Housing ACT should deal with 'undesirables' who give public tenants a bad name

I think the old system worked best – ACT Housing could and did put all the druggies and reprobates in together in nominated “druggies and reprobates” housing complexes, and keep them away from the mainstream.

lynehamovaluser said :

Some public housing tenants had no choice, born with a disability that stopped them from working they were destined to need housing assistance. Stuck next to the guy who bashed his wives and children, drank and gambled his money away, now slightly brain damaged and often drunk and abusive. Social stigma applies equally though, they’re both in ‘guvvie’ housing.
I collected almost two years diary of abuse and threats, with occasional police attendances included against a ‘difficult’ neighbour. The complaint was submitted to Housing ACT some 6 months ago, no reply as yet…The police encourage me to pursue an AVO, however, given the aggression is directed at my pets more than myself,the level of violence he is capable of, the police response time and my continued housing requirements, it is not a great or even good choice.
I thought about applying for a transfer, but I too have no faith in ‘guvvie’ housing and know that I could end up in a worse situation with even worse neighbours.

CULTURAL CHANGE SOLUTION Idea
I suspect that the best thing that could be done is that tenants with ‘issues’, as identified by complaints, should be assigned case managers who can find support services including behavioural modification etc. This should be part of tenancy agreements and enforceable, so that to continue to qualify for public housing you must agree that if you are disruptive etc more than x times you will undergo the support program or your tenancy will be terminated.
Look forward to your avid opposition. Please remember, this is not a fully formulated policy, but an idea, so I can put huge holes in it too, but it’s a starting point, not an end point.

Excellent post.

lynehamovaluser said :

CULTURAL CHANGE SOLUTION Idea
I suspect that the best thing that could be done is that tenants with ‘issues’, as identified by complaints, should be assigned case managers who can find support services including behavioural modification etc. This should be part of tenancy agreements and enforceable, so that to continue to qualify for public housing you must agree that if you are disruptive etc more than x times you will undergo the support program or your tenancy will be terminated.
Look forward to your avid opposition. Please remember, this is not a fully formulated policy, but an idea, so I can put huge holes in it too, but it’s a starting point, not an end point.

I think thats a great idea. There would have to be an end date on that for termination of lease as u say. But what then ?

Also, there is absolutely no way this current ACT Gov’t would fund such an initiative. They are in far too much budget trouble (and the Territory deficit is still blowing out) in the run up to the election in 2016.

So, yeah, good idea. But won’t happen in Canberra under this current ACT Gov’t I’m afraid.

Steven Gibbs said :

Anyone next to a Mr Fluffy? That’s about to be public housing. The government is over valuing properties so that the previous home owners can’t go back and public housing can move in.

I doubt this will happen because (a) the severely cash strapped ACT Govt is looking to recoup as much $ as possible from the sale of the fluffy blocks because they accepted a sub standard compensation offer from the Fed’s. The shortfall (which I last heard was about m$400+ ?) will be made up by ACT Ratepayers (who need to be further tapped by this ACT Govt for other infrastructure projects, like Light Rail).

(b) Also, despite the ACT Govt’s rhetoric of “salt & pepper” public housing, all I have seen proposed so far are mini Gov’t housing estates – eg. 10 premises or more in one place. I don’t think the Mr fluffy blocks are large enough to fit that model – but never say never !

Some public housing tenants had no choice, born with a disability that stopped them from working they were destined to need housing assistance. Stuck next to the guy who bashed his wives and children, drank and gambled his money away, now slightly brain damaged and often drunk and abusive. Social stigma applies equally though, they’re both in ‘guvvie’ housing.
I collected almost two years diary of abuse and threats, with occasional police attendances included against a ‘difficult’ neighbour. The complaint was submitted to Housing ACT some 6 months ago, no reply as yet…The police encourage me to pursue an AVO, however, given the aggression is directed at my pets more than myself,the level of violence he is capable of, the police response time and my continued housing requirements, it is not a great or even good choice.
I thought about applying for a transfer, but I too have no faith in ‘guvvie’ housing and know that I could end up in a worse situation with even worse neighbours.

CULTURAL CHANGE SOLUTION Idea
I suspect that the best thing that could be done is that tenants with ‘issues’, as identified by complaints, should be assigned case managers who can find support services including behavioural modification etc. This should be part of tenancy agreements and enforceable, so that to continue to qualify for public housing you must agree that if you are disruptive etc more than x times you will undergo the support program or your tenancy will be terminated.
Look forward to your avid opposition. Please remember, this is not a fully formulated policy, but an idea, so I can put huge holes in it too, but it’s a starting point, not an end point.

carriew said :

Well ok some tenants aren’t too hot on house proudness – what can be done to bring up their ability and desire to be so?

