Minister announces ACT Tennant and Garden of the year but avoids awarding Freeloader of the year award

barking toad, I think it’s poticially stupid and I wouldn’t do it if I were her, but I support the policy, and as such I support her right to do so.

There are so many flaws in your logic, I’m not sure where to begin:

As people paying market rent add money to the system kicking them out means you have to sell property just to cover your existing expenses, it doesn’t give you any more money to start buy new houses with, invalidating pretty much all the rest of your augment.

Even if the house in Yarralumla could be sold for a price that could buy two houses out in the sticks there’s no evidence that any of the other people earning over $100,000 live on equally expensive land, for all e know thewy could live in Charnwood or Dunlop.

But as stated those market rents are at least three years old where as the allhomes ones are current. In addition the $385 house is 5 bedrooms where as (and I could be wrong on this) Deb Foskey’s is 2. Based on those factors I see no reason why she couldn’t be paying entirely fare market rent.

Even if you idea of selling of high value public house in desirable areas for fund further development was possible your end up with groups of people in need out in the middle of no where with no services and poor public transport and support. The whole point of the current system of have public housing through all suburbs no matter how much the land is worth is specifically to stop this type of gettoisation.

Areaman, putting aside arguments about how the govt manages its stock of public housing, do you support the position of a politician earning in excess of 100k plus perks living in public housing?

Areaman, I’m sure they could purchase two houses for what they’d get for the property in Yarralumla.

So housing would get two houses for displacing one leech from it’s system.

I note that the article, yes I’m still referring to the article that you accused me of not doing any research, even though you’ve just admitted that it is out of date, noted that there were 60 residents earning over $100k in public housing.

Let’s assume that those 60 residents can earn ACT Housing 2 houses each, or use the representative figure of $380,000,000 that was also quoted in the outdated document we are referencing.

Now, I know this is asking a lot, but attempt to resonate 120 brand spanking new houses avaliable to ACT Housing.

Now move onto the people earning over $50k, 842 would become 1684 houses.

I admit that my figures are generic, but since your reference is at least 3 years out of date, work with it.

I certainly know that 1600+ homeless people housed and 842 leeches free from the underbelly of HMS Canberra would certainly fill some of the impending vacancies which are the housing developments that Seven Story has been calling in.

And I’m not saying that Mr A.Reaman from 10 Hope Court who earns $50,000, his wife doesn’t work and he’s supporting her 4 kids, their 2 and a further 6 from previous arrangements should be booted out of his house, so don’t go there.

Regardless of if ACT housing has to sell the house once it’s vacated, it’s an asset, the value of which can go towards a house that can be lived in.

BTW your $385 figure that you quoted above is also outside the figures that were in the document you supplied.

I’m assuming that you too don’t belive that Deb Foskey is paying appropriate market rent from the figures you have supplied ?

I’d also like to know if the “rumours” are true that Housing employees can and do live in Govt Housing – again taking up places which should be allocated to those who cannot afford market rent or are homeless.

Maelinar, so your basic point is that “Once Deb Foskey, who doesn’t need public housing assistance, moves out of that house, which is owned by the public, Somebody else can move in to that house“, but as I’ve said a million times if she moved out they’d have to sell the house, so no one else could move in. Now obviously that isn’t assured that they would sell the same house that she moved out off, but the effect on the system would be the same.

In regards to your line about Market renters pay rent between $80 to $320/week , as the report is at least three years out of date, I would assume hat the range is significantly higher now. From the look of the place I’d say it would be significantly worse than pretty much every one of the houses in the $450-500 range that some pulled out of their arses earlier. Anyway there are plenty of places in Yarralumla for less than $450 a week, a quick search on allhomes will prove that. For example http://allhomes.com.au/c/ah?a=spr&p=61933 or http://allhomes.com.au/c/ah?a=spr&p=61417 or http://allhomes.com.au/c/ah?a=spr&p=61597 or this one with over twice as many bedrooms as Deb Foskey’s for only $385 http://allhomes.com.au/c/ah?a=spr&p=61780 .

