 80K plus jobs, they are actually providing a stream of income to Housing ACT which is badly needed to fund the system.

Nobody will care, but I’ve supported myself since the age of 17. I’ve worked continuously for 34 years while educating myself part time, getting married, having kids, divorced, remarried etc. I’ve never been on the dole or relied on public funding in any way.

I understand that people can fall on hard times, and I support a strong social security network that helps those in need, but it seems like increasing numbers of Australians are relying on the gummint (ie me) to look after them and I don’t like that.

PS The new old people units leave a lot to be desired, so much so I have sent the housing minister a letter. One thing that has irked me is the garbage arrangements, as the rubbish bin is an industrial hopper. Not sure how they expect the oldies (who these places were designed for) are meant to hold a heavy lid up and then get a rubbish bag up 1m and up and over into the bin. Will be interesting to see what ACT housing has to say about it.

OP how long has this lady lived in this house? Reason I ask if it is a long time, then the lease may entitle her to live there regardless.

For example my old mum moved into a 4 bedroom government house in the late 70’s and her lease was basically non breakable. By the time all us kids moved out she tried to downsize, but found that quite hard. The reason being the only way to change was to swap, as a single person she was entitled to just a 1 bedroom place, and the people who wanted to swap with her had to be entitled to a 4 bedroom place, but as she was already there she was entitled to keep it.

What got her out of that house was Labors stimulus money which built a whole heap of units for the elderly, so she was able to put her name down for that and when built freeded up the 4 beddie. Which BTW has now more or less been destroyed by the new tenants.

For historical reasons, the ACT has (perhaps excluding SA) the highest proportion of public housing of any jurisdiction. It also has one of the highest average incomes.

It is not cost-free. When those of us not in public housing pay our rates or our rents, we are subsidising public housing – by way of foregone income from rates, free construction and maintenance, administrative overheads, fixing up places that have been trashed, and so on.
It runs into millions of dollars every year.

Public housing in the ACT needs root and branch reform, but every party seems to have a friend or a rellie who is living off the rest of us, so nothing substantive ever happens.

Some people are just undeserving scum.

Best move on.

There are many many ways for the undeserving to get free or nearly free housing from various government, and government funded agencies, not just ACT housing. If you waste your aggravation on all these situations, you’ll go crazy. Just pay your extortionate taxes, and be quiet like the government wants.