All very well to institute penalties but where is the compassion, and the actual assistance to get some people who may have never had a home life to speak of with parents with skills to teach them how to keep a place in order?

So many unforgiving entitled privileged and by privileged I mean those that have had the fortune to be born into families that were above the poverty line or at minimum who had sufficient education to be able to pass on those skills and opportunities to you their children. I am lucky to have parents and siblings that aren’t substance abusers, or mean or nasty or wicked. I know I am privileged I know I have a responsibility to those less fortunate than myself.

Let’s not start another witch hunt – what can you do that is a constructive flow to help improve the lot of others without the big stick approach, ask yourself that if you care to

Carrie I was a HACT tenant and can attest that HACT is a cr@p landlord, even for good tenants, and most particularly (believe it or not) for those tenants who have moved to full market rent and financially support the whole system. HACT can’t even be bothered to assess true market value annually like they are supposed to (particularly when the rental market drops, as it has been doing for the last few years), though that is another story for another post.
Related issues include HACT’s propensity to break its own guidelines when it suits them, for example by putting properties that are strongly likely to be problematic (like youth refuges) in suburbia instead of adjacent to group centres; and when convenient HACT seems to regard ‘salt and pepper’ as applying on a suburban level – i.e. proportion of tenancies in the suburb – instead of what the community expects, which is ‘salt and pepper ‘ at dwelling level – ie, apartment blocks and streets with a mix of govt and private residences. It is no wonder the community does not trust HACT.

While I don’t think HACT tenants should have to be ‘obsequiously grateful,’ they should nevertheless appreciate the opportunity they have been given by looking after their property and being a good neighbour. This is how to be included and welcomed (integrated) into the neighbourhood/community.
You don’t have to be overly ‘house proud,’ as you put it – we are not talking about tenants who might be a little untidy in this thread, but those who blatantly mistreat the place, are not invested in the area long term and create undeserved havoc and stress for their neighbours. It is really not that hard to be a good neighbour: for example:
– don’t trash the place or use it as a grow/ice house or any other illegal use
– mow the lawn before it becomes a waist high fire hazard
– don’t store vermin-attracting rubbish/ derelict cars/ shopping trolleys etc; particularly do not do this on the front lawn
– don’t, and don’t allow your children to, drop litter and cigarette butts all over your neighbour’s yards and nearby bike paths nor pick flowers from neighbours’ gardens without permission
– look after your animals so they are not a nuisance to others
– in general, respect your neighbours’ wish for peace and quiet in their own homes so they do not wish to God that you did not live near them and/or they are embarrassed and ashamed to have friends and family visit because of you and the godawful state of the property or tenant behaviour.
If tenants have difficulty doing this, perhaps a compulsory living skills course wouldn’t go astray in the first instance. Maybe this could be something ACAT could order. Though surely, I would have thought, people with genuinely disadvantaged backgrounds would understand more clearly than most the concept of ‘the golden rule.’ There are many people on the waiting list and there really have to be consequences for chronic bad tenants.
If the ACT does not implement consequences we will end up with all of NSW’s bad tenants because of our soft rules (see article I linked to above).

Anyone next to a Mr Fluffy? That’s about to be public housing. The government is over valuing properties so that the previous home owners can’t go back and public housing can move in.

What the general public probably don’t know is that there is public housing at Uriarra village. Simple punishment for the real scum is being (like Todd Carney) banned from Canberra. They can have their groceries delivered by Woolies and their vehicles serviced by lubemobile but if they’re seen in Canberra other than on medical or judicial appointments, the police drag them back to Uriarra.

So you do know what its like, unfortunately I no longer have the compassion for these people i know i am supposed to but after 4 years its not there.

I don’t think its a self entitlement to want to be able to live in your own house in peace with out hearing the constant abuse and foul language.

Just to make it clear I’m not against housing commission people as a hole just the small percentage that make other peoples life hell, Throwing them our into the ST is not the answer so what do we do.

What are the solutions?

How do you punish someone who has nothing to lose? How do we help those who don’t want it. And how much are we willing to spend?

1. We can go down the touchy feely path over make them have mandatory therapy and rehab, provide jobs for them to give them a sense of purpose.

2. Gated community’s or a ghetto if you will. Its not like we don’t have the space.

3. Remove the children from that environment to attempt to break the cycle, but this has new stolen generation all over it and as it is social services are paranoid about removing kids due to our past experiences in that area.

4. Managed finances like what whatto mentioned, but again we are trying this up north to some extent to avoid alcohol abuse in aboriginal communities and its apparently unethical or against human rights.