Indi, I never have, but I’d say if that were the case it would be.

out of curiousity a question for those in the know or who have worked for Housing – would it not be deemed a form of subsidy to a tenant if their maintenance and some utility bills are paid for by the dept?

Nailed it Maelinar – but be prepared to be labelled a moron because areaman will convince you that, by occupying a public house, deb is not actually keeping someone else out of it.

Areaman.

Whilst I am mildly bemused by the ABSOLUTE BLINDNESS YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE, upon finding the extract you posted earlier, quoting from THE EXACT SAME CHAPTER:

Market renters pay rent between $80 to $320/week. (Where market rent in Yarralumla is from a previous post somewhere in the $450-500 region?)

And this is pure gold. It is the SENTENCE RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EXTRACT:

Given the extent of housing stress in the Territory, the housing occupied by full market renters could be more effectively targeted to meet need.

Are you aware that Deb Foskey is in a public house ?
Do you know what a public house is ?

Again, hopefully more slowly for you, a public house is an asset that is owned by the government which is provided for people in housing difficulty. It remains the property of the public, and has been provided by virtue of our compassion for fellow man.

Now, pay particular attention; Once Deb Foskey, who doesn’t need public housing assistance, moves out of that house, which is owned by the public, Somebody else can move in to that house.

What part aren’t you getting ?

A most erudite strand. Even Crikey.com picked up on it today.
However, I must inform you:
“Tennants” = a very popular beer in Scotland.
“Tenants” = those who, like Ms Foskey (and not necessarily of the same physical proportions) rent housing. For sums of money that excite comment occasionally.

Kandy – I feel for you. We used to have the feral neighbours from hell too. But eventually ours wrecked their house so they couldn’t live in it, and then the govt had to sell it off. So the worse the govvie tennant now, the more likely that the (trashed) house will be sold when they move on, and will become a private house, to be fixed up by some keen young couple.
And before anyone says the govt should have fixed this one up and put someone in from the waiting list – it really would have cost far more than it would have been worth.
I do agree that they shouldn’t overpopulate areas with govvie housing. I think it causes more problems than it solves. It’s not about providing nicer places for the govvie tenants, it’s about not creating scary ghettos like Currong flats.

Sure having delightfull housing stock integrated in the community is a great idea.

But resources appear to be limited, So if we have to choose between that and less pleasant public acccomodation that can cater to all who are in need… Isn’t catering for all in need a better outcome?

Speaking of clusters of public housing, does anyone know what percentage of the monstrosity tower at Woden has been set aside for the less fortunate? Was a deal done with the developer because of poor sales?

I didn’t want to mention charnwood but that is a good example.

Jazz – That was what the problem was with Charnwood originally it was predominately “Govvie” housing… its only lately that Charnwood has been able to start shaking off its reputation

sorry nik, that will teach you to log out when u use my computer eh.

JR, i wouldnt’ be surprised if that was the case. but there has to be some compromise between the govt being able to buy low cost housing (like this development in kippax)and therefore have more stock available to people who need them and the social implications of having a lot of public housing tenants living in close proximity.

It’s very sterotypical of course to associate such concentrations of public housing (there are some fantastic Public Housing complexes in canberra) but there is also a lot of evidence to suggest that it attracts a certain number of social problems. eg stuart flats, (the former) burnie court & illawarra court to a lesser extent.

Sure the govt could raise a heap of money by selling its properties in yarralumla, ainslie, and turner and as a result could probably buy out most of dunlop or isabella plains. but there are implications in doing so. Public housing tenants already recieve some villification because of their financial standing, to put them all in one area would only accentuate that & by trying to diversiy the public housing portfolio as much as possible (within the limitations i mentioned above) it is a step towards combating some of the issues you get with concentrated low cost housing.

THAT’S NOT NIK! I’M NIK_THE_PIG! THAT’S JAZZ!

Jazz use your own darn logon!

