9 November 2011

Greens not thrilled by public housing reduction at Northbourne Flats

| johnboy
Join the conversation
64
northbourne flats concept drawing

The Greens’ Amanda Bresnan is expressing displeasure at the plans for the Northbourne Flats which will see public housing spaces drop from 248 to 90.

“I’m pleased to see the redevelopment of the Northbourne flats site awarded to a design that incorporates good sustainability principles. However the Government must not use the redevelopment as a way to reduce the number of public housing dwellings, especially as the flats are located close to Civic and to transport and services,” Ms Bresnan said today.

“We’ve seen a decrease in the number of public housing dwellings at the site of the ABC flats, and an increase in moving public housing stock into outer suburbs.

“It is disappointing to see this happen to Northbourne Flats as well, and it presents a major disadvantage for current and future public housing tenants.

“The Greens don’t support the continual relocation of public housing away from central services. People in public housing should benefit from redevelopments such as Northbourne Flats and be able to remain in a central location such as Civic if they choose to,” Ms Bresnan said.

Join the conversation

64
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Of course not, it wouldn’t be canberra otherwise.

poetix said :

God help those in society who are ‘unproductive’. That sort of language is probably still used in the Peoples Republic of China, well known for its respect for the individual. ‘They’ (meaning the poor) deserve housing because ‘they’ need it. And because of that, it should be decent housing, preferably near to shops and facilities. People lucky enough to have their own housing and good jobs should understand that it is largely a matter of luck. The ability to work hard, often in an interesting and/or well-paid job is something to be grateful for, not something to make you think you are better than others. Dragging in the obvious exceptions, such as the politician who was in a Housing Trust house for a while, is intellectually lazy.

Just today I saw a group of public servants, perhaps at the lofty height of ASO 5s (!), laughing at an obviously disabled man who was wearing a makeshift raincoat to protect himself from the rain. (And yes, I was driving my nice warm car into the city as I watched this lovely bit of theatre.) Those who begrudge people good public housing are morally on the same level as that group of insignificant, cruel, self-regarding pricks.

What a load of naive and disingenuous nonsense.

I find it ironic that you want to talk about intellectual laziness when your response to the arguments in my post is to compare me with the Chinese government because I used the word “productive”, and to imply that I would tease a disabled person. Is that sort of petty name-calling really all you’ve got?

As for the supposedly lazy tactic of citing the case of Deb Foskey, the fact that I used the most obvious and well-known example of a high-income person living in public housing to illustrate my point doesn’t invalidate that point – namely, that “some public housing tenants [are] rorting the system”. The fact is that some people are. Feel free to disprove that.

poetix said :

People lucky enough to have their own housing and good jobs should understand that it is largely a matter of luck.

This is the refrain of someone who has been beaten fair and square in the economic game of life and doesn’t want to admit that it was due to his or her own poor decisions, ineptitude, or lack of application. As someone else said, we live in a land of opportunity. It is full of people who came here with absolutely nothing and became wealthy through their own persistence and diligence.

If you want to reply, I’d appreciate it if you’d use some sensible arguments rather than quoting John Steinbeck. Thanks.

poetix said :

People lucky enough to have their own housing and good jobs should understand that it is largely a matter of luck.

It’s only lucky in that you live in a country that has ample education and career opportunities. Actually getting yourself into a position where you have a good job and your own housing is called work.

devils_advocate said :

poetix said :

People lucky enough to have their own housing and good jobs should understand that it is largely a matter of luck.

Well, no. The beauty of the system we live in is that, through a combination of government-subsidised loans and means-tested income support, it really doesn’t matter what social background you come from, you can pretty much achieve as much or as little as you like. I incurred debts of more than $100 000 over the course of my undergrad and grad studies and paid it all back, and was grateful for the opportunity. And grateful that anyone else can do the same. In so far as that system exists – to give everyone an opportunity but not a handout – then yes we’re lucky. Having taken the opportunity is, however, not a matter of luck, it’s purely hard work.

I think everyone here thinks there should be some baseline of existence provide by the government, including through direct provision of housing, the question is where to draw the line. I draw the line at brand new architecturally designed apartments on prime real estate in the middle of the city.

Sure recipients have to be nears services and transport, but that can happen in the outer belconnen west or south canberra.