Like anything there are solutions but no one has the political will to see it done. There will all ways be rat bags in every community no matter what you do.

So the end result is some of us will end up living next to a few of them and take one for team and threads like this will pop up from time to time with no real results.

Cheers guys was a good argument but I’m done

Well ok some tenants aren’t too hot on house proudness – what can be done to bring up their ability and desire to be so?

All very well to institute penalties but where is the compassion, and the actual assistance to get some people who may have never had a home life to speak of with parents with skills to teach them how to keep a place in order?

So many unforgiving entitled privileged and by privileged I mean those that have had the fortune to be born into families that were above the poverty line or at minimum who had sufficient education to be able to pass on those skills and opportunities to you their children. I am lucky to have parents and siblings that aren’t substance abusers, or mean or nasty or wicked. I know I am privileged I know I have a responsibility to those less fortunate than myself.

Let’s not start another witch hunt – what can you do that is a constructive flow to help improve the lot of others without the big stick approach, ask yourself that if you care to

One problem, due to demolishing public housing before the replacements are built and huge spending on wasteful things like light rail, is that there are thousands on the waiting list for public housing, needing a priority system to allocate public housing. Unless you are desperate you don’t have a chance. These desperate people have nowhere else to go than become homeless. This actually protects their bad behaviour from causing eviction. The police are also rather powerless. I know because I have lived 15 metres from public housing in Reid for 27 years.

I think the answer is to give some powers to the other residents, as happens with Common Ground and Body Corporates. Punishment would be eviction and compulsory moving to one of these newer public housing estates that are away from ammenities and public transport and which force the unemployed to buy a car. Oops! that is what they are doing anyway!

If the government imposes minimum wages then taxpayers are obliged to support people priced out of a job.

Rather than just handing out cash, why not subsidise their employment? Pay their unemployment benefit direct to the employer. You don’t get welfare, you get a job, and the people of Canberra get the extra work done by the new workers.

Work shy trouble makers will leave for the southern welfare states and the rest priced out of a job will have productive work and gain invaluable work skills.

Housing managers hate these sort of tenants as well. But the only recourse is to seek eviction from ACAT. And that requires the requisite notices to remedy etc. They can’t issue those notices unless they have someone willing to go on the record with their complaint. And be willing to give that evidence in an often hostile Tribunal if it gets to that.
People don’t want to go on the record because (justifiably ) they are worried about retribution.

No easy solutions to this one.

John has hit this nail squarely on the head. Those of us who have scrimped, saved and put up with all kinds of aggravation to acquire our own home and who have no say in the level of rates, utilities, moveh registration and government charges levied against us don’t have to make any excuses to those who abuse the help given to them by our taxes.

Either they shape up or ship out and if that means homelessness tough titties. We are not beholden to them.

I live in a street that has had more than its fair share of this type of resident.

Yes, they should be evicted. But they know that the authorities are a paper tiger that, if confronted, will acquiesce.

They’re not stupid: they’re streetwise and have no intention of contributing anything much to the society that supports them.

If their choice is between paying the rent and buying a set of air horns from Supercheap Auto, they’ll buy the air horns because they know there’s no penalty for doing so. Unpaid rents will eventually be written off.

Their conversation often sounds stilted because they reuse the phrases they’ve heard from social workers, government reps and a variety of do-gooders – “Oh we’re from a disadvantaged background.” they’ll confidently say, which sounds incongruous with the way they normally speak. I wouldn’t be surprised if they practiced their delivery in front of a mirror.

The courts are useless.

But if these people are evicted, it creates a furore: government reps, church leaders, social support groups and a host of others all wailing and bemoaning the state of society. Everyone in authority just wants to ‘look good’ – at any price.

The media have a wonderful time, of course, and somehow, it all becomes ‘our’ fault.

Well, no. It isn’t our fault! You cannot help some people – because THEY REFUSE the help.

Housing NT introduced a fairly simple system to their tenants when I lived in Darwin in the 80s. It ran like this;

“Oh, your little cherub has smashed their bedroom window for the third time this month? Ok, we will fix it once more, and if it is broken again, then it is your responsibility”.

Needless to say there was a hue and cry from allover the place, but oddly enough there was an improvement in the housing stock and the behaviour of the tenants. Why shouldn’t the landlord (you and me via the ACT Government) have the right to kick out bad tenants?

BooUrns said :

TuggLife said :

I also live in the suburban ACT, and “saved and slaved to establish a home in pleasant law-abiding surrounds”. I value the diversity of my neighbourhood, would welcome more and think that proposing to strip your fellow humans of the dignity that comes with secure, habitable and accessible housing is a low act and no solution to any of the above issues. You don’t speak for me.

