A better way to house those needing assistance?

I’m in a private house and we only have one bath, one toilet and kids sharing rooms… not everyone is in a mini mcmansion. We do have curtains and a nice garden though. It is a pity they have taken away the ‘rent to buy’ scheme. I have a friend who would love to buy her housing place too.But you have to pay for your own valuation, and then the govt can choose not to accept it, so they pretty much don’t want people to do this anymore.

And some public housing tenants really do completely destroy properties. One in our street was left with holes in floors, walls and ceilings, most doors had been removed, flyscreens were in bits all over the yard, the bathroom walls were rotten from the floor up, the shower had been pulled off, and under the house was a dead dog. There were piles of rubble outside bedroom windows (window used as rubbish bin, I think). They did have foxtel outlets though, amongst the rubble in the lounge. The complete trashing was a blessing in disguise though, as when the tenants disappeared, housing had to sell the place off, as it was way beyond fixing up, so it became a private house.

As a public housing tenant, I can assure you that most tenants are good tenants who are reliable rent payers and would buy their home if only they could get a loan. While there are the od few who ‘trash’ houses or fall behind in the rent (both private and public rental), this is not the norm and there ARE consequences for Housing tenants who do so.

Unfortunately, there are also down sides to public housing for tenants that Rioters may be unaware of.
One is that the government assesses the rental to be paid on a ‘market rent’ basis. This might seem sensible on paper, but actually govvies are of a much lower standard than the houses surrounding them. For examples, it is very rare for there to be covered car acccommodation or more than one shower or toilet; and there is also an expectation that govvie tenants children/teenagers of the same sex should share bedrooms, which is no longer the societal norm (and it certainly drives my two teenage daughters, and me, crazy). So, now that I too am paying ‘market rent’ I am somewhat annoyed that I am now paying for an ensuite and garage I ain’t got (this wouldn’t be an issue if the allegedly independent ‘market rent’ assessment factored this in, but it doesn’t appear to do so).

Also, it is extremely problematic to households such as mine that the HOUSEHOLD income is assessed, not just the tenancy holder. What this means for me personally is that my rent has been increased to ‘market rent’ simply because my 18 y o son now earns second year apprenticeship wages and our HOUSEHOLD income have gone over some magical cut off threshold (mine has not changed). This is unfair as my son cannot afford to contribute to the rent at all as he has had to take out a car loan to get a reliable second hand ute, and he has to pay for petrol to get him from Tuggers to Franklin/Forde every day. Ergo, our household is now considerably worse off. This policy is clearly inequitable, just as the UK poll tax was.

Plus, of course, the highly inflated housing market in Canberra dictates what is considered to be ‘market rent’. FFS.

You also may not be aware that the public landlord gets away with things a private landlord would never be allowed to do, such as never providing window furnishings (the tenant is expected to tack up sheets until they can afford $$$blinds/curtains). To make matters worse, if a previous tenant has improved the property, on their vacating it Housing remove all the improvements (dishwasher, curtains etc). When I moved in, I found that a Tastic, a pergola and a garage had been removed. Sometimes you can strike it lucky if you have moved into what Housing call a ‘spot buy’, ie a govvie house that was bought off the private market and not built by housing, but these are few and far between.

Nor will Housing have anything to do with landscaping, which seriously sh!ts those tenants (like me) who spend years and $$$ on same as they thought they would be there forever under security of tenure. Now they find that the govt has changed the policy and they are now expected to relocate to some scummy semi when the kids move out. So you can see the Housing system has a few systemic disincentives for tenants that they would do well to iron out.

Haha who says people on public housing have no money. Anyone can be on the list for public housing. Unfortunately the department does have drop kicks and they do have ways of recovering costs such as selling trashed houses to those brave enough to clean and renovate it. What the department needs to do is have a better system of managing debts and chasing them up as a private entity would.

Giving out cheques to get into the private market wont resolve the issue of the housing crisis and landlords will only get greedier.

The department also doesn’t just demolish anything, some of those northbourne shoebox flats are heritage listed 😛

So how does this so called ‘salt and pepper’ approach to public housing work in Canberra? They are currently building some kind of public housing project on the corner of Ijong, Ipima and Henty St in Braddon (if anyone knows exactly what it is please chime in – the DA just said ‘supportive housing’).