Not bad. Not bad at all.

poetix said :

2604 said :

Stevian said :

How is it unfair? The system exists you can utilize/rort it too. Any claim of a moral high ground that your a better person than “them” is just an excuse. You’re weak.

It’s unfair because people like devil’s_advocate work hard their whole lives and then get their money expropriated by the government and spent on people who have worked nowhere near as hard. Why should the fruits of d_a’s labour go to someone else, who has done nothing to earn them? As much as folks like yourself want to believe the opposite, it is not the role of government to boost the standard of living of low-income earners to a level commensurate with more productive members of society.

Are some public housing tenants in that position because of bad luck? Yes.
Are many there because of bad decisions on education, career, relationships, drugs, as well as laziness and incompetence? Yes
Are some public housing tenants rorting the system, Deb Foskey style? Yes
Why should the second and third groups receive taxpayer-funded benefits? They shouldn’t.

As for a rort being okay because it’s available for everyone to take advantage of, that is possibly the weakest and least moral argument ever. Kind of like saying that if someone steals an unlocked car, no-one who walked past and didn’t steal the car can find fault with the theft.

God help those in society who are ‘unproductive’. That sort of language is probably still used in the Peoples Republic of China, well known for its respect for the individual. ‘They’ (meaning the poor) deserve housing because ‘they’ need it. And because of that, it should be decent housing, preferably near to shops and facilities. People lucky enough to have their own housing and good jobs should understand that it is largely a matter of luck. The ability to work hard, often in an interesting and/or well-paid job is something to be grateful for, not something to make you think you are better than others. Dragging in the obvious exceptions, such as the politician who was in a Housing Trust house for a while, is intellectually lazy.

Assuming that everyone who is in public housing is one of the “poor” or “disadvantaged” is just as intellecually lazy.
Saying that in our system the ability to get a job that enables you to rent privately is largely due to luck is just downright wrong.

devils_advocate1:27 pm 10 Nov 11

poetix said :

People lucky enough to have their own housing and good jobs should understand that it is largely a matter of luck.

Well, no. The beauty of the system we live in is that, through a combination of government-subsidised loans and means-tested income support, it really doesn’t matter what social background you come from, you can pretty much achieve as much or as little as you like. I incurred debts of more than $100 000 over the course of my undergrad and grad studies and paid it all back, and was grateful for the opportunity. And grateful that anyone else can do the same. In so far as that system exists – to give everyone an opportunity but not a handout – then yes we’re lucky. Having taken the opportunity is, however, not a matter of luck, it’s purely hard work.

I think everyone here thinks there should be some baseline of existence provide by the government, including through direct provision of housing, the question is where to draw the line. I draw the line at brand new architecturally designed apartments on prime real estate in the middle of the city.

Sure recipients have to be nears services and transport, but that can happen in the outer belconnen west or south canberra.

Beggars can’t be choosers. It’s simply really.

Genie said :

dbee said :

How can so many people over look the fact that most of the people living in those flats have been given a tenancy there because they had no other choice?
Housing isn’t just for “junkies”- its for people who need help. For people who need government assistance.

If public housing is for people who need help, then why is my domestically abused now single mother still on the emergency housing list 3 years later? While the mentally deranged person lives down the street from me in a 3 bedroom govie house JUST because he’s been there for over a decade.

Which is why more public housing needs to be made available.

After all, this government has no problems spending $430 million on a building for themselves.

I don’t think MORE public housing is the answer.
Personally they need to spend some money assessing EVERY single person/family occupying public housing and start moving people !
Who cares if they have been living in that house for years, of they are living alone and have more than one bedroom – relocate them into something smaller.
No longer on centrelink and can afford to rent privately.. See ya later ! (don’t care how heartless I sound, I know of people living in Govie houses who could easily afford to rent privately or pay off a mortgage)
Finally.. If they are someone who keeps trashing the Govie houses. Sorry GTFO ! Why should the tax payers support you to continually destroy government property and pay for the repairs. If anything send them to jail. I’d rather my tax money support that so a more deserving and respectful tennant can move in. After all isn’t destroying government property illegal ?

bryansworld said :

Spoken as a member of the middle class that is depressed about the whingeing sense of entitlement that now plagues affluent Australia.

Whinging about people not being able to live in expensive government provided housing in the middle of the city, now there’s a sense of entitlement.

2604 said :

Stevian said :

How is it unfair? The system exists you can utilize/rort it too. Any claim of a moral high ground that your a better person than “them” is just an excuse. You’re weak.