Sounds like you have never had a one of these delightful people living next to you.

You have never heard the fights, the screaming in the st at 3am, the bongs in your yard, the stench of there medical herbs growing in “their” yard. The over use of the C word at high enough volumes that you can hear it in every room of your house, and so often that you can’t have your friends or family over as its to much.

They certainly speak for me, and whats worse my taxes are paying their life style, they don’t want to work they want to smoke bongs and drink wood stock cans all day. They supplement their income with multiple gov payments and the odd pharmaceutical sale. No one has that many visitors in day.

The people i mentioned belong in camps far away from the rest of us, swap them with the poor souls at Naru.

But its not their fault right they had a hard child hood right?

I’ve had people like that live near me. The problem is putting them on the streets will not help fix the problem. It fixes your problem and it becomes some one elses problem . But Australians are generally like that as long as they are ok, who cares what other problems it creates until it affects me.

So I’m all for evicting these types of people but unless they live somewhere, being homeless is just going to mean more crime on the streets. Also you may think someone is selling drugs, just because they have visitors and they may be, but I know many cops and if they had a dollar for every time they went to a house because a neighbour thought they were selling drugs, they’d be a very rich person.

Part of the problem in Canberra also is, we are a very affluent society that cries poor, but in reality the average Canberran is in the top 10% of the worlds wealthiest people. But the first thing that gets slashed from budgets are welfare programs and its usually programs designed to help drug users and unemployed that are the first to suffer.

So no body wants ghettos created, because it may be near them and no body wants an annoying public housing tennant near them? So all you experts come up with a solution, because its guaranteed you’ll complain when the homeless people are breaking into your house to steal stuff, because they can’t get the dole and don’t have any money or food. If you don’t think that will happen, please look at low welfare societies and how much petty crime they have. Why do you think americans all want guns

To be honest I’m all for not giving money to welfare recipients. Each recipients housing, bills etc all get managed by a third party including food and. They then have the choice to get off welfare, move out of public housing to earn their own money and spend it as they want to. also we need more education around being financially responsible as well in general and less of this entitlement attitude that many Canberrans seem to have.

.

BooUrns said :

TuggLife said :

I also live in the suburban ACT, and “saved and slaved to establish a home in pleasant law-abiding surrounds”. I value the diversity of my neighbourhood, would welcome more and think that proposing to strip your fellow humans of the dignity that comes with secure, habitable and accessible housing is a low act and no solution to any of the above issues. You don’t speak for me.

Sounds like you have never had a one of these delightful people living next to you.

You have never heard the fights, the screaming in the st at 3am, the bongs in your yard, the stench of there medical herbs growing in “their” yard. The over use of the C word at high enough volumes that you can hear it in every room of your house, and so often that you can’t have your friends or family over as its to much.

They certainly speak for me, and whats worse my taxes are paying their life style, they don’t want to work they want to smoke bongs and drink wood stock cans all day. They supplement their income with multiple gov payments and the odd pharmaceutical sale. No one has that many visitors in day.

The people i mentioned belong in camps far away from the rest of us, swap them with the poor souls at Naru.

But its not their fault right they had a hard child hood right?

I have lived next door to public housing actually – and it helped me to develop compassion for others. Where I grew up, there was a housing trust house on every street in our suburb, indistinguishable from the others, except for a usual lack of landscaping and slightly run down exterior. The one in our street was next door to our house. I was friends with the 3 kids who lived there – we went to school and played in the street together. Their dad had fallen on hard times when the factory he worked in closed and he couldn’t find another job – pretty common in 1980s Adelaide. Some of the arguments coming from their house were pretty spectacular. Their mum was having trouble with alcohol, their dad began growing marijuana and it all came to head one night when their dad stabbed their mum and she went off to hospital and he went to jail. We helped the kids where we could, and supported their mum when she came home.

The kids got a rough time at school, were bullied a lot for their old clothes and other things, and struggled to perform well academically – two of them had FAS – and left at the minimum age. It doesn’t really matter whether they’d like to work or not, because there still aren’t many jobs there, so the last I heard, they are still continuing in the cycle of disadvantage, with limited skills, opportunities for employment and complex mental health issues. They use marijuana because all of their social group do. With a 19% unemployment rate for their SLA, it’s fairly understandable that they claim welfare. I’ve lost proper contact with them, but for all I know, they might be causing their neighbours grief themselves these days.

