6 April 2006

Deb Foskey shocked at better uses found for her old home.

| johnboy
Join the conversation
46

Some people just don’t know when to leave things alone. Usually that person is me. This time it’s Deb Foskey who should be enjoying getting out of the PR nightmare of being a public figure on a high income using public housing resources.

Instead she’s come back to the well to tell us of her outrage that her crappy old house in Yarralumla has been sold.

It was always a disgrace that valuable land was being used to keep two people in the style they preferred to be accustomed to, while others slept on the street.

It would be nice if resources allowed ACT Housing (or whatever they call themselves this week) to keep properties in all postcodes. But given a choice of a few living in the inner south while others sleep in their cars, or more cheap properties, I know which one I’d pick. Heartless bastard that I am.

Join the conversation

46
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

and should probably say, I was paying $195/wk before the initial increase

‘Housing ACT believes it does charge market rent to those playing full rent. It has mechanisms in place to assess it, and a lot to gain by charging as much as possible.’

Roland, Housing ACT a few years ago took it upon themsleves to do an across the board review, gaining special dispensation from the Minister (then Bill Wood) to go above and beyoind the rental increases allowed and bring rents into line with ‘market’. The funny thing about this is for the 12 square brick box in Latham I was renting then got increased to $260/wk, so I moved to the private market and got a 13.5 square house in Macgregor (which traditionally has higher rents than Latham) for $245/wk. The govt house was just the house, albeit on a large block. The private house was also on a large block, with a 4-car garage, landscaping, better carpeting etc etc. Dr Foskey appears to have missed this little ‘blip’……

barking toad11:55 pm 07 Apr 06

“It’s all a team effort in this office”

You all take responsibility for those press releases? Shared stupidity?

Or does it mean, like in footy speak, “the coach has the full support of the committee”.

‘Team effort’ in the Greens is like left faction in the Canberra ALP. Irrelevant.

Then again if its a team effort and Deb’s your skipper…….what a thought. My u12 cricket captain had more sense of direction than Hippy Deb.

The real question here is whether the (broke) ACT govt are in fact using this money to buy two townhouses for public housing, or is the profit just going into consolidated revenue.

It’s all a team effort in this office

thumper and mael’s drinks should not be confused with RA drinks, which happen less often.

You can bet your left one that Roland will be putting his hand up for the Greens at the next election.

That is why he is pushing (over Deb) his media profile.

But remember he is Deb’s adviser and thus is responsible for a lot of the crap that is coming out of Deb’s office.

Never been to RA drinks, never been to Durham Arms, but I can feel a thirst coming on real soon. Loggin’ off in two shakes, there in about 3, gone after a schooner or two (and a shake…).

What time are y’all heading down? I might duck in for one or two…

Areaman, I would have to view the property to be able to justifiably compare it to the Fosmansion. Obviously there are several mitigating factors why a property could be going for $320 in Yarra.

I’m not going to go there simply to prove a point though.

I trust Thumper’s story however (primarily because I know him and will be drinking with him in 2 hours), so follow with this comparison:

$270/w for a 2br house in Yarralumla, or
$280/w for a 2br house in Charnwood.

Which is the better deal ?

So you ignore my example, but believe Thumper’s because it fits your argument better? Sure there could be issues about the place listed on all homes, but you make blanket judgments about the house Foskey lived in without having been into it, how is this any different?

Better pre-order a mung bean spritzer.

they say there’s money in badger taming

p.s. Roland, if you’re keen, your welcome to come along for a discussion…

Durham Arms

I’m in a white shirt with brownish pants.

Thumper will be in a stripey ‘tattoo’ shirt 🙂

Maelinar, where are you drinking in 2 hours?

Areaman, I would have to view the property to be able to justifiably compare it to the Fosmansion. Obviously there are several mitigating factors why a property could be going for $320 in Yarra.

I’m not going to go there simply to prove a point though.

I trust Thumper’s story however (primarily because I know him and will be drinking with him in 2 hours), so follow with this comparison:

$270/w for a 2br house in Yarralumla, or
$280/w for a 2br house in Charnwood.

Which is the better deal ?

Love the Deb. What a hoot. Roland – no offence to you and I think you argue your end of the stick wit admirable tennacity – but I’d be looking for another job well before the next election rolls around.