It’s unfair because people like devil’s_advocate work hard their whole lives and then get their money expropriated by the government and spent on people who have worked nowhere near as hard. Why should the fruits of d_a’s labour go to someone else, who has done nothing to earn them? As much as folks like yourself want to believe the opposite, it is not the role of government to boost the standard of living of low-income earners to a level commensurate with more productive members of society.

Are some public housing tenants in that position because of bad luck? Yes.
Are many there because of bad decisions on education, career, relationships, drugs, as well as laziness and incompetence? Yes
Are some public housing tenants rorting the system, Deb Foskey style? Yes
Why should the second and third groups receive taxpayer-funded benefits? They shouldn’t.

As for a rort being okay because it’s available for everyone to take advantage of, that is possibly the weakest and least moral argument ever. Kind of like saying that if someone steals an unlocked car, no-one who walked past and didn’t steal the car can find fault with the theft.

God help those in society who are ‘unproductive’. That sort of language is probably still used in the Peoples Republic of China, well known for its respect for the individual. ‘They’ (meaning the poor) deserve housing because ‘they’ need it. And because of that, it should be decent housing, preferably near to shops and facilities. People lucky enough to have their own housing and good jobs should understand that it is largely a matter of luck. The ability to work hard, often in an interesting and/or well-paid job is something to be grateful for, not something to make you think you are better than others. Dragging in the obvious exceptions, such as the politician who was in a Housing Trust house for a while, is intellectually lazy.

Just today I saw a group of public servants, perhaps at the lofty height of ASO 5s (!), laughing at an obviously disabled man who was wearing a makeshift raincoat to protect himself from the rain. (And yes, I was driving my nice warm car into the city as I watched this lovely bit of theatre.) Those who begrudge people good public housing are morally on the same level as that group of insignificant, cruel, self-regarding pricks.

Erg0 said :

Watson said :

Blurgh, why do I even bother. Me, me, me is all middle class Canberrans think about.

Why do you consider the middle classes undeserving of the opportunity to advocate for their own interests?

Sure they can advocate for their own interests, but as people that through some combination (in varying proportions) of hard work/good fortune are relatively affluent, it would be nice to see some community-mindedness. Spoken as a member of the middle class that is depressed about the whingeing sense of entitlement that now plagues affluent Australia.

LootenPlunder11:24 am 10 Nov 11

“Greens not thrilled by…”

Oh the shock and horror…

dbee said :

How can so many people over look the fact that most of the people living in those flats have been given a tenancy there because they had no other choice?
Housing isn’t just for “junkies”- its for people who need help. For people who need government assistance.

If public housing is for people who need help, then why is my domestically abused now single mother still on the emergency housing list 3 years later? While the mentally deranged person lives down the street from me in a 3 bedroom govie house JUST because he’s been there for over a decade.

Having said that, if you have been a long term government housing tenant and your kids have grown up there and you’ve tended the gardens and looked after the maintenance, why shouldn’t you be able to stay? Imagine an 80 year old pensioner who’s lived in the same house all his life, why should he be kicked out?

A house is a home as much as simply a roof over someone’s head.

I can understand that in a tiny minority of cases a special exception would need to be made but for everyone else it’s too bad, time to move.
Allowing people to stay because they’ve been there a long time or are used to the area is not a good enough reason. Why should public housing tenants have more rights than private housing tenants.

These people don’t own these houses, they shouldn’t have any more rights than if they were privately renting them.

It’s working out the difference between those who are genuinuely in need of support and those who don’t quite fit the bill which is, of course, the perenial problem. Throw into the mix a personal history, which may include mental illness, issues with drugs, alcohol, broken families and violence and making decisions on behalf of these people makes the decision even more difficult. Some people make poor life choices, some people don’t seem to be able to escape the horrendous cycle which perpetuates these problems…

How does the government make such a decision without turning into a complete overlord, examining every facet of their lives and then dictating who is worthy of getting a roof over their head and who doesn’t?

We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. Surely, in Australia (especially in Canberra) we have enough wealth to share with those who are in need.

And for the record – yes, I work full time and I own my home (albeit mortgaged to the hilt) and have had the experience of living next to an impossibly rude, crude, violent and mentally ill public housing neighbour.

devils_advocate9:49 am 10 Nov 11

I still believe that we need more public housing though.