I understand that no-one would voluntarily choose to live next door to disruptive neighbours, and it’s frustrating that these complex problems exist in our society at all. All I’m suggesting is that the objectors take a breath, and realise that public housing tenants are just people. Some of them are experiencing complex multi-generational problems, and that can manifest itself in anti-social behaviour, but complaining about the behaviour does not fix the problem, it just adds to it. Our fate is not entirely in our own hands. It could have been me or you or any one of us. When did we become so heartless as a society?

The argument for not tossing “misbehaving” public housing residents into the street isn’t “the children” as you say, it’s that access to safe and secure housing is one of the most basic human rights.

Basic human rights cr$p. what, with no responsibilities.

The OP is talking about the ferals that make these public hosing areas un safe and un secure for everyone else living around them.

Scumbag’s and feral’s shouldn’t get to sit at home all day getting subsidised rents and new buildings to live in paid by the tax payer.

Anyone can get a job if they actually try and get one. It’s to easy in Australia to say it’s too hard.

Another bill housing tennants get away with not paying is the water bill. We pay for that as well so housing tennants can get free Foxtel.

No_Nose said :

miz said :

Other jurisdictions have consequences for badly behaved tenants. We should too.

For example…how do they deal with a family in public housing that causes major problems to their neighbours? After they move them a couple of times do they just kick the family and children out into the street? Do they take the children away from the family and foster them, just kicking the parents out? I can see that being open to a raft of law suits. What do they do?

If the family has been bad enough to be evicted from public housing, yes kick them out. If what they’ve done amounts to criminal damage, prosecute them. If they’re not in jail put them at the end of the public housing queue, which I understand is at least a 12 months wait if not longer. If they’re unable to secure private accommodation after being evicted, put the kids into care. They could grow up to be better people than if they’re left in the care of the parents who are so bad as to be evicted from public housing.

There are lots of people waiting on public housing to become available, so if some people abuse taxpayer generosity, then kick them out and let other more deserving people take their place. Hopefully for some of them, getting evicted once will teach them that there are consequences to their actions and they will change their behaviour and become less of a drain on society in the future. If they just get moved from one property to another there’s no incentive for them to change.

TuggLife said :

I also live in the suburban ACT, and “saved and slaved to establish a home in pleasant law-abiding surrounds”. I value the diversity of my neighbourhood, would welcome more and think that proposing to strip your fellow humans of the dignity that comes with secure, habitable and accessible housing is a low act and no solution to any of the above issues. You don’t speak for me.

Sounds like you have never had a one of these delightful people living next to you.

You have never heard the fights, the screaming in the st at 3am, the bongs in your yard, the stench of there medical herbs growing in “their” yard. The over use of the C word at high enough volumes that you can hear it in every room of your house, and so often that you can’t have your friends or family over as its to much.

They certainly speak for me, and whats worse my taxes are paying their life style, they don’t want to work they want to smoke bongs and drink wood stock cans all day. They supplement their income with multiple gov payments and the odd pharmaceutical sale. No one has that many visitors in day.

The people i mentioned belong in camps far away from the rest of us, swap them with the poor souls at Naru.

But its not their fault right they had a hard child hood right?

Maya123 said :

miz said :

I have been informed by a Canadian friend who hails from Calgary that refuges/shelters there are located in industrial areas and NOT in suburbia as they cause way too many problems. In that way chronically troublesome members of society (lengthy crim history, entrenched homeless, history of anti-social behaviour, released prisoners etc) do not cause the kind of difficulties described by SR1985 and the general community is more willing to have trouble-free public housing near them.
Public housing was not stigmatised in Canberra until they started to severely target it. Until then you still had a mix (and older tenancies tend to be quiet, sensible neighbours). Now however, only the seriously disadvantaged have any chance of getting public housing so they tend to have clusters of entrenched problems.
I also think Clone’s idea has merit #9.
Either way, something has to be done to ensure Burnie Court/ABC Flats are not simply reestablished elsewhere and ordinary Canberrans minding their own business are not detrimentally affected. Unfortunately, no one trusts this government, as they obviously just want to relocate large numbers of tenants to make way for the stupid tram.

I think supervised refuges/shelters away from the suburbs for the bad tenants, in an industrial area maybe (however think of the potential for the increase of break-ins into businesses that might occur) might be an improvement. Maybe somewhere with only fields nearby? How this worked would depend on how good the supervisors are and the backup available for them. Only allow the decent tenants to remain in the suburbs.
Someone mentioned the problems of removing children from situations like this. There are always problems removing children, but is a disruptive, criminal, drug addled house really the place to leave children! Unfortunately I have heard there is a shortage of foster carers. Maybe if insurance problems were fixed there might be more people willing to foster. At present, from what I have read, if an out of control foster child does serious damage to the house; maybe even burns it down, the money for damages won’t go anywhere near covering the damage. Well that’s what I read. Does someone know the facts here? I considered investigating fostering, until I read of this insurance problem.
There was a paedophile tenant living in a street I once lived in. Apparently this involved his daughter. She should have been removed from the house when she was young, but she continued living with the family. Local gossip said she died soon after leaving home. Eventually the family was moved by housing into a house away from the suburbs. There was a new child. I hope it (not sure of its sex, but I have a feeling it was a boy) was not allowed to continue to live with them.