Nik – I have it on reasonable authority (amazing what real estate sales people let slip by accident) that the new development in Kippax (Next to the Magpies Club and where the sports club used to be) is up to 60% public housing stock… I fear if ACT Housing are buying such vast quantities of properties in small localised areas then we may have a situation we have previously seen in Woden (the now demolished – Burnie Court) and the Baringa Gardens (the infamous Melba Flats). Concentration of Public housing stock has its own problems and surely the Government has learnt from bitter experience – but then again we are dealing with bureaucrats that can not be pinned down for responsibility for their actions.

the only problem with taking off the 25% cap is that you tend to end up with low cost (read :slum) housing estates al la macquarie fields in sydney.

Housing ACT govt has worked pretty hard to ensure that that situation doesn’t arise in canberra.

I won’t dispute that Deb Foskey has followed all the rules.

But with the obscene waiting lists for people in real need I still question the allocation of resources.

Ending the capping of the 25% of income charged for public housing would at least create an incentive for the big end of town to move out of public housing or pay big bucks to stay there. (My mail is that Deb Foskey is far from being the highest earner in public housing)

While it is a pleasant thing for public housing to be in nice properties spread thoughour the community you do have to wonder if the assets wouldn’t be better allocated to more emergency and short term accomodation (hostel, shelter, and even dormitory style) which could be funded out of selling a relatively small number of salubrious housing properties.

(possibly voluntarily freed up by removing the “Market Rent” cap)

The bludging disgust known as foskey needs to be turfed out ASAP, so that deserving families can get affordable housing.

I’m sick and tired of my taxes propping up this six-figure-income bludger.

oops, that’ll teach me to check who is logged in on my computer

Jazz

bulldog, No I don’t work there (anymore) but yes i did work there and most of the figures you lot are throwing around were extracted by reports written by me. so i know exactly what is in them, and what they were getting out.

Deb Foskey is a leech, flat out plain and simple.

The waiting list for a 3 br house under Govt Housing is over 2 years. Why?

There are MANY people who live in Govt housing in 3-4 br houses who don’t need them i.e. their children have left home, yet they aren’t moved to smaller accommodation (if they still need public housing) and so the list waiting grows longer.

For priority housing – desperation stakes, it is 12 months for Belconnen alone.

If Deb Foskey is so hard done by, then those homeless Canberrans are really up shit creek without a paddle.

Okay Jazz – I’m pretty sure the actual figure was $280 per week. Not 100% certain where I heard that – it may even have been that fine bastion of investigative journalism Today Tonight.

If she is paying $280 per week, I’m sure we can agree that it’s well below the odds. If I’m wrong, and someone has a higher figure from a more reliable source, I’m happy to eat my words.

I’ve got nothing against tennants paying market rent for public housing (areaman makes a reasonably good case). I just think they ought to pay ACTUAL market rent rather than a figure based on old data, or an average figure covering the whole Canberra market.

Sorry if I upset you areaman.

Perhaps I am a little dim. But how many houses does fatarse provide by her “market” rent and how many needy families has she got off the waiting list?

barking toad- no you fucking moron, the fact is that if it weren’t for people paying market rent then there wouldn’t be as many public houses and so the people on the waiting lists would still have no where to live (and possibly more of them than do now). Sounds to me that you just don’t like one person involved and you wouldn’t like them no matter what they did, rather than actually have an issues with security of tenure.

Right

If fatarse is parked in public housing then she’s occupying a house that some other poor bastard could get into and get off the waiting list. Her paying an alleged “market” rent won’t change the fact that’s she’s taking up someone else’s space.

There may be some argument that those poor people who better themselves can stay in public housing if there rent is upped to something like market value – but within reason.

Fatarse politicians who already own real estate interstate should NEVER qualify for public housing and every time I hear of this snout troughing cunt I want to puke!

they dont, but the government isn’t subsidising anyone paying market rent. They are subsidising the government.