I agree, more public housing is needed. With the money the government makes selling each of these units on the private market, (or development rights) they could probably afford to create 2 or even 3 public housing units in places that, while perfectly acceptable, are not premium mulit-million dollar locations.

Public housing is a good idea, gold plating it is not.

So people should be turfed out onto the streets?

No, they shouldn’t, and I don’t think anyone is saying they should.

Fair enough, there are those who are living in government owned houses who should be in private rental (much like Foskey did years ago). These people should be moved on or at least encouraged to do so, thus opening a spot for those more needy.

Absolutely. This is about helping those who are stuck and desperate by making sure they have somewhere to live, not being a convenient alternative for those who simply like the idea.

Having said that, if you have been a long term government housing tenant and your kids have grown up there and you’ve tended the gardens and looked after the maintenance, why shouldn’t you be able to stay? Imagine an 80 year old pensioner who’s lived in the same house all his life, why should he be kicked out?

Public housing is about helping those who need it most, not using the public purse to support people who simply decide that they like it there. If people get to a position where they can help themselves, it’s time to move.

A house is a home as much as simply a roof over someone’s head.

True, but running an effective public housing system is more about putting the resources where they are most needed.

I have no problem with providing support to those who genuinely need it. I do have a problem with providing support to those who don’t.

Stevian said :

How is it unfair? The system exists you can utilize/rort it too. Any claim of a moral high ground that your a better person than “them” is just an excuse. You’re weak.

It’s unfair because people like devil’s_advocate work hard their whole lives and then get their money expropriated by the government and spent on people who have worked nowhere near as hard. Why should the fruits of d_a’s labour go to someone else, who has done nothing to earn them? As much as folks like yourself want to believe the opposite, it is not the role of government to boost the standard of living of low-income earners to a level commensurate with more productive members of society.

Are some public housing tenants in that position because of bad luck? Yes.
Are many there because of bad decisions on education, career, relationships, drugs, as well as laziness and incompetence? Yes
Are some public housing tenants rorting the system, Deb Foskey style? Yes
Why should the second and third groups receive taxpayer-funded benefits? They shouldn’t.

As for a rort being okay because it’s available for everyone to take advantage of, that is possibly the weakest and least moral argument ever. Kind of like saying that if someone steals an unlocked car, no-one who walked past and didn’t steal the car can find fault with the theft.

I see this a good opportunity to disperse some of the social problems caused by housing those with substance abuse problems, mental health issues and low incomes together in a high density situation. Northbourne Flats does appear to have a disproportionate amount of tennants struggling with these circumstances.Whilst I do not wish to join in the bashing of the ‘undeserving poor’, it is not hard to see a situation where an anti-social few are able to make life a misery for the majority of those who simply need societies assistance to attain a decent standard of living.

It stands to reason that ACT Housing will be required to replaced stock for those displaced from these flats, and if approached thoughtfully, it could result in tennants being more appropriately housed. Certainly, if I was a tennant with a child, I couldn’t get out of there fast enough. For those with mobility problems, the flats are not exactly walking distance from Civic/decent supermarket/medical facilities anyway.

Of course the flaw in my argument is probably the assumption that ACT Housing will approach this in a thoughtful and consultative manner
.

miz said :

Clearly the point Ms Bresnan is making is that real people (ie tenants) who have lived in Civic for years are going to have to be re-housed a long way from the shops, doctor, parks, kids’ childcare/schoools, support networks etc they know, their friends and maybe even their families.
Plus, that is a huge drop in tenancy numbers (households). That’s 158 HOUSEHOLDS, people. I would have thought the development would at least house tenants 50-50.
I expect those tenants have been told their flat is going to be demolished and they will be re-housed, but I bet they all think they are going to be re-housed in the area and not to woop-woop – as Gunghalin and Tuggers would appear to them.
I’m not one to support the Greens as they often seem to want to play it both ways, but I agree with them in this instance.

People have to make and accept changes like this in their lives all the time. Families move from their friends, childcares, doctors, etc due to work committments, lifestyle changes and a hundred other reasons all the time. If a person or family is renting then they may need to move because the owners want to sell or knock-down and rebuild. People who live in government housing should not be immune from these sorts of changes either.