If you look on a map this is approximately 100 metres away from another government housing project. Which in turn is only about 80 metres from another government housing project on the other side of Northbourne Avenue in Turner!

That sounds like the lid fell off the shaker and the salt all fell out in a lump!

Aurelius said :

debts are enforced the same as with any landlord/tenant debts.

Grail has already pointed out that they don’t have any money – that’s why they are in public housing – so how can rental arrears or other debt such as repairs of malicious damage be recovered?

A subsidy or whatever you want to call it paid to private landlords by the govt (no good paying it to the tenant, they will most likely spend it on booze and/or drugs) and a guarantee to repair any damage inflicted by the the tenants could work but I doubt there would be enough LLs willing to take up the offer – there’d be a few I reckon, just not enough.

The appreciating asset thing is a good point but does the govt ever follow through and sell properties? They demolished some of the blocks of flats on Northbourne Ave and built new ones a while back, I wonder how much that cost, wouldn’t of been cheap.

The fact is some tenants do destroy properties, and as they ahve no income or assets it is very difficult to do anything. Most tenants are not like this.

But for the minority that are trashing properties, only to get given another one, I would have a category of housing that is very minimal – no carpets, concrete floors etc, and if they trash a nice property, they could get moved into one of thse.

Privatizing public assets and public services. Some kind of laissez-faire wet dream, hey?

… Because those 30% Government rebates deliver such value for money in a captive market. And rent to own schemes have been such a social and economic success for UK social housing.

There are tens of thousands of people on public housing waiting lists. Who cares why people are on the waiting list – there is currently rampant demand and inadequate supply of public housing.

So, Housing NSW privatizes its housing stock (including the boarding houses and emergency accommodation facilities?). Who buys it, and what do they do with it?

Under the OP’s proposal, are we looking at a net loss of rental housing stock as speculators demolish the public housing and replace with commercial premises, multi-storey carparks, unaffordable multi-dwelling dog boxes, etc?

The private rental market in Australia usually has vacancy rates of between 0-2% depending on where you are. A fair proportion of ‘vacant’ housing is not affordable housing, or is not genuinely on the market (since landlords can claim all sorts of tax benefits even if they don’t get tenants for their property – it’s up to the ATO to catch the rort). The picture gets grimmer if the media reports are true about the slow pace of new house building, relative to population growth.

All of this means that a tenant with the OP’s generous Government rental assistance cheque may still not be able to get a roof over their head, meaning taxpayers will still have to stump up for emergency assistance and the like to avoid social and political breakdown.

People want the best possible tenants who will look after their property, pay the rent on time always and be peaceful neighbours. There is a significant potion of public housing tenants who just won’t do these things. Even a government guarantee would not convince most landlords to rent their property to people on a low or no Income.

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Imagine that – people who trash houses, don’t pay the rent on time and are pains in the a*** having to clean up their act in order to get a property! What is this world coming to when people can’t destroy the property of others at will?

The trick to do would be to find rentals for those who can’t manage it, with a government guarantee that the property will be looked after. This guarantee will be supported by the small weekly/fortnightly bond that will be extracted automatically from these people’s wage or welfare.

Where do you get this sh1t from?

Do you really believe that people who live in public housing are all like this?

Were you dropped on your head as child? A lot?

The comment was that sloppery (rightly or wrongly) has no sympathy for people who don’t do the right thing. The context was from the first comment, which was questioning how genuine ferals would get housing in the private market.

Perhaps you could think a bit before jumping to conclusions. This is supposed to be a discussion.

Jim Jones said :

Where do you get this sh1t from?

Do you really believe that people who live in public housing are all like this?

Were you dropped on your head as child? A lot?

Jim,

can you point us to the part of Sloppery’s comment where he mentions all public housing tenants?
I think he was only talking about the minority of bad tenants, don’t be so quick to judge.

Deano said :

The First Home Owners Grant is a good example of why this sort of scheme wouldn’t work. Once you start subsidising renters, the private market will automatically increase rents by the amount of the subsidy. You can bet that the minimum rent for any shitbox will become $360pw.

Deano,
although i agree that this kind of idea might be prey for scams, it can’t be compared to the First Home Buyers scam, because its not like the tenants would be able to up their loan amount to afford an increase in cost. The market wouldn’t support it.

For an equivalent of $330 per week available to the tenant (after tenant contribution and federal rent assistance).