Areaman – first you still need to answer my questions and on how someone on $100K pa needs a government (subsidised) house.

Jr, I’m not saying that the government shouldn’t run services at a loss, just that ACT housing can’t provide housing at an even greater loss with out getting more funding from consolidated revenue, and to pay for that you ether have to raise taxes or cut other services.

Yes public housing is initially for people in need, but if they are making money for the system and not costing anyone else a spot why kick them out if they start earning more, all you’re going then is creating a disincentive to succeed.

I don’t agree with this general mentality that all profits should be individual and all losses should be socialised. To use you example of action buses and your line that the Government is there to provide services that are not otherwise viable for private enterprise, does that mean we should have private buses running the intertown routes, as they actually make money and then have Action being an even bigger black hole only running loss making services?

Areaman – by reason of your logic that the Government should not be running anything at a loss then:

* why is ACTION (buses) still run by the government at a loss?

* why does the government continue to pander to the cycling lobby with bus bike racks and onroad bike lanes with no cost recovery?

* why does the government continue to run public libraries?

* why does the government continue to run public schools?

… and the list could continue virtually ad infinitum.

The answer is simply that the Government is there to provide services that are not otherwise viable for private enterprise. The Government is there to provide the safety net – tell me where someone earning close to $100K pa is in dire need of a safety net for accomodation…

Finally if anyones wants to know what market rates for rent are see the allhomes.com.au website.

An interesting perspective into Housing’s ability to funding the business back in 2003 for the fanatics:

Operating revenue is derived primarily from two sources – rents received (estimated at approximately $58m in 2003/04) and CSHA funding ($27m). An operating loss of $4m is projected in 2003/04, and losses are expected to continue in subsequent years.

“Approximately 83% of tenants receive a rental rebate which represents, in effect, an unfunded community service obligation of $53m. Therefore, without rebates the revenue would be $111m.

Continued targeting of housing assistance to those most in need will see further increases in rebates and further erosion of the revenue base, making it difficult to fund its running costs and to adequately maintain its properties. Anticipated reductions in CSHA funding will also exacerbate the agency’s financial viability and its ability to sustain itself”.

Looks like a National Housing Policy and a firm set of directives from the Federal Govt level would see some form of consistency in this vital policy area across all jurisdictions.

From what I saw on Today Tonight, it looked like a pretty crappy little fibro place.

From my googling I believe she’s paying $270 a week, which is far from market rent for Yarralumla.

Jazz, I respectfully submit that you unpucker your lips and pull away from areamans arse. I am reading the same document as areaman and I have already conceded that I was wrong about the consolidated revenue bit (quite gracefully I might add, it’s not often a retraction is made at RA), however more to the point the document is contradictory. If you have bothered reading this you would see that.

Areaman is merely pointing out the ‘good bits’ (ie any bits that prove his point).

And Jazz, tell me how you know that this document is still current? Do you work in housing? If so you can let us know what Ms Foskey is paying for ‘market rent’. The perhaps you can table a report to your manager explaining how if ‘market rent’ was indeed an actual reflection of the current rental market, that we would be able to generate revenue for a much larger increase in housing stock.

Now before I make a complete ass out of myself, let me finish this document and work out the whole cut n’ paste issue.

Mr Shab
If Foskey was paying ACTUAL market rent (somewhere around the $450-$500/week mark in that suburb, rather than the pittance she actually coughs up), perhaps fewer people would find her situation so galling.

care to enlighten us on what she is ACTUALLY paying before making such a stupid statement.

my definition of market rent would be whatever a landlord is charging and a tenant is prepared to pay.

For updated numbers on housing in the ACT(but it’s a report back rather than an assembly report) go here:

Progress on Affordable Housing in the ACT

bulldog,

everything areaman has said in this thread to date has been spot on

bulldog, well yes an no. Technically they don’t buy any more housing, but that’s because, in my understanding, the percentage of people paying full market rent is pretty stable and so they subsidise the other existing tenants. Now if the amount paying market rents grew ACT housing could buy more houses, and if it shrank they would have to sell some. So the correct way to put it would be that that profit is put back into subsidised public housing tenants, who already cost more than government is able to fund. That doesn’t however invalidate my final conclusion that not having people paying market rent in the system would mean there would be less houses in total.