Progress sometimes means change and in this situtation progress means building new flats. In this case I guess the tennants will be required to relocate to another government home in another area of Canberra. For some of them that’ll probably be a permanent move. Yes it might be inconvenient but when you rely on the government to provide you with a home then this kind of expected flexibility is one of the downsides. If being moved to another place in Belconnen or Tuggeranong is the worst of their problems then I’d say they’ve got a lot less problems than a lot of others in Canberra…

The public housing tenants who will be in the new units would need to be rehoused anyway during the build (which will probably be at least 18 months).

Unless these people want to stay in these nasty old units forever, I’d suggest getting used to the idea of moving, and working out where would best suit them.

krats said :

Returned There I Never Have.

Okay Yoda.

Clearly the point Ms Bresnan is making is that real people (ie tenants) who have lived in Civic for years are going to have to be re-housed a long way from the shops, doctor, parks, kids’ childcare/schoools, support networks etc they know, their friends and maybe even their families.
Plus, that is a huge drop in tenancy numbers (households). That’s 158 HOUSEHOLDS, people. I would have thought the development would at least house tenants 50-50.
I expect those tenants have been told their flat is going to be demolished and they will be re-housed, but I bet they all think they are going to be re-housed in the area and not to woop-woop – as Gunghalin and Tuggers would appear to them.
I’m not one to support the Greens as they often seem to want to play it both ways, but I agree with them in this instance.

devils_advocate said :

Watson said :

There is absolutely nothing that stops you from joining the bludgers, you know.

Well, there is. If everyone took this approach, the Government couldn’t afford to sustain it. As much as the bleeding heart left hates to admit it, the welfare state is only possible because of the despised working classes.

What Watson said

devils_advocate said :

Stevian said :

How is it unfair? The system exists you can utilize/rort it too. Any claim of a moral high ground that your a better person than “them” is just an excuse. You’re weak.

Not quite. I’m not sure where I brought any moral superiority into it – in fact, I was pointing out that many public housing residents (and recipients of other government largesse) are only acting rationally in response to the incentives that are put in front of them. Any defensiveness/moral inferiority complex is coming from you, not me.

I was anticipating a possible objection you might raise as to why you do not utilize the system you claim is unfair. Since you have no such qualms. How is it unfair? Fulfill the criteria and use it, or not

If the Greens are concerned about housing issues, they should be looking at the issue of having solo public housing tenants occupying $800,000 houses solo and paying a quarter of the dole or disability pension for the privilege. Happening all over the inner north and south – the tenants aren’t required to share the house.

After all, shouldn’t everyone be entitled to a roof over their heads?

No, they shouldn’t be entitled to a roof over their heads. They should have a roof over their because most of us wouldn’t wish to leave in a society where they didn’t. It shouldn’t be seen as an entitlement though.

Classified said :

Having a welfare system, including the provision of public housing, is the obligation of a civilised society. Encouraging it’s use, however, is not.

+1.

Buzz2600 said :

Does anyone else here think these apartments look hideous? What’s up with Canberra architecture?

Why does every building in Canberra end up looking so mind-numbingly boring, dull and box-shape?

Your Diatribe Reminds Me Of The Time I Went To The Local Mechanics And Asked For A Grease And Oil Change,The Mechanic Replied With And I Quote “Can’t Do It Today…Cause We Have To Finish This Piece Of shit Off Today”(Pointing To A Customer’s Car They Were Working On).

I Answered Him With That Piece Of Shit Is Someone’s Pride And Joy!Returned There I Never Have.

MORAL TO STORY….It May Appear Like Crap To You,But Someone Loves It.

Having a welfare system, including the provision of public housing, is the obligation of civilised society. Encouraging it’s use, however, is not.

I’m curious as to the alternative to building these new units – leave the existing structure there forever?

Watson said :

Blurgh, why do I even bother. Me, me, me is all middle class Canberrans think about.

Yeah, how dare we expect the government to not waste our money on people rorting the system.
It’s UnAustralian I tells ya.

Watson said :

Blurgh, why do I even bother. Me, me, me is all middle class Canberrans think about.

Why do you consider the middle classes undeserving of the opportunity to advocate for their own interests?

devils_advocate4:26 pm 09 Nov 11

Watson said :

There is absolutely nothing that stops you from joining the bludgers, you know.

