Cottage Couple to be Thrown Out

Sewage chewy, the word is sewage

Sewage is the mainly liquid waste containing some solids produced by humans which typically consists of washing water, feces, urine, laundry waste and other material which goes down drains and toilets from households and industry.

Sewerage is the system of pipes and collection points that the sewage goes to.

Was this sewerage plant a place where the manufactured sewerage system component?

If not its a sewage treatment plant.

Anywho… Back to 2009

Yes,
now please bulldoze it.
Heritage listing a caretakers building for a sewerage plant.
Only in Canberra.

Yeah!

LOL

Who are you to impose your worldview on this newly appropriated community art space?

As predicted this historic cottage is now being vandalised.

Our taxes are still gong towards security that would have been uneccessary had the previous tenants been left in situ.

Our taxes will also be used to fix up the cottage again when/if the govt decides what they want to do with it.

Unless of course it is so wrecked that the best response is to develop the block into units….
(CT, yesterday)

They are redeveloping around the cottage for housing – much like in Gungahlin where the various old shacks remain amongst the new rows of houses.

The development is not going to happen for some time though (like a couple of years I think), so I can’t understand the rush to get these people out of their house, and use our taxes to pay a 24 hour security guard for the forseeable future.

I would have thought it could be handled by leaving them there, agreeing on some sort of rent, and coming to an agreement that when Molonglo is built and a purpose for the cottage has been agreed (museum/tea shop etc), then the couple would move on.

And not everyone has to know about the cottage for it to have heritage value. I’ve never been to that heritage home in red hill, but I”m glad it is there and has been preserved so people can see Canberra’s history in the flesh. I”m sure there are people who haven’t been to blundell’s cottage, but that doesn’t mean we should bulldoze it – or put someone in to live there and pay market rent!

You are really something tap – I’ll grant you that!

Yes they are redeveloping the entire area to build houses. That people will buy or rent in exchange for money.

It is housing redevelopment. Anyone else thinking ‘The Castle Part II: This time business wins, and the people of canberra rejoice’?

Loose Brown: I dont know where the line would be drawn, but this couple should have been allowed to stay. So I will say not at noneidontcarebaoutanyreasonsthisisunfair! A look at this situation shows its unfair to kick these people out. Especially considering its going to cost more for security etc without them, and that they would have paid rent. Is the only reason that they are being booted because the ‘me me mes’ are upset somebody else scored themselves a good deal? If you feel bad that they should leave their house of 28 years… which is a mightly long time. Why should they go?

Unless there is something im missing, are they knocking down the house for redevelopment or something?

Tap that argument is further from reason than anything else I can imagine!

Where would you draw the line on people I don’t know being given free housing?! Just this couple? Just 1,000?

But OK – I do feel bad that they have to leave their house, they ran a good media campaign – but it certainly was the right decision for them to go.

Loose Brown: It truly is. From a me, me, me perspective. The unfairness does not affect the mortgage or rent paying people in the slightest. Rents and Mortgauges will not be cheaper once these people have been evicted (if they havn’t already), just as they weren’t more expensive because they were living there. In fact if you don’t know these people, your life has been entirely unaffected by their living arrangements. But since when does reason come into RA? Like I said, someone is getting something im not. We must stop this. Petty, selfish and spiteful.

How would you feel if you were them? Try this thing called empathising and you might get a glimpse of understanding where the unfair is in this situation.

Hmm…

That should have read “Cottaging couples in Mologolo deserve community support these days?”

Cottaging couples in deserve community support these days?
Next thing you’ll have all the dogging couples hanging out by the RSPCA…

If I camp out in the big ACTEW pumping station at the Cotter for a whle, and polish some of the brass in it, can I have Tap arguing that I add to the community appeal?

Doesn’t the ACT allow for adverse possession?

Tap – you can throw your hands up in despair at the inhumanity of it all – but the simple fact is it is an unfair situation for everyone who has to pay rent or a mortgage.

Not being up on all the details of the case I can’t comment meaningfully, but it’s worth bearing in mind that the concept of squatter’s rights has a long established tradition in or system.

The rationale is basically that property shouldn’t be left lying around doing nothing. If someone finds an abandoned property and puts it to good use, then they should be entitled to keep doing so. There’s also the argument that if you’ve lived in a place for a long time, and no-one has objected, then it’s inequitable to just get kicked out, regardless of the strict legal situation.