Jr, ACT housing can’t just run at a loss for ever, so if you want it to continue to have the same amount of housing stocks as it currently does it either needs to get significantly more money from the government (from higher taxes or other service cuts) or make profits from other parts of it’s business, which is what it does now. Not I’m all in four of higher taxes for better services, but I’m not sure if the rest of the populace is with me.

But that leads on the bigger issue of if she’s costing someone else a spot, in the current system she isn’t. If she wasn’t there there would be less houses in total. The fact of the matter is that there is no snout in the trough as she’s not getting any extra money from the government, instead she’s actually giving to needy people in the form of housing subsidies rather than just to wealthy landlords (not that I’m claiming we should all be living in public housing, but I don’t see the need to kick some one out of their existing home after their finances change when they aren’t costing anyone a spot and are actually making the public work better rather than worse).

Nicely done Areaman. Despite that document being 4 years out of date that is still how it is done.

Mael – even in public housing the properties are refered to as housing stock.

In all state and territory housing bodies there is an element of full rent paying tenants (% veries between states) and invariably, that revenue is used to offset some of the cost to state governments of running a subsidised housing program. The Commonwealth State Territory housing agreement sets out guidelines and obligations to each state govt that it must meet in order to get a slice of the commonwealth pie allocated each year to fund housing programs.

areaman – hold the phone, I am going through the linked document and found that;

a) it was published nearly four years ago – some of the data used is from as early as ’96!
b) it sems more than a little contradictory in it’s reccomendations and it’s ‘current’ (and I use that term loosely) modus operandi.
c) it’s exceedingly dull. More dull, in fact, than a night at the cross with Fred Nile.

Now, as I am no techno-nerd, if I ever work out how to cut and paste from pdf’s I will be happy to point out some of this seemingly flawed logic.

I will however concede that I was unaware that rent collected did not go to consolidated revenue.

However – “ACT Housing does not receive a funding allocation to cover rent rebates that total almost $40 million per annum.” This mentions nothing about ‘market rent’ collected being used for the purchase of new housing stock, merely that it can assist in offsetting the subsidies handed out to people requiring rental assistance.

Time for a retraction of your own before we move on to round two. Here’s what I’m talking about;
“but I’ll explain it again for the slower amongst us. People who pay market rent for pubic (sic) housing make a profit for ACT housing, that profit is put back into expanding the stock of public housing, ergo not having people paying market rent in the system would mean there would be less houses in total.”

Areaman – I have no problem with ACT Housing running at a (greater) loss so long as they can ensure more (or preferably ALL) people who are in genuine need of Government accommodation are properly catered for.

Whilst we have the likes of Foskey occupying an ACT housing premise there will always be someone else that misses out.

Remember that she is earning close to $100K (if not more) for a guaranteed minimum of four years (what does the affordable housing report say about where the poverty line is?). Come the end of the current govenment term should her circumstances change such that she once again could be eligible for Government accommodation then she should be required to join the end of the queue like everyone else.

Unfortunately the current ACT Housing policies allows the like of Ms. Foskey to keep her snout in the trough and continue feeding regardless of circumstances.

I still don’t see the need to force people to move out of their home just because their financial situation has changed, as long as they aren’t costing someone else a spot (which people paying market rent aren’t). Sure we should encourage it (for their own benefit as much as anythign else), but I’ve yet to hear an argument for why we should force them out.

I discovered a document entitled the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement – a major tenet of the agreement stipulates the following:

In entering into this Agreement the Commonwealth and the States recognise that the provision of housing assistance to people requiring access to affordable and Appropriate Housing is essential to reduce poverty and its effects on individuals and on the community as a whole. The aim of this Agreement is therefore to provide appropriate, affordable and secure housing assistance for those who most need it, for the duration of their need.