Well, there is. If everyone took this approach, the Government couldn’t afford to sustain it. As much as the bleeding heart left hates to admit it, the welfare state is only possible because of the despised working classes.

devils_advocate4:03 pm 09 Nov 11

Stevian said :

How is it unfair? The system exists you can utilize/rort it too. Any claim of a moral high ground that your a better person than “them” is just an excuse. You’re weak.

Not quite. I’m not sure where I brought any moral superiority into it – in fact, I was pointing out that many public housing residents (and recipients of other government largesse) are only acting rationally in response to the incentives that are put in front of them. Any defensiveness/moral inferiority complex is coming from you, not me.

devils_advocate said :

There are basically two issues here, both of which lead me to hate the canberra greens even more:
1) There is a genuine and somewhat justified feeling of outrage by us drones who study hard, get good jobs, enslave ourselves to the bank for 25+ years to have a home out in the suburbs, and then we see people handed public housing like this for some arbitary percentage of their income. You can put all the words around it you like, but it’s just unfair.
2) it’s bad policy for the people who are handed this level of benefit. People in this situation often face an EMTR of more than 100 per cent – that is, if they actually try and do something to improve their lot, the government claws back benefits faster than they can replace it with income. In this situation, people are only acting rationally when they stay in “the system”. Put another way, if you found youself in this new, 5-mins-to-civic public housing, it would take a pretty significant wage to be able to put you back in this position in an unsubsidised right. Nobody in their right mind would give up a benefit like this lightly.

Sigh. Argument 1 has been done to death. There is absolutely nothing that stops you from joining the bludgers, you know. If you don’t want to go as far as to make yourself disabled for the cause (which means you’re not really serous about this), all you need to do is get yourself sacked from your permanent job and take some simple steps to make yourself unemployable. After living in poverty for 1-3 years, you can get your government flat or house even and your cheaper bus rides and health care. You could possibly speed up the process by becoming homeless for a while. You will be unlikely to be able to afford market rents on benefits anyway, so that should be easy.

Blurgh, why do I even bother. Me, me, me is all middle class Canberrans think about.

devils_advocate said :

There are basically two issues here, both of which lead me to hate the canberra greens even more:
1) There is a genuine and somewhat justified feeling of outrage by us drones who study hard, get good jobs, enslave ourselves to the bank for 25+ years to have a home out in the suburbs, and then we see people handed public housing like this for some arbitary percentage of their income. You can put all the words around it you like, but it’s just unfair.
.

How is it unfair? The system exists you can utilize/rort it too. Any claim of a moral high ground that your a better person than “them” is just an excuse. You’re weak.

devils_advocate3:31 pm 09 Nov 11

There are basically two issues here, both of which lead me to hate the canberra greens even more:
1) There is a genuine and somewhat justified feeling of outrage by us drones who study hard, get good jobs, enslave ourselves to the bank for 25+ years to have a home out in the suburbs, and then we see people handed public housing like this for some arbitary percentage of their income. You can put all the words around it you like, but it’s just unfair.
2) it’s bad policy for the people who are handed this level of benefit. People in this situation often face an EMTR of more than 100 per cent – that is, if they actually try and do something to improve their lot, the government claws back benefits faster than they can replace it with income. In this situation, people are only acting rationally when they stay in “the system”. Put another way, if you found youself in this new, 5-mins-to-civic public housing, it would take a pretty significant wage to be able to put you back in this position in an unsubsidised right. Nobody in their right mind would give up a benefit like this lightly.

Eppo said :

It’s not as though they’re being turfed out and not given someplace new to live. They’ll be relocated. Part and parcel of living in tax payer funded accomodation is that you might not live in the most convenient location or have a great deal of a say in where you end up.

Given the $$ govco will make from redeveloping the land it would seem sensible that public housing tenants could be relocated to better quality accomodation anyway.

It’s not like they’re being chucked out onto the street.

JazzyJess said :

Wow people really have it in for public housing tenants. It’s worth remembering that a good percentage (and no I don’t know what the exact figure is) of the existing tenants have limited mobility and living nearer to Civic makes life that much easier for them.

Would there be more than 90 of them? I’m all for the allocation of central public housing based on genuine need, but that might not be socialist enough for some.

dbee said :

How can so many people over look the fact that most of the people living in those flats have been given a tenancy there because they had no other choice?
Housing isn’t just for “junkies”- its for people who need help. For people who need government assistance. Should single mothers with young children, domestic abuse victims and the mentally ill or physically handicapped members of our community be forced out of their homes because developers want the land that their homes are built on?
It is true, some people take advantage of public housing. But most of the people who are living there count themselves lucky for the opportunity. Let the people who can afford to pick and choose where they live pick and choose somewhere else.