Both arguments seem particular apt in this situation, but I don’t know what else the parties may have agreed to….

Petty, spiteful and selfish…

…

Those caretakers are. Who do they think they are? getting something im not, its unfair and I want it stopped now!

Obviously the live in caretakers seems to held appeal for sentimentalists.

How about we let “live in caretakers” occupy the school sites that are to be closed down? They can pay for upkeep in lieu of rent, and the “valuable heritage buildings” *cough* can be kept for future generations.

As most people seem to be saying “we didn’t even know it existed” about this place, I’m not sure what the heritage value is. I watched part of that video but gave up when Jenni was saying that the pine tree should be heritage listed because it survived the bushfires. Yes, a rare, native Pinus Radiata.

I don’t think that the couple owe any rent, because they did fund upkeep. But I don’t think the government owes them anything either. It’s a case of “yep, thanks for looking after the place, but now the gravy train is over. You’re surplus to our requirements”.

Expecting a return on $70k invested into something that you have no legal rights over is financial lunacy. They should just look at it as extremely cheap rent and walk away.

The only reason this is going to cost the taxpayer money is because the previous residents lodged a heritage claim in an attempt to protect their own cheap housing.

sigh.

It is time for these bludgers to join the real world. I pay $740 per week in mortguage payments, for a rundown dog box in Fraser. This is 60% of our combined weekly income. So they should stop sooking and start providing for themselves instead of the honest hardworking people of the ACT paying for their rates, rent, water and electricity. Low life bludging scum, I say. Come find out what it is realy like to live in Canberra.
They should have back pay the government and people of canberra for 30 years of rates, water and rent. Not even government housing residents get it that good.

Crikey you will never end up in this situation, cos something tells me you are not the type to see an old piece of Canberra’s history falling into disrepair and decide to step in and do something.

I also doubt you’d stay somewhere for 28 years and pour your own money into it, without a legal agreement on paper. I probably wouldn’t either, but I am glad that this couple did.

And i think it is totally bizarre that the govt is now kicking them out when they have offered to pay rent, and is building a massive fence and hiring an expensive security guard to guard a building that was being perfectly well looked after!

I wish I could live in a house for 28 years and pay no rent/rates.

Perhaps all our fine public housing residents should also be given free rent.

That silly moo Jacquie Burke backs yet another pathetic case. And she could be a Minister in the next government if the Libs win. Good grief!

Whats the reason for kicking them out?

Also if I could be bothered I’d go and check if the people who are whinging about this couple not paying rent are the same people whinging about taxing the rich more. Id also ask those offended that these people weren’t paying rent: How is this affecting you? Are you just jealous? And if you cant not pay rent, no one should not pay rent? Or perhaps this is some kind of crazed communist ideal that all must pay for the greater good? But I cant be bothered and I wouldn’t get any answers beyond ‘they should pay rent!’ So bollocks.

Paging Tap to this social injustice thread… Tap, if you’re in the building, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Please accept my apologies for the “hollow ring” pun.

… you know Andrew Barr is a real bastard to think that he thinks that he will be chief minister some day

I doubt Canberra, despite it’s apparently liberal attitutdes will ever be ready for Mr Barr as Chief Minister – there’d be a hollow ring to any discussion about family values comming from a poo-punching bum bandit.

I was out there at the eviction today, I will have to admit that I went just to see what all the commotion was about. I was of the opinion that they should get kicked out because the honeymoon was over. You know the free rider that. Peter Farrell showed me some photos of the place before they moved in and well I can say it was a dump! Seriously the place was basically a ruin with no hot water or electricity. They have spent a lot of money doing the place up, it looks fantastic now. The place would be worth a mint now.

Why evict someone on a Saturday? They have been trying to pay rent on the place for years and the government wont let them (I saw the paper work) they where given the ‘license’ to occupy the place by the government before the ACT got self-gov and have the documentation to prove it.