I was encouraged by the statement as it implies that a person in need can access housing assistance when they need it, for the duration of need. This could be construed as the central point of the argument to be had in this thread – the State will gladly support you and offer housing (subsidised for all tenants, regardless of status) and when you no longer require it due to a change in your personal/financial position, you move on and allow another needy person the chance to make a better life for themselves.

I’m of the opinion that Social Housing is an essential service and any government should be working towards fulling funding it as part of the social welfare ‘net’ and not attempt to operate it as a ‘profit making excercise’ via collecting full rents to cover the rest.

When the number of full market renters has dwindled to around 13% now and will obviously continue to decline, how prepared will government be to fund the ‘loss’?

I will gladly swap my current ACT Housing neighbours for Ms Foskey. I would also be pleased to swap existing horrors for up to three and a half falcons disrepaired, grass of any length, no doors, and anything less than a dozen mongrels in the backyard. Can ACT Housing arrange such swaps?
Im living next to Bad Boy Bubby’s mum

bulldog, as I just said market rents don’t go into consolidated revenue and I doubt anyone paying market rent has issue with paying what ever it is deemed to be, but that is an issue with the independent assessors they use not for the tenants.

I really should just ignore you Maelinar, because you never seem to do any research at all, which is just slack and shows how little you think about what you’re posting. Profits from market rents don’t go back in consolidated revenue and are instead used by ACT Housing to subsidise other people in public housing. Proving that at least one of us bother to do some research, from the
Final Report on Affordable Housing in the ACT: Strategies for Action

The Taskforce recognises that under existing arrangements market renters cross-subsidise rebated tenants as ACT Housing does not receive a funding allocation to cover rent rebates that total almost $40 million per annum. Market renters accounted for 36 per cent of total rent collected or approximately $19 million in 2001-02. Replacing market renters with tenants on rebated rents,
would create a minimum revenue shortfall of approximately $12 million per annum for ACT Housing.

In addition, there is no cap on how many houses they can own, and if you’re going to make stupid shit up, you could at least make it believable. There are plans for how much new stock they will buy, but this is limited by funding, not by legislation.

Thanks Mael, you saved me the time from pointing much the same thing. Any alleged ‘market rent’ collected by ACT Housing goes into consolidated revenue.

Is anyone able to find out an ball-park of what Ms Foskey is paying? I’ve said it before, but I am truly curious to see just what is deemed to be “market rent”.

Areaman, again I’ll inform you;

Housing stocks are the terminology applied to housing companies, such as the Defence Housing Authority, ad nauseum. They are the people who are in the business of making money out of housing.

The ACT Government isn’t in the business of making money out of housing, and therefore the structure behind your entire argument is flawed.

The public housing department gets allocated money by the ACT Government. They don’t obtain profit from housing stocks that are collecting ‘market rent’.

They also probably have a maximum cap of housing imposed upon them by the government, further enhancing the requirement to piss off dead weight and house those who are in the most need.

As far as I have seen, Deb Foskey isn’t in need of anything other than a diet and some time with the two chicks from what not to wear.

If Foskey was paying ACTUAL market rent (somewhere around the $450-$500/week mark in that suburb, rather than the pittance she actually coughs up), perhaps fewer people would find her situation so galling.

I’m not going to argue the point any further, because I’m sure there’ll be a queue of RA contributors lining up to take a swing at you, areaman.

Except that it’s not how the ACT public housing system works. It’s pretty simple, but I’ll explain it again for the slower amongst us. People who pay market rent for pubic housing make a profit for ACT housing, that profit is put back into expanding the stock of public housing, ergo not having people paying market rent in the system would mean there would be less houses in total. So in other words no one paying market rent is “blocking” anyone else, and anyone who still thinks so is either horribly misinformed or a complete moron.

I agree, living in public housing as an MLA looks bad and is politically stupid, but it doesn’t actually disadvantage anyone else.