I am all for gated villages (for the problem public housing tenants).
Locks on the outside.

Hey at least one of us is happy.

I’ve lived in Dickson and Ainslie for years now. I’ve had wallets stolen, clothing stolen. my friends have had bikes stolen, cars broken into. I see needles on the ground walking down Ainslie Ave.

As many of them gone from Turner, Braddon Ainslie and Reid flats the better. maybe I won’t have as many people constantly bugging me for change (I’ve heard some pretty far out excuses why they need it) whilst clearly on drugs or drunk every time I go to Civic or Dickson.

NSW can evict problem tenants now I believe

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/public-housing-tough-new-laws-to-evict-criminals-and-problem-tenants/story-fni0cx12-1227468506708

miz said :

I have been informed by a Canadian friend who hails from Calgary that refuges/shelters there are located in industrial areas and NOT in suburbia as they cause way too many problems. In that way chronically troublesome members of society (lengthy crim history, entrenched homeless, history of anti-social behaviour, released prisoners etc) do not cause the kind of difficulties described by SR1985 and the general community is more willing to have trouble-free public housing near them.
Public housing was not stigmatised in Canberra until they started to severely target it. Until then you still had a mix (and older tenancies tend to be quiet, sensible neighbours). Now however, only the seriously disadvantaged have any chance of getting public housing so they tend to have clusters of entrenched problems.
I also think Clone’s idea has merit #9.
Either way, something has to be done to ensure Burnie Court/ABC Flats are not simply reestablished elsewhere and ordinary Canberrans minding their own business are not detrimentally affected. Unfortunately, no one trusts this government, as they obviously just want to relocate large numbers of tenants to make way for the stupid tram.

I think supervised refuges/shelters away from the suburbs for the bad tenants, in an industrial area maybe (however think of the potential for the increase of break-ins into businesses that might occur) might be an improvement. Maybe somewhere with only fields nearby? How this worked would depend on how good the supervisors are and the backup available for them. Only allow the decent tenants to remain in the suburbs.
Someone mentioned the problems of removing children from situations like this. There are always problems removing children, but is a disruptive, criminal, drug addled house really the place to leave children! Unfortunately I have heard there is a shortage of foster carers. Maybe if insurance problems were fixed there might be more people willing to foster. At present, from what I have read, if an out of control foster child does serious damage to the house; maybe even burns it down, the money for damages won’t go anywhere near covering the damage. Well that’s what I read. Does someone know the facts here? I considered investigating fostering, until I read of this insurance problem.
There was a paedophile tenant living in a street I once lived in. Apparently this involved his daughter. She should have been removed from the house when she was young, but she continued living with the family. Local gossip said she died soon after leaving home. Eventually the family was moved by housing into a house away from the suburbs. There was a new child. I hope it (not sure of its sex, but I have a feeling it was a boy) was not allowed to continue to live with them.

ib6ub9qt said :

This opens a real can of dichotomy worms. Whilst the suggestion to make the “Undesirables” homeless is bound to raise the ire of some, and in itself seems like a cruel and heartless act, is it any less heartless to expect other tenants to tolerate the behaviour and to also expect those who are currently homeless to remain on a waiting list whilst the undesirables remain in place?

When worded as “If you don’t look after your toys and play nicely, then they will be given to someone who will actually appreciate them” it seems a perfectly reasonable proposition.

If we make them homeless, someone else gets a home. Society itself is no worse off at all and the example it sets may go a long way to curbing anti-social behaviour of those who are under the impression they can not get evicted, because that would be heartless.

Consequential thinking skills are never developed in those who face no consequences for their behaviour.

I 100% agree with your statement of, “If you don’t look after your toys and play nicely, then they will be given to someone who will actually appreciate them” and honestly feel that people who deliberately trash public housing should be sent off to shelters to live, until they can appreciate what was given to them. Repeat offenders should be banned from getting public housing. Not to push the problem onto the private rentals, but these people need a wake up call. If they have trashed properties for mental health reasons, then perhaps they need to be in care for awhile.

So yes, I do suggest making them homeless, because without the public housing assistance they very well would likely be homeless. Life lessons ! Their welfare payments should be cut/reduced to pay off the damages as well. (does this already happen?)

