Affordable housing action delayed

Indi, that’s how I got my govie house – moved 7 times in five years in private rental, and finally couldn’t find anything anywhere near what I could afford. Had to BEG my landlord to allow me to stay on for (what was then the length of the priority housing list) three months, still paying rent.

Have you ever had to beg? For something that you should not have to beg for? I have had to do it a lot – shamelessly – eg in doctor’s surgeries, usually in the public waiting room (please will you bulkbill my three children) etc. It’s humiliating and not the avenue of choice.

As for housing, the private rental market as it stands is not the answer. And I doubt I will ever be able to afford even a deposit to get into the mortgage belt. I am just ms-average-not-particularly- well-off one income, sole parent family. Not a drug addicted alcoholic victim of domestic violence with a mental illness etc. The tighter the criteria, the less it will apply to the majority of needy.

miz – don’t wish to rain on your parade excessively, but just who has security of tenure? It’s not a sticking point.

Private renters certainly do not nor do households up to the eyeballs in debt with a mortgage…reality bites to be blunt.

Social housing in its true form must remain an option for families identified as in need and ‘tenure’ is an issue best considered in a utopia.

I don’t particularly like moving house. Which is why I bought mine.

Admittedly, I bought it back in ’99, before housing prices went bonkers. But still, I know a fair few people who have bought themselves houses becuase they’re not a fan of moving- not all of which are on particularly high wages.

And if you want security of income, permanent jobs are available out there quite easily. I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for people who mysteriously have high paying contracts for six months and then don’t for another six months – if you’re good enough to get a high paying contract, you’re probably good enough to be getting a decently paying wage.

The security of tenure issue seems to be a sticking point – hands up who likes moving house?

Problem is, people on contracts can be OK one week and not OK the next. I know someone who was on the NSW Housing list for 7 years (without getting a place) and were chucked off after a better-than-average six months – shortly after which they lost the contract and were on the dole. And back to the bottom of the list.

There is just not enough bricks and mortar for rent, period. The govt would rather move the goalposts by altering eligibility criteria because it’s cheaper than building/purchasing/maintaining. And it makes them look fiscally responsible when in fact it’s a short-term contingency to get re-elected.

It can get pretty tough for individuals with all the ‘deeming’ that goes on when governments set these kind of thresholds. However, I would expect them to include family payment as this is, after all, income.

miz, may well be that a change of policy is needed to accommodate more needy people – as is the case now, those wanting to access public housing are doing so because they cannot compete nor possibly sustain a market tenancy.

I think you’ll find the call for a shift in policy will be required whether you like or not and the current govt is no doubt grappling with this quandry.

Case-by-case management should be the order of the day and if the dept can see that, even though you maybe on some form of full market rent, you really do have a genuine need then the chances are you’ll end up maintaining your public housing tenancy.

From my observation, the Opposition want to house the needy as a priority…if you remain in genuine need then security of tenure shouldn’t really come into the argument – it’s a hard argument even for the left to refute.

I recall this debate has been had over and over, but if any government of the day isn’t willing to ensure…well, to offer govt-funded housing to those in greatest need for the time period of need, it would be failing on a number of policy fronts ie. fiscal, social and perhaps even moral.

…just a pennies worth.

The “fair market rent” argument really applies to people on middle-and-high incomes, not necessarily to low income people. I have no problem with examining where the “full market rent” threshold applies. In your case, it appears to be pretty low (although I don’t have access to your full spending habits, so I don’t know whether that’s true – you could have many reasons why you can “hardly make ends meet”).

But it’s obvious that in some locations (for example, a certain Yarralumla residence) that the rate for full market rent is set ludicrously low given the location and quality of the residence. And when people are earning Executive Level salaries and still remaining in government housing, I don’t see why they should expect secure tenure. IF you can’t make ends meet on an exective level salary, there’s something wrong with you.

VY and Simto, do you really know about public housing? Did you know they include family payment in their income calculation (when they judge if you should get a rebate on the market rent)?

What this means is, the Feds give you money because you are on a low income, and the ACT Gov claw it back in rent. I am now paying ‘full rent’ and can hardly make ends meet.

This makes me one of those ‘rich’ people that some out-of-touch MLAs (OK, Jacqui Burke) thinks should be turfed out. To where? I have no cash savings for a bond, and when I was renting privately I was forced to move umpteen times (landlord wants to sell, etc etc). Not to mention the chronic shortage of private rentals. I am incredibly grateful for the stability (otherwise known as security of tenure) and because I can finally have a settled family I am looking after the property. I wouldn’t bother too much if I thought I could be turfed out at the drop of a hat.

Jacqui B’s world is one where the only ones in govies are the really resistant multiple-disadvantaged . . . and when they actually get their act together (because they can get settled), – bring on the surprise spruiker – out they go! I foresee big problems with this, don’t you?

Hm. We agree on one policy. I have a feeling we disagree on tonnes more. I think it’s safer for the cause of party unity if I stay out of that one…

“have the high income earners pay a genuine fair market rate ”
Good call. If you match the market for those who can afford it, they will tend to move out anyway I think, so they can have more control of where they live.
Unfortunately, the actual cost of housing is not going to go down in the longer term. I like the idea of building more public houosing also, but making sure people are paying a rent which is both reasonable (not strictly market) and affordable.
Releasing a bunch more land could crash the property market in the short term, but it will recover and get just as expensive in the medium to longer term.
Just my $0.02.