This is my favourite bit:
“Canberra used to be a democratic egalitarian town where rich and poor grew up together and went to the same schools and shops.”
Doesn’t this somewhat imply that poor people are the only ones who are entitled live in public housing? Where does this leave the “market renters”

Anyway, enough said.

redneck_ninja12:45 pm 07 Apr 06

Used to live in an ex-govie house in Yarralumla – they’re pretty much the only sort of heritage the suburb has left, are being demolished left right and centre. They aren’t shitty houses, I’d rather live there than the monstrocities that replace them. While the whole politician-in-gov-housing thing is a big issue, the underlying issue in all this is that there’s no control about selling off government housing. Especially when they’re not being replaced. Can you blame foskey for wanting to live in a place like Y’lumla, or in a unit at Charnwood?

Everyone claims that $270 is a fraction of what market rent would be, but http://allhomes.com.au/c/ah?a=spr&p=66602 is $320 and it’s three bedroom, rather than two. To me that seems comparable.

Words have meaning.

Market Rent, means a rent set by the market. These are not.

They are at best an equivalent of market rent.

I recall in 1999 a two bedroom flat in Downer was costing me $200 a week. A full blown house in yarralumla? I’d have loved that!

Maelinar,

I’m happy with your terms (Full rent vs market rent) but don’t accept the cloured comment “It has long since been dismissed that ‘full market rent’ is a fallacy of the highest order. It is a pittance of what a private renter would be paying in the open market.”

Housing ACT believes it does charge market rent to those playing full rent. It has mechanisms in place to assess it, and a lot to gain by charging as much as possible.

Salutations Roland, I again admire your attendance of this forum in the face of overwhelming odds. Your job is not an easy one.

Forum wide, let’s get something clear; It has long since been dismissed that ‘full market rent’ is a fallacy of the highest order. It is a pittance of what a private renter would be paying in the open market.

I suggest this alternative:

Full Rent – unsubsidised rental contribution in a publicly supplied home
Market Rent – rental contribution in a privately supplied home

Re: Growling ferrets comments that “How many other houses in Yarralumla were available for rent for $270 a week? That’s a townhouse in Banks/Ngunnawal money… “

That might be the case if you were looking to move into a property today. But – if you had been in a property for say, 6 years, and you had started out paying $200 a week – which was around the market rent for a crappy 3 beddie in yarralumla 6 years ago – then $270 would still be a legitimate rent to pay today.
There is a limit to how much a landlord can increase the rent each year. Market rent is only one of at least half a dozen factors which are taken into account if the matter needs to be determined by the Tribunal.

Couldn’t agree more Chris S, but I for one was questioning the Greens policy on the matter of allocating properties to the people who need it – the Greens seem to imply that Public Housing should be for anyone who wishes to access it, the ALP are most likely grappling with the current security of tenure policy and the Libs, based on statements want access based on need.

Lets hope the policy change (if any change occurs, as local govt seems to be hopless at making any decisions based on rational, practical and financial grounds) falls somewhere in the middle ground for the sake of all the political viewpoints. Basically, it needs to be tri-partisan so that more of the needy can be provided with the basic human right of…housing.

if this is to be a useful forum for a debate on security of tenure I would ask those contributing to read Housing ACT’s own research paper on Market Renters, and the ACTCOSS-ACT Shelter co-publication “Wealth of Home”.

Actually Chris we haven’t missed that point at all and have debated it ad-nauseam.

Dr. Foskey’s supporters have consistently argued for the principle of lifetime security of tenure.

The sad reality that with scarce resources this will inevitably lead to public subsidy of the cash-poor but politically connected (come on down self-proclaimed leaders of the “community sector”) is probably not part of their plan but should be born in mind.

barking toad11:12 am 07 Apr 06

Chris, the punters find it hard to get over foskey when she draws a salary from the public purse and continues to produce idiotic press releases. Be they about her housing situation or not.

She’s like the kid at school with the sign on his back saying “I’m an idiot, kick me”.

Except in her case she puts the sign there herself.

Accept your point about public housing policy needing an overhaul.

Good on Roland for sticking his head up above the parapet. Most of you probably don’t agree with his sentiments, but at least give him some credit for bravery.

Deb Foskey has become the target for community outrage, and her actions (or lack therefof for some time) do raise the question of her judgement on this issue.

However, the wider principle is one that has not been properly addressed – the commentators above are so busy slinging off at Deb that they almost miss the point.

The ACT has a policy of “life tenure” in public housing, and that approach in this day and age needs to be changed. There are many tenants occupying public housing who should move on – I remember a while ago, the “public tenant of the year” or some such has his 4WD and flash boat parked in the garage behind him. This is a significant public policy issue, and needs to be addressed as such, not as an opportunity for attacks on an individual to prove a point.

The argument that “market renters” are helping support the system is a fallacy – they don’t, as they don’t actually pay anything close to market rent, and therefore are a net cost to ACT Housing.