Also the age of entitlement needs to end. ACT housing needs to do more to reassess people currently living in public housing. There are so many elderly people living in 3 and 4 bedroom homes, just because they have been in the property for decades. Their children are all grown up and have moved on. There are families who need these larger properties, and the current tenants should be moved on to smaller houses.

HOWEVER ! In saying that I’m also a firm believer that if you’re on welfare with 2 kids living in a 3 bedroom home, and years later you now have 5 kids and are demanding a 6 beddy mansion from the Government. You want the larger space, go get a job to pay for it yourself.

SR1985 said :

I think it is about time that the few bad eggs are dealt with. we recently moved from a house with a public housing tenant who smashed up our car and property because my wife turned down his advances. What did ACT housing do, nothing other than say he won’t do it again. Well we are out $6,000 in damages and we’re advised we would be unlikely to get any back through the courts because he is on welfare. So he has money for smokes and beer but not enough to repay his damage.

Turf him out and I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

Why would you expect Housing ACT to fix it, particularly if it’s in relation to an illegal act with damage to your property? Surely it’s a police matter, or a civil matter you could take to the ACAT. What would you have done if your neighbour owned or privately rented their house?

I have been informed by a Canadian friend who hails from Calgary that refuges/shelters there are located in industrial areas and NOT in suburbia as they cause way too many problems. In that way chronically troublesome members of society (lengthy crim history, entrenched homeless, history of anti-social behaviour, released prisoners etc) do not cause the kind of difficulties described by SR1985 and the general community is more willing to have trouble-free public housing near them.
Public housing was not stigmatised in Canberra until they started to severely target it. Until then you still had a mix (and older tenancies tend to be quiet, sensible neighbours). Now however, only the seriously disadvantaged have any chance of getting public housing so they tend to have clusters of entrenched problems.
I also think Clone’s idea has merit #9.
Either way, something has to be done to ensure Burnie Court/ABC Flats are not simply reestablished elsewhere and ordinary Canberrans minding their own business are not detrimentally affected. Unfortunately, no one trusts this government, as they obviously just want to relocate large numbers of tenants to make way for the stupid tram.

miz said :

Other jurisdictions have consequences for badly behaved tenants. We should too.

What are the consequences that other jurisdictions have? Can you be more specific to what other areas are doing in regard to this?

This is a serious question by the way, in case you thought otherwise… obviously the ACT has been unable to come up with any viable solution, and I can’t think of one, so am interested as to what other areas have been able to do.

For example…how do they deal with a family in public housing that causes major problems to their neighbours? After they move them a couple of times do they just kick the family and children out into the street? Do they take the children away from the family and foster them, just kicking the parents out? I can see that being open to a raft of law suits. What do they do?

To me it seems an impossible situation for the government.

rommeldog56 said :

TuggLife said :

One of the statements made by an objector in Nicholls earlier this year said that they feared public housing because it would bring “drug addicts, paedophiles and other people with mental disabilities” into their community. There are already “drug addicts, paedophiles and other people with mental disabilities” living in your community, even without public housing.

I think this discussion has been had before.

You correctly observe that there are already drug addicts, paedophiles, etc, living in the community. The “salt & pepper” approach just add to that by spreading those out more evenly throughout Canberra. I think people have a right to be alarmed if there were more drug addicts, paedophiles, etc, being concentrated into their suburb by ACT Housing.

And that is just to free up the land where they are currently housed so developers can make a motza out of re developing it.

See post # 17 in this recent thread on RiotAct re salt & pepper in Franklin too :

http://the-riotact.com/franklin-pc-to-fight-housing-proposal/159521

That is what people are concerned about – justifiably so in my view. Nimbyism here I come…….

Something I would suggest for public housing is to have a mix of lower and middle income tenants. The middle income parties would be able to afford full market rate rent (creating income for new housing stock), while the lower income tenants have subsidised rent. This would allow ACT housing to enlargen the potential supply of housing, and reduce the stigma surrounding those who are in public housing (Canberra used to not have such a stigma surrounding public housing because in the 60’s and 70’s they used it to attract people to Canberra).
It would also potentially provide greater stability in housing for some middle income tenants.

The government should only own a miniscule amount of public housing appropriately located for special needs cases.

The vast majority of public housing tenants are good and should simply be provided with rent assistance to organise private rentals of their own.

It would fix the vast majority of this issue as private landlords are not going to be anywhere near as lenient to bad behaviour or property damage as ACT Housing is.

TuggLife said :

One of the statements made by an objector in Nicholls earlier this year said that they feared public housing because it would bring “drug addicts, paedophiles and other people with mental disabilities” into their community. There are already “drug addicts, paedophiles and other people with mental disabilities” living in your community, even without public housing.