I forgot the $100 the state is already paying directly to run the housing department, I should have said: For a total of $430 per week available to the tenant (after tenant contribution, state contribution and federal rent assistance).

If we’re seeking to give each tenant a budget of $300 per week (In NSW I believe this is reasonable) then the investment account would only need to pay ($300 – $100 private contribution – $100 state contribution – $60 federal rent assistance = $40 from the investment account).

When funding 130,000 tenants this would cost 270 million or 0.94% p.a allowing the rest to be reinvested. You’ve again got me thinking I must have made a mistake.

Grail said :

I love how it’s so easy to invent $300 by pretending it could have been earning money in an investment account instead of being embodied as real estate. To be fair, you’d have to include the capital value of the properties increasing each year, but noone wants to include that fact.

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but I assumed that if you liquidate the real estate into an investment account, then you no longer care about the capital value of real estate, instead you would (assuming the same number of recipients) only need to grow the investment account at the same rate as rental increases in order to keep the rental subsidy the same in real terms. The Rent and Sales reports indicate that the median flat/unit rental rate (In which I assume most public housing tenants can reside) increase is 3.0% percent per year and has been for several quarters. Obviously, this means that the interest won’t be the $300 per week when I neglected to include this inflation, but assuming 7% interest on the account this still leaves 4% to pay out in rental assistance. This is $1,153 million per year or $170 per tenant. For an equivalent of $330 per week available to the tenant (after tenant contribution and federal rent assistance). According to the same report this is actually above the median rent for all dwellings in the state at $325, so there is still plenty of room to reduce the subsidy further without causing (in my opinion) too much difficulty in finding a property.

Deano said :

The First Home Owners Grant is a good example of why this sort of scheme wouldn’t work. Once you start subsidising renters, the private market will automatically increase rents by the amount of the subsidy. You can bet that the minimum rent for any shitbox will become $360pw.

There will still be downward pressure on prices because part of that $360 comes from the tenant, which they will seek to reduce. The actual subsidy amount can be set to below the “minimum rent for any shitbox” so that market forces can still act like usual. Remember also that approximately 130,000 properties will come on the market to offset the demand from public housing tenants also entering the market.

“Debts are enforced”…..like fines issued by the courts?

I think your figures forget the important fact that approx 40% of people in guvvie housing in the ACT actually pay ‘market rental’ on their properties. Remember the Deb Foskey issue….

She lived in a guvvie in Yarralumla, earnt $150k and paid market rental. At the time the argument was that by having market rates paid on these properties they were subsidising the ones that only pay a reduced amount.

If that’s the case and your average is $100 per week – then there must be some super cheap rents being paid out there by the 60% that are being subsidised.

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

Imagine that – people who trash houses, don’t pay the rent on time and are pains in the a*** having to clean up their act in order to get a property! What is this world coming to when people can’t destroy the property of others at will?

The trick to do would be to find rentals for those who can’t manage it, with a government guarantee that the property will be looked after. This guarantee will be supported by the small weekly/fortnightly bond that will be extracted automatically from these people’s wage or welfare.

Where do you get this sh1t from?

Do you really believe that people who live in public housing are all like this?

Were you dropped on your head as child? A lot?

Please point out where in the above post I stated that all public housing tenants are ‘like this’. I’m quite curious.

Technically speaking public housing properties may be “managed”, but in my experience tenants can get away with much much much much more than a private landlord would allow.

At the public house i used to live next to the tennants *destroyed* the house and yard over a period of years. They finally got moved on after about 4 years, and there were tradies visiting that place endlessley for weeks to get it back in order. They had to bring in a bobcat to clear out all the rubbish and junk piled up in the yard. On the other hand when I was renting from a real estate agent I remember getting warnings and notices for inspection failures because i dared do outlandish things like leave the oven too greasy or window sills too dusty.

There seems to be a myth that tenants in public housing can mistreat the property with no negeative consequences. It’s simply not the case.
Any maintenance issues are, like in a normal tenancy, assessed as to whether they are the result of inappropriate actions of the tenant. And if the tenant is at fault, the tenant is billed for it.
I apologise for shattering the perceptions of many.
Yes, public housing do have their fair share (or more) of poor tenants, and a percentage pay rent late or are in debt to the Housing office. But the properties are not unmanaged, as many commenters would seem to believe, and debts are enforced the same as with any landlord/tenant debts.

