Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Deb Foskey’s response, and the comments.

johnboy 18 June 2005 24

The ACT Greens have put up an illuminating item on the subject of Deb Foskey’s housing situation.

While her defence relies on the euphemism of “market rent” and the unsupported assertion “security of tenure, which is a crucial component of any socially sustainable public housing scheme” what was really interesting to me was the comments section which:

a) Has astronomically less comments than our own stories on the subject, and

b) Is more unequivocally critical of the MLA than the comments on this site (if you exclude the intervention of her media advisor Roland Manderson).

Anyhoo, that’s the best they can do.

Incidentally I went there looking for the statement on the plight of Griffin Centre residents. (c’mon folks, I’m with you on that one).


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to Deb Foskey’s response, and the comments.
Filter
Order
bulldog bulldog 2:15 pm 22 Jun 05

And getting back to a government subsidised Public Housing system; that’s what we pay taxes isn’ it? I don’t expect the government to try and make money off public housing; that’s not what it’s there for. Furthermore I don’t pay my taxes so we can assist people who don’t need the help; I don;t pay my taxes so the CM can go on junkets.

I (and I think I speak for all of us) pay our taxes so we can take the poor buggers who have nowhere to sleep and put them in a house for the duration of the need.

I don’t give a f*ck what the policy sais; that’s the way it ought to be.

Maelinar, don’t descend to areaman’s level by calling him an idiot. You’re working on a righteous rant, and you’ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

That being said I’m sure he’ll work it out for himself shortly before treating himself to an uppercut.

Maelinar Maelinar 11:26 am 22 Jun 05

BTW Areaman, the Public Housing Program is based from the Public Housing Assistance Policy, so they are intricately linked. Infact, the program wouldn’t exist unless there was a policy.

I get the feeling that this is APS 101 territory so you can’t be a public servant.

Maelinar Maelinar 11:22 am 22 Jun 05

You just don’t get it do you ?

But then again you never will. But that’s ok, I am appreciating your right to suck oxygen possibly even in the next cubicle to me.

What you aren’t getting is that REGARDLESS of the fact that somebody is paying ‘market rent’, they are OCCUPYING a house that is for a HOMELESS PERSON.

Since she has the MEANS to get out of her situation, she should be provided with full assistance in VACATING THE HOUSE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE.

I didn’t see any extra money in the begging tin at Kippax last night either, so I assume the emotion and concern for the underdogs that you are so emphatically following over this blog doesn’t extend to your back pocket.

I won’t bother going into calculations regarding how much the ‘market rent’ is devalued based against the actual resource of a house in Yarralumla, you won’t get it because you’re not listening. Areaman, can I please please become your financial advisor cause you are an idiot and I’d roll you blind.

I posted ‘information’ in response to your call to justify where I was getting my reasoning from. I now put the call to you, back up what you are saying with publicly avaliable information so I can nitpick interpretations in your evidence.

Areaman, I have pointed out that there is a guy in Kippax who could take up the house, Thumper has pointed out a person who could take up the house, how many more people do we need to present to you that are in need of housing before you say ‘enough’ ?

The fact of the matter is simple, the apple has gone rotten, and it’s time to take it out of the barrel before the rest go bad.

simto simto 8:55 am 22 Jun 05

(and yes, havnig re-read that, I realise that I start by saying “It’s not that simple” and end by saying “it’s mindboggilingly simple”. Which may appear to be inconsistent. Which goes to show I should re-read what I write before I post.

It’s simple, but it’s not as simple as “Bad MLA, flog them”. It’s “bad implementation of policy, flog it”. Playing the man (or woman), not the ball is remarkably popular, and it makes very little sense.

simto simto 8:42 am 22 Jun 05

Well, except for the fact that by paying full market rent, Foskey’s putting resources INTO housing, that a person who couldn’t afford other housing wouldn’t be able to.

It’s not really as simple as everybody seems to think. If this affair throws a light on the “full market rent” issue, and has that hiked up a chunk, then it’ll do a lot of good to Public Housing’s coffers. But, because everybody’s concentrating on yelling at one MLA, they’re missing a bigger and better target – get people who are rich enough to pay a genuine market rent, and the thing may actually work out sensibly.

Kick ’em all out and get people who can’t pay anything, and you get a Public Housing service that the government has to pay more for.

Isn’t that mind-boggilingly simple?

johnboy johnboy 7:59 pm 21 Jun 05

Areaman, you seem to be working on the assumption that public housing resources are unlimited, ie infinite.

Appropriately Einstein once observed:

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.

Thumper Thumper 6:37 pm 21 Jun 05

No Area,

You’ve got it wrong. Public housing is there for those who cannot afford to live in other rental properties.

It is not a business. It is a government run program.

Now, I’ll spell this out very slowly and simply.

Foskey IS taking up a house that someone else could have. She can move out, no problems, she has the means to do so. Others, on about a third of her income cannot get that specific house, because she is in it. If she moved out, then there would be one more house available.

But enough of the logic. Read my post above about a friend of mine.

$35K, two kids, no public housing. $100K plus car, one kid, public house? Enough said I think.

Very simple really and probably the reason why, at present, you’re a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Cheers

areaman areaman 5:44 pm 21 Jun 05

How was I treating anyone badly, I called Maelinar and idiot becuase he quoted extensivly from a document that was total irrelevant. Pretty idiotic if you ask me.

bulldog bulldog 5:10 pm 21 Jun 05

I’m with the mob on this one. Foskey is a piece of work if she can put her head down at night and believe what she is doing is right.

Areamaa; let it go. Before you call anyone else an ‘idiot’ take a good hard look at this and ask yourself if the Hoff would treat people so badly.