Farrells where actually really nice bunch and where quite happy to chill out and let the eviction happen. The community alliance party where there in force, there was abut 30 of them at one stage. And not just the rabblerousers, almost all of the executive was there as well most of them introduced them selves to me. I would like to see the last time that the ALP or Libs Exec ever did something. Jacquie Burke did the usual whistle stop tour turned up 10 min late, popped up of in all of the photos cried some crocodile tears and shot through in 30min flat. I was surprised not to see the greens there though.

Norvan was there in the background, he didn’t really get in the camera shot or get much media. He waited till they where gone to make his move, the guy knows how to do Guerrilla tactics alright. The next three hours was hilarious I can’t wait to read about it in the paper on Monday because he was on the phone all night giving interview. I know that Barr and Hardgrave’s are going to have some serious egg on there face.

you know Andrew Barr is a real bastard to think that he thinks that he will be chief minister some day. Before you ask I am a member of the ALP, not for long though i didnt join the party for this, I think that I might resign and join this CAP bunch

used to have to live at bottom of lake.

cardboard box, CR? you were lucky.

The verbal contract seemed to be good for both sides for 30 years. What does the ACT Gov say about allowing the situation to continue for a generation? In my view, the verbal contract appears to have been fulfilled by both parties quite happily for all that time.

It seems to me that the couple have acted in good faith and this is now a land grab by the government to further their plans for the area.

Bring on the election. (Please God let there be a serious alternative by then!!!).

OMG I am praying and it is not even Sunday yet.

There seems to be a degree of meaness associated with the course of action pursued by the ACT Gov & it’s minions. From the above posts, it appears rent was offered, but nothing formalised. OK, so a couple lived rent free – had this occurred in the UK, I believe they would have been awarded legal ownership.

Just where is the gain to the ACT community by fencing the site off and paying security guards, when at no cost the place is kept equally secure? I would be really annoyed if, like the action taken on bike ramps in Farrer, a bulldozer is dispatched to remove the embarrasing evidence.

Bureaucratic convenience is becoming a foundation stone of this Gov. As long as there is not too much flak, the shiny arses are given free reign. Serving the public has become a joke; progress within the service and covering the Gov’s arse are the mantra.

We deserve better!

As this couple well knows, the government would need to go out to tender to get a caretaker for the cottage and put it through a legitimate process, if security guards are going to be too costly.

According to Stanhope, these two squatters signed consent orders in court agreeing to vacate the premises. Err, that’s not an eviction. Stanhope mentioned this on ABC666 radio this morning.

Changed your minds on the last day did you? Crying eviction now to make the Government look bad?

How do you spell mortgage? I bet you don’t know.

Well, then try …

R … E … N … TTTTTTTTT

$360 a week, …….. for a shoe-box!

Welcome to Canberra.

They also look as though they’d be right at home in the house behind Duke!

Wasn’t there some guy adjacent to the Yarralumla Brickworks who claimed financial equity in the public land on the basis that he’d mowed the grass on it from time to time over 20 years?
Well, one old fellow in the inner north has been mowing a large strip of public land next to his house for 30 years – with no plans to claim it. Just being neighbourly to the public’s benefit.
Thanks for the caretaking, Farrells, and any public good, now move on.

Looked like a gathering of the Lower Putney Lesbian Goatskin Drum-Making, Basket-Weaving and Wiccan Morris-Dancing Society.

Jenni Farrell gives her side of the story here:
http://www.canberravotes.com/2008/05/caretakers-cottage-open-day-cotter-road-old-stromlo-forest-25-may-2008/

They have offerred to pay rent now and in the past.

Why not leave them in there paying some rent until someone is ready to make the place a community resource. Instead of booting them out, and leaving it empty to be ruined by neglect. It doesnt seem to be cost effective, and is downright mean.

They’re being booted out because they’re squatters. TAMS will be able to put the site to much better use as a community resource, as opposed to a free ride for that couple. About half a million in rent they haven’t had to pay, poor dears!

Dear ‘Caretakers’

Thank you for ‘taking care’ of the cottage for 26 years. Sleeping there has obviously taken up much of your valuable time which you could have spent sleeping in a house of your own. Your generous donation of $70,000 – about $50 a week – was much appreciated. We note that this ‘donation’ was completely and utterly selfless, and that you derived no benefit whatsoever from living in this fine cottage rent free for three decades.

Now f.ck off, you filthy squatters.