I think this discussion has been had before.

You correctly observe that there are already drug addicts, paedophiles, etc, living in the community. The “salt & pepper” approach just add to that by spreading those out more evenly throughout Canberra. I think people have a right to be alarmed if there were more drug addicts, paedophiles, etc, being concentrated into their suburb by ACT Housing.

And that is just to free up the land where they are currently housed so developers can make a motza out of re developing it.

I think it is about time that the few bad eggs are dealt with. we recently moved from a house with a public housing tenant who smashed up our car and property because my wife turned down his advances. What did ACT housing do, nothing other than say he won’t do it again. Well we are out $6,000 in damages and we’re advised we would be unlikely to get any back through the courts because he is on welfare. So he has money for smokes and beer but not enough to repay his damage.

Turf him out and I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

ib6ub9qt said :

This opens a real can of dichotomy worms. Whilst the suggestion to make the “Undesirables” homeless is bound to raise the ire of some, and in itself seems like a cruel and heartless act, is it any less heartless to expect other tenants to tolerate the behaviour and to also expect those who are currently homeless to remain on a waiting list whilst the undesirables remain in place?

When worded as “If you don’t look after your toys and play nicely, then they will be given to someone who will actually appreciate them” it seems a perfectly reasonable proposition.

If we make them homeless, someone else gets a home. Society itself is no worse off at all and the example it sets may go a long way to curbing anti-social behaviour of those who are under the impression they can not get evicted, because that would be heartless.

Consequential thinking skills are never developed in those who face no consequences for their behaviour.

I sort of agree with your sentiment, except that to make the bad tenants homeless might make them a bigger problem for society. I mean, releasing those with criminal and maybe mental health issues too onto society at large, with even less to lose, what might they do!

This opens a real can of dichotomy worms. Whilst the suggestion to make the “Undesirables” homeless is bound to raise the ire of some, and in itself seems like a cruel and heartless act, is it any less heartless to expect other tenants to tolerate the behaviour and to also expect those who are currently homeless to remain on a waiting list whilst the undesirables remain in place?

When worded as “If you don’t look after your toys and play nicely, then they will be given to someone who will actually appreciate them” it seems a perfectly reasonable proposition.

If we make them homeless, someone else gets a home. Society itself is no worse off at all and the example it sets may go a long way to curbing anti-social behaviour of those who are under the impression they can not get evicted, because that would be heartless.

Consequential thinking skills are never developed in those who face no consequences for their behaviour.

Other jurisdictions have consequences for badly behaved tenants. We should too. One important point to add – the government MUST strictly uphold the salt and pepper approach to maintain the community’s support. There have been signs of problematic slippage of this tenet of late which is why people do NOT want large scale public housing developments nearby.

The problem with declaring yourself a NIMBY is that it’s thin on solutions for our broader community – it’s akin to closing your eyes, sticking your hands over your ears and refusing to acknowledge the broader issue.

What’s the alternative? Homelessness? The argument for not tossing “misbehaving” public housing residents into the street isn’t “the children” as you say, it’s that access to safe and secure housing is one of the most basic human rights. Public housing tenants have to live somewhere, and it’s undeniably better for the community, and for these individuals, that they’re not stuck all together in a single estate, which just compounds problems they face. What do you think happens if you turn a “misbehaving” public housing tenant on the street?

One of the statements made by an objector in Nicholls earlier this year said that they feared public housing because it would bring “drug addicts, paedophiles and other people with mental disabilities” into their community. There are already “drug addicts, paedophiles and other people with mental disabilities” living in your community, even without public housing.

So what’s the real issue? That there’s hurt feelings in the community from a lack of consultation? That there’s a concern that Housing ACT is ineffective in reducing crime and anti-social behaviours in public housing? That there’s a lack of effective drug and alcohol treatment strategies in the ACT? That there isn’t enough support for people with a mental illness in our community? That there’s a problem with domestic violence (and violence in general) in our community? That some people have been dealt a crap hand in life, and haven’t pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps?

I also live in the suburban ACT, and “saved and slaved to establish a home in pleasant law-abiding surrounds”. I value the diversity of my neighbourhood, would welcome more and think that proposing to strip your fellow humans of the dignity that comes with secure, habitable and accessible housing is a low act and no solution to any of the above issues. You don’t speak for me.

Jester noir,

Are you suggesting they be allowed to trash properties continually without any fear of loss, destroy the ambience/amenity/property value of an area with their kids, animals and front yard scrap metal depots?

What’s your suggestion?

So you’re suggesting that we make them homeless?