The First Home Owners Grant is a good example of why this sort of scheme wouldn’t work. Once you start subsidising renters, the private market will automatically increase rents by the amount of the subsidy. You can bet that the minimum rent for any shitbox will become $360pw.

sloppery said :

Imagine that – people who trash houses, don’t pay the rent on time and are pains in the a*** having to clean up their act in order to get a property! What is this world coming to when people can’t destroy the property of others at will?

The trick to do would be to find rentals for those who can’t manage it, with a government guarantee that the property will be looked after. This guarantee will be supported by the small weekly/fortnightly bond that will be extracted automatically from these people’s wage or welfare.

Where do you get this sh1t from?

Do you really believe that people who live in public housing are all like this?

Were you dropped on your head as child? A lot?

I love how it’s so easy to invent $300 by pretending it could have been earning money in an investment account instead of being embodied as real estate. To be fair, you’d have to include the capital value of the properties increasing each year, but noone wants to include that fact. Then sloppery wants to subsidise rentals, but then take that money right back from the tenants by deducting bond against future damages?

Some people just can’t add up straight can they?

Private rentals subsidised by the Government is not going to provide housing for these families. Noone wants them, that’s why they’re in Government housing. You can’t take money away from them to pay for damages – they have no money, and can’t even afford an education. You can’t deport them from the country – who’d do your menial jobs for minimum wage?

As much as the Property Council might want you to believe it, private investors are not going to make a difference to housing affordability. Private investors are in it for the money (negative gearing, capital gain) or the financial stability of a rental property. A tiny, tiny proportion are interested in providing accommodation to the less privileged.

Making the assumption that all government housing tenants are feral house destroyers is certainly not going to help disadvantaged families or individuals at all. Providing a means for private investors to provide the accommodation for Government housing tenants is simply opening up a new way for private landlords to milk the Government purse in a series of new scams. The loopholes will be found and exploited, to the point that some landlords will no doubt find ways to get twice as much funding for keeping a property empty.

This is not about assuming that landlords are evil and greedy, this is about assuming that property investment is conducted for the purpose of financial gain rather than philanthropic altruism.

I’m sure I’ll annoy a bunch of people with my thoughts on this, but hey, here goes anyway…

Maybe the Department of Housing could actually give a crap about the state of the homes they place people in.

If they cared and had some sort of consequences for trashing a place and not doing the right thing by the neighbours there wouldn’t be such a stigma associated with housing commission/public housing/whatever you want to call it.

Fair enough people in private rentals can cause problems as well but at least if you need to complain about them their real estate (in my experience) listens and will act.

But it really seems like Dpt of Housing don’t give a rats once someone’s in a public house – that’s it. My beef isn’t with those who deserve the service, cos there are people with a genuine need, it’s with those who abuse it and think it’s their God given right to do so. They’re the ones who get people riled up about the way the system works.

Ah Greg, a man after my own heart. I have said the same thing many times.

The problem comes from the people who think their govvie house is a god given right and not a privledge. They would find it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that smashing up other’s property is not OK.

I would suggest that the government could still have a small property holding for people who for some reason genuinely couldn’t be housed from the private market or for short term accomodation. Everyone else can enter the private market with government subsidy if necessary.

And to think the ACT Greens want to up the public housing stock in Canberra to 10%. God help us.

Imagine that – people who trash houses, don’t pay the rent on time and are pains in the a*** having to clean up their act in order to get a property! What is this world coming to when people can’t destroy the property of others at will?

The trick to do would be to find rentals for those who can’t manage it, with a government guarantee that the property will be looked after. This guarantee will be supported by the small weekly/fortnightly bond that will be extracted automatically from these people’s wage or welfare.

But in the private rental market the government has no control over evictions, lease lengths etc and is essentially at the mercy of the private landlord.

Additionally with the tightness of the rental market landlords can already pick and choose who they feel will be the best tenant from long lists of applicants. How many of them do you think would pick tenants who they know are using rental funding assistance?

No, I think this is too much of a utopian idea to work.

Except that single parents with 5 kids, and feral families with destructive pasts would never get private rental accomodation, and would get kicked out if they did. Where do they go then – your local park?

the govt also has a large number of little old ladies in govvie housing they have been in for 50 years since they moved to Canberra. What would they do with them? Boot them out and tell them to find a rental themselves?