I think not, idiot.

areaman areaman 5:02 pm 21 Jun 05

Thumper, I’ve said it before but I’ll say it yet again, she’s not taking up a house that someone else could have (at least not in the longer term). She pays market rent, and the profits from that go to public housing. If she was kicked out and some one less able to afford market rent was put in ACT Housing would have to sell off some of it’s properties and so no more people in need would get housing than do now.

I’d be quite happy next time I’m out Kippax to go and tell the homeless man that Deb Foskey is sticking up for low cost housing by subsidising public housing (i’m guessing in the order of many thousands of dollars a year) for everyone who can’t afford to pay more.

Thumper Thumper 4:51 pm 21 Jun 05

I’m totally amazed.

Foskey earns over $100K. She has a car. She is not poor. She can afford to get a house anywhere.

And we have people on the streets? I have a friend who is 38 and has two girls. She earns about $35K a year and is renting privately because the waiting list is so long.

And as far as I can gather, she pays about the same as Foskey does. and believe me, its far from Yarralumbla.

Interesting that you don’t believe that public housing is simply there for those who cannot othewise afford it. That is a strange attitude especially as Foskey is taking up a house that someone else could have. That is a fact, no argument whatsoever there.

Like mael said, go and tell the guy outside Kippax in cold that Foskey is sticking up for his right to have low cost housing by living in it…

Disgusting.

areaman areaman 4:10 pm 21 Jun 05

Maelinar, the Public Housing Assistance policy and the Public Housing program are two sperate things you can be in one (public housing) with out the other (rent assistance). And as I’ve said a million times before she’s not costing anyone else in need a spot.

Sejanus the base difference between your point of view and mine (and I’m guessing Deb Foskey’s) is that you seem believe that public housing should only ever be for those who can’t afford anywhere else, I don’t. It’s as simple as that. How is being in the private system any better for society than the public system if you’re not costing anyone else a spot nor costing the government any money.

Indi that’s true, but my understanding it’s also true that someone who is in a house and collecting rental assistance is still subject to the policy.

Indi Indi 3:53 pm 21 Jun 05

areaman – there seems to be confusion on your point about “Eligibility for Public Housing Assistance” policy. This policy applies when you actually apply for public housing assistance. Since Deb Foskey is already within the system, the policy would only have been relevant to her when she actually applied.

Sejanus Sejanus 3:49 pm 21 Jun 05

Deb Foskey you are a joke! I am sorry but simply justifying that your support of public housing means that you must live in it must be the most stupid comment from a politician in some time.
I support public housing, but my wife and I earn enough that we rent privately at great cost to ourselves. Public housing is for those in need. Not for someone grand standing and trying to morally justify the indefencible.
If you were as honest as you claim to be you would own up, apologise and move out. I doubt you will because you seem deluded enough to believe your own sad political mantras.

Maelinar Maelinar 3:22 pm 21 Jun 05

QUOTE This is the Eligibility for Public Housing Assistance policy. As Foskey is paying market rent she’s not getting any assitance, hence this policy has nothing to do with her.

Apart from being a squatter in a public house that has been purchased for the avaliability of people who need public housing even ?

Your words areaman, since she doesn’t need the assistance, she can get out of the house which has been made avaliable for public housing tennants.

Or are you gonna backtrack on that ?

Maelinar Maelinar 3:17 pm 21 Jun 05

Tell it to the dude at Kippax.

areaman areaman 2:32 pm 21 Jun 05

You idiot, did you even read the top of that page.

Purpose
This policy describes the requirements for establishing the eligibility of an applicant for public rental housing assistance

This is the Eligibility for Public Housing Assistance policy. As Foskey is paying market rent she’s not getting any assitance, hence this policy has nothing to do with her.

Maelinar Maelinar 1:55 pm 21 Jun 05

Actually you got me pissed off enough to warrant a response:

Some interesting reading;

http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/hcs/Policy/Eligibility.html#Eligability

In addition, household eligibility is reviewed against the prevailing eligibility criteria:

when there are changes to the application (eg. household members are added or removed, or income varies);
prior to making an offer of housing.

Assets
If an applicant has realisable assets that would enable them to afford other forms of long-term housing, eg. by buying a house, the applicant is not offered public rental housing. An applicant with assets above the current assets limit of $40,000 is ineligible and is not registered on the Applicant List.

(interstate property) ???

Ownership of real estate
An applicant or household member who owns or has an interest in real estate is ineligible for public rental housing if they can:

reside in the property;
sell their equity in the property.
For the purposes of this policy, real estate refers to houses, units and flats. Mobile homes, caravans and land are considered assets, not real estate.

further fulfillment…

Fraud
Housing ACT considers fraud to have occurred when an applicant, in order to gain a higher benefit:

deliberately supplies false information
deliberately fails to provide information
changes his/her income or arranged his/her financial affairs by or as a result of any artificial or contrived scheme or arrangement.

changed income ???

Maelinar out!

Maelinar Maelinar 1:44 pm 21 Jun 05

Tell it to the homeless guy, I’m no longer listening (see other post).

areaman areaman 1:31 pm 21 Jun 05

Maelinar, you do realise that the ACT policy is to have public housing in all suburbs. Sure you could sell of the properties in expensive suburbs and buy stuff out in the middle of nowhere, but then you’re just creating ghettos which are no go for anyone involved or the community at large.

The public housing system is not designed to sustain people paying full market rent

Yes, yes it is designed for that, what evidence do you have that it isn’t. The lack of public housing currently has nothing to do with rights of tenure.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2020 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | riotact.com.cn | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site