Signed
The Government

Agree with pandy, they could (and should) own a house elsewhere outright by now, assuming they have done something useful with the bucketloads of cash they have saved by not paying rent/rates etc for so long.

If they put 70 grand in to a house they don’t own……. well you don’t have to be Einstein to see how stupid that is.

So they saved themselves $500,000 in rent (todays dollars) minus upkeep over 30 years. Party is over folks. Move along.

I am guessing that the ACT Govt probably has advice that if they do not enforce the decision of the court, then the couple’s claims to a verbal contract may be found valid.

Which means the couple could be awarded a rent free caretaker role for the rest of their lives.

As well as being totally unfair for everyone else who has to pay rent or buy their own home, it would also affect the development of the area – the couple’s heritage listing application has not yet been accepted, and the outcome of that will affect the plans.

I would bet the reason the security guard will be posted is to prevent the couple from simply disobeying the court’s decision and remaining on site – opening the door to the above scenario. So the extra expense is all down to the actions of the couple. But it is probably far cheaper than either a) changing the plans to allow for the cottage to remain or b) sucking up the loss of income from a cottage for the rest of this couple’s lives.

And yes – the couple claim that a landlord would normally pay these costs but didn’t. Which I think speaks volumes about their ‘contract’.

All that’s needed for a legally binding contract is parties that willinging enter into an agreement for mutual benefit and that involes a consideration – It’s often handy to have it all in writing but hardcopy is by no means a requirement.

Pedantics aside. I heard that the money spent on the place by said couple related to maintenance and upkeep that would normally have been the responsibility of the landlord – but seeing as no one in the ACT Government would own up to that role they simply paid for those costs themselves.

Thats right, a verbal agreement is legally binding. It’s just a verbal agreement is usually very hard to prove if contested, hence why written contracts are the norm.

I actually agree (on he face of things) with sepi.

There’s no contract! Maybe I could understand them living there rent free if the couple were actually rocking up every day to maintain the sewerage works. These people are living in a fantasy of their own creation!!

I maintain my own house for absolutely nothing! How stupid am I???

It’s a contract none the less.

Fine Inge – let’s see the contract. Oh – that’s right – it was a verbal agreement.

Good on em for seeking to have the place heritage listed. Perhaps now Standope will have to come up with an idea for it’s ongoing use.

I also don’t buy the crap about these people living there rent free – they were apparently apointed by the forest service as caretakers and that required them to occupy the building – in return and in recognition of the value of those caretaker services they were not charged rent – a situation that for better or worse was allowed to continue for 30 odd years.

I think it is unfair for them to live there rent free for nearly 30 years, due to falling through an administrative crack.

Everyone else has to pay rent.

And paying your own money to restore a property where you have no legal tenure is stupid.

The fence is there now because of the couple’s actions in listing the property, which will cost the community more than any money they ever invested in the place.

Seems a bit coldhearted. If they can develop Molonglo without knocking it down, might as well let them stay there – charge them rent, though.

Revenge? Maybe.

But if you live in a place, even if it is for a number of years, that you don’t actually own, rent free, you have to live with and accept the expectation that someday somebody’s going to decide to make use of their legal claim.

what sepi said. a farce perpetrated by this government… again.

from what i gather, they’ve not paid rent ’cause no-one ever asked them to.

The caretaker services provided by the couple could be viewed as their contribution to the arrangement. That said, there’s no legal reason they should have paid rent given that there dosn’t seem to have been any lease or other formalisation of the relationship.

I’m on the couple’s side.

It seems stupid to pay a caretaker to patrol around the perimeter fence 24 hours a day (to prevent graffiti and squatters), when they could just leave the couple there to provide security for free.

The couple has spent 70 grand on renovating the cottage, so not exactly ‘rent free’. They’ve also offered to pay rent, but Andrew Barr would rather spend money on a guard than have money coming in.

This cute cottage is part of our history, adn I think they should just leave it there. If the coupel actually wants to stay while mOLONGLO IS DEVELOPED AROUND THEM then let them. (I wouldn’t), but if they are that attached to the house, why not come up with a rent amount, and say that when they finally vacate it will become a gift to ACT historical sciety or smilar.

I think the govt is messing this one up (again.)

Honeymoon is over folks. Welcome to the real world.