That’s sort of the point. It’s not their homes, they are owned by the government.
If I’m renting a house and the landlord decides to sell, then I just can’t say “No, I don’t want to leave this is my home”.

Why should public housing tenants be different?

creative_canberran3:13 pm 09 Nov 11

“We’ve seen a decrease in the number of public housing dwellings at the site of the ABC flats, and an increase in moving public housing stock into outer suburbs.”

oh, poor things, They can’t enjoy inner city living. They’ll have to use public transport… wait a minute.

Let me be blunt: Amanda Bresnan and her Greens colleagues are the most useless, wasteful and illogical reptoids to be in Canberra politics since the Fried Green Tomato party was on the ballot.

dbee said :

How can so many people over look the fact that most of the people living in those flats have been given a tenancy there because they had no other choice?
Housing isn’t just for “junkies”- its for people who need help. For people who need government assistance. Should single mothers with young children, domestic abuse victims and the mentally ill or physically handicapped members of our community be forced out of their homes because developers want the land that their homes are built on?
It is true, some people take advantage of public housing. But most of the people who are living there count themselves lucky for the opportunity. Let the people who can afford to pick and choose where they live pick and choose somewhere else.

Yes, absoloutely they should. They’re sitting on prime real estate.

It’s not as though they’re being turfed out and not given someplace new to live. They’ll be relocated. Part and parcel of living in tax payer funded accomodation is that you might not live in the most convenient location or have a great deal of a say in where you end up.

It’s not the proximity to the City Centre that irks me, but the prominence of it.

Northbourne Avenue is our St Kilda Road, and should be something great, a gateway to the Nation’s Capital.

First impressions last, and while less people would be seeing the city for the first time along that route than previously, it currently doesn’t really sell Canberra. In fact as far as sterotypes of the city as being an outdated town full of bureaucrats and junkies goes, a gateway lined by outdated flats with garbage hanging out the windows and outdated office buildings doesn’t do too much to dispel the image.

I’m a proud Canberran, but it’s hard to convince people of the good parts when that side of it is put so prominently on display. At least the Northbourne side doesn’t look as bad as the other side, driving down Karuah street can be a fun experience.

I lived briefly in the apartments on Henty street, there was always a fair bit of unwanted activity happening on that side of the street too.

I’m not suggesting that they should be exiled to the outer reaches, but this is a missed opportunity to rejuvinate Northbourne and do something that will have a real and lasting impact.

Does anyone else here think these apartments look hideous? What’s up with Canberra architecture? Why does every building in Canberra end up looking so mind-numbingly boring, dull and box-shape?

How can so many people over look the fact that most of the people living in those flats have been given a tenancy there because they had no other choice?
Housing isn’t just for “junkies”- its for people who need help. For people who need government assistance. Should single mothers with young children, domestic abuse victims and the mentally ill or physically handicapped members of our community be forced out of their homes because developers want the land that their homes are built on?
It is true, some people take advantage of public housing. But most of the people who are living there count themselves lucky for the opportunity. Let the people who can afford to pick and choose where they live pick and choose somewhere else.

Mysteryman said :

[
It’s basically free because they are just going to scab the money of people in the interchange anyway.

Does that still go on? The last time it happened to me was over a year ago. It had gotten so bad I’d stopped saying “NO”, and just turned and walked away. Perhaps they leave me alone now because the can’t stand the rejection?

Wow people really have it in for public housing tenants. It’s worth remembering that a good percentage (and no I don’t know what the exact figure is) of the existing tenants have limited mobility and living nearer to Civic makes life that much easier for them.

chewy14 said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

What? who get’s free pblic transport? Pensioners – Elderly, single parent, and medical get 4 free trips on interstate routes, but as far as i am aware no one in this town gets free bus rides – am i wrong ? please provide something that backs that claim

OK, not free but pretty close. It costs 55c~ for a 90 minute transfer on a concession card.
http://www.transport.act.gov.au/myway/concession.html

It’s basically free because they are just going to scab the money of people in the interchange anyway.

sarahsarah said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

chewy14 said :

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

Ride it like you stole it

The man in blue on the bike further back must be a policeman in hot pursuit.