Riotacters, get over Deb Foskey now that’s she moved out, but continue making the point that this policy has passed it’s use-by date and needs to be addressed, with time limits on rentals. When their circumstances change, tenants should move on within a reasonable period of time. Simple, one would have thought.

Let’s make it one set of rules for all, and make sure those rules reflect contemporary community standards rather than vilifying one person who acted within the terms of her rental.

Roland,

How can there be a diminishing stock of market renters when the local media reported this week (not too sure where, sorry will try to validate it with link imminently) that there are, at times up to 30 applications for rental properties in the ACT?

Growling Ferret10:35 am 07 Apr 06

Market renters? How long can you keep that lie up for?

How many other houses in Yarralumla were available for rent for $270 a week? That’s a townhouse in Banks/Ngunnawal money…

barking toad10:17 am 07 Apr 06

So, roland the green. Your unfortunate leader occupying a government house at market (hahaha) rent provides a roof over how many heads compared to her not being there? Or, better still, the place being sold to buy two others that she doesn’t occupy?

Defend the indefensible.

Perhaps you wrote the unfortunate press release?

barking toad10:08 am 07 Apr 06

You silly fuck foskey, these pranks are meant to be released on 1st April – that’s April Fool’s Day ya gimp!

But what the…. it’s not meant as a joke? She’s serious? Faaaaarrk!

Now the “NPR” surely didn’t pen that herself did she? Surely she can’t be that stoooopid? But hey, if one of her brilliant advisers penned it, she must have given it the green light (brilliant pun intended).

Now all you kiddies who think you are saving the planet by voting green in the ACT, please pick another candidate next election. Or vote informal, or not at all.

Don’t impose this waste of oxygen on us again.

Her antics nearly caused a car accident this morning as I had to pull over laughing as I heard all about it on radio samuel.

Firstly, We were approached by the media about the sale of the house.

Secondly, I appreciate not much to be gained in this forum by revisiting the economics of Housing ACT, for long.

But, so you can see where we are coming from: our concern has always been that the cannibalisation of public housing stock, when there is a diminishing proportion of market renters (which is inevitable with lots of people in need of housing) wil result in a shrinking pool of public housing, concentrated in cheaper areas with less access to services.

That problem is compounded in the ACT which has very limited supplies of other affordable housing (such as community housing, cheaper private rental properties, supported purchasing schemes, etc).

That’s why we’ve been advocating for supply side strategies as well as increased investment in Housing ACT.

re “closed for Comment”: I don’t know about it, but I suspect it’s because we haven’t had someone handling comments to our site for some time now. You can see it applies to all material on our site… not just this story.

roland

I almost choked on my drink a forthnight ago when Foskey was on WIN News squawking about “a desperate shortage of local low-income housing”

At the time I wasn’t aware she had been ejected from her humble Yarralumla abode, so now I guess we can expect her smug, self-righteous presence on the news to badmouth ACT Housing at any given opportunity.

There has been some goose MLAs over the years but Nanny McFoskey is certainly Mother Goose.

Cowardice. Bring back military service, for guys & gals too. Let’s put some backbone into the pissweak pollies who claim to represent us: Libs, Greens and all the other commies too! Harrumph!

Bitter experience I would imagine.

What would be interesting would be if they had the comments open to paid up members if the party but open to the public.

Why do they put “Comments Closed” on their website, presumably before anyone has a chance to comment?

Foskey and her housing – what’s the saying?

“Like a dog returning to its vomit.”

Care to put us all straight, RolandGRNS?

She would have had the option to buy the house from ACT Govt instead of moving out anyway.

Statements like “public housing increasingly limited to the “deserving poor”” leave me puzzled about the Green’s ideological stance on housing as a human right.

So…they have come to the realisation that social housing is increasingly being offered to the people who need to access it as a priority, yet still don’t believe it is better for any govt to sell a single property (and perhaps pick up two more) in order to house more needy people like..mmm, the homeless, people with varied needs and those on low incomes or govt payments instead of the well-to-do middle classes who are not able to provide for themselves and just want to muddle along in public housing.

Throughout this saga, I wonder what the Minister for Housing thought about all of this?

When will this woman learn to shut up? and i thought i had foot in mouth disease. sheesh

“The past year has seen a concentred campaign by developers against public housing in central suburbs” Dr Foskey said today.“The attacks on me while I was still living in my Government home were a part of that push.”

Yes Deb, our critisism of you was due to our support of your house being levelled to build townhouses.

Irrelevant piffle

Vic Bitterman9:12 pm 06 Apr 06

foskey is pathetic. The greens must cringe everytime she opens her mouth.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.