Pretty sure a helmet doesn’t do much at warp. Never heard Jean Luc say “helmets on – engage”

TheDancingDjinn said :

What? who get’s free pblic transport? Pensioners – Elderly, single parent, and medical get 4 free trips on interstate routes, but as far as i am aware no one in this town gets free bus rides – am i wrong ? please provide something that backs that claim

OK, not free but pretty close. It costs 55c~ for a 90 minute transfer on a concession card.
http://www.transport.act.gov.au/myway/concession.html

Holden Caulfield1:17 pm 09 Nov 11

Erg0 said :

Is there an echo in here?

Yes I Think There Is.

….and the kids on the hill are selling crack

Where do I sign up?

Seems paying off my home has been a total waste of time.

TheDancingDjinn12:20 pm 09 Nov 11

chewy14 said :

Grail said :

chewy14 said :

So the Greens believe that public housing tenants should have better access to services than the people actually paying for those services.

No, the Greens believe that people living in public housing should have equal access to public services. In addition, the Greens believe that displacing public housing tenants is not going to help those people in any way. The relocation of public housing tenants is just an exercise in hiding the embarrassing problem rather than addressing it.

Kicking poor people out of their homes just so rich buggers can have an ugly and expensive apartment block to live in isn’t really sending a message of hope to the underprivileged in this town, is it?

They already get free public transport, so distance shouldn’t be an issue.

What? who get’s free pblic transport? Pensioners – Elderly, single parent, and medical get 4 free trips on interstate routes, but as far as i am aware no one in this town gets free bus rides – am i wrong ? please provide something that backs that claim

Grail said :

chewy14 said :

So the Greens believe that public housing tenants should have better access to services than the people actually paying for those services.

No, the Greens believe that people living in public housing should have equal access to public services. In addition, the Greens believe that displacing public housing tenants is not going to help those people in any way. The relocation of public housing tenants is just an exercise in hiding the embarrassing problem rather than addressing it.

Kicking poor people out of their homes just so rich buggers can have an ugly and expensive apartment block to live in isn’t really sending a message of hope to the underprivileged in this town, is it?

So if it’s meant to be equal access to services then why do they all have to be close to Civic or main town centres? They already get free public transport, so distance shouldn’t be an issue.

And how does someone struggling to pay a mortgage on a crap house in West McGregor have equal access to services as a public housing tenant in a brand new unit in these redeveloped Northbourne flats?

I think kicking poor people out of these homes provides a better incentive than allowing them to enjoy government funded dwellings right next to the city, when others have to struggle to get by without the government help.
Public housing should be kept to an absolute minimum, with only the truly needy given a house/unit.

MonarchRepublic11:38 am 09 Nov 11

chewy14 said :

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

Not to mention, they are riding on the footpath, not the on road cycle lanes! Oh, the humanity!

TheDancingDjinn said :

chewy14 said :

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

Ride it like you stole it

The man in blue on the bike further back must be a policeman in hot pursuit.

chewy14 said :

So the Greens believe that public housing tenants should have better access to services than the people actually paying for those services.

No, the Greens believe that people living in public housing should have equal access to public services. In addition, the Greens believe that displacing public housing tenants is not going to help those people in any way. The relocation of public housing tenants is just an exercise in hiding the embarrassing problem rather than addressing it.

Kicking poor people out of their homes just so rich buggers can have an ugly and expensive apartment block to live in isn’t really sending a message of hope to the underprivileged in this town, is it?

TheDancingDjinn10:58 am 09 Nov 11

chewy14 said :

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

Ride it like you stole it

sarahsarah said :

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

Is it just me or is she also just about to hit warp speed?

Is there an echo in here?

Moving Public Housing Tenants To The Outer Suburbs Would Increase Public Transport Usage.Would That Not Be A Good Thing?

Wow,
So the Greens believe that public housing tenants should have better access to services than the people actually paying for those services.
Awesome.

I love how the lady riding the bike doesn’t have a helmet on.

It says a lot about the Green mindset that she seems to believe that public housing tenants have a greater entitlement to be close to central services than people who aren’t living off the government’s largesse.

That said, I think she’s missing the upside here: moving public housing to outer suburbs will likely increase the use of public transport in those areas, and the wealthy car users who replace them in the central location will no doubt make fewer trips than if they were living further out. It’s environmental policy by stealth!

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.