Housing ACT under the spotlight - Most needy out in the cold.

jeez dexi, it’s not communist russia (yet)

Actually I will have to change number 1. VY its not your money. You are a customer/client of the government. You provide money because its the law. (please correct me) Its then the governments money.

1 “have you ever heard of a “customer” dictating how an employee of a company should spend his/her money”?

As a customer you could complain that you pay to much and would like to pay less. The employee can then reduce his costs, maybe paying his employee less. But no-one tells the employee how to spend his money.

The only person I know that exercises this mythical power is the “over half”. Oh and advertising.

Dexi – I think this debate has to be considered in light of the fact that these people are living off resources that we all (at least thos of us who pay tax) provide to the government. I for one am not comfortable with the idea of simply giving people resources with few or no conditions attached.

Bottom line, if you want to spend MY money, expect ME to have a say in how it’s getting spent. I don’t provide tax money for people to piss away on crap. If people in this situation don’t like it, they can get a better/different job, train up, move into a group house, etc. There’s always a way, it’s just a matter of finding it, and I think we need to be using our resources to push people along this path rather than simply giving handouts.

I think the operative words there are “it keeps happening”.

I was arguing for less leeway.

I find it interesting that two things that people find important in their own lives should be denied by the government to a group of people. The poor, sick and stupid.

1 How you spend the money in your pocket………. Pretty income earners.
2. Being able to live in your own place………. Tenure.

1. I don’t see many employers dictating to there employees how they should spend there pay packet. Unheard of.

2. The Government already spends a lot of time, money and effort with the economy and interest rates (etc), so that people can buy a home and live in one place. I know because its on the news every night.

Does this debate relies on peoples prejudice against welfare recipients to keep it going?

PB you miss the moral of the story. If it keeps happening you lose your govt house. It already happens that way. Regardless of who causes the damage.

Vy I agree. It would be hard to keep Foxtel on welfare. I guess some people have other income streams.

I don’t think paying for home internet for kids is unreasonable. But I do think Foxtel is going too far.

As for managing tenant behaviour, I’d suggest that deliberate damage to properties simply not be repaired until the tenants leave. If they want to trash the place, then so be it, but they can live in it.

The fundamental problem is that we have a bottom couple of percent of people that just aren’t capable of functioning as members of society. I think we need to target these people for education and assistance, to try to get them to a point of self sufficiency. Of course, not all public housing tenants are in such a situation (it’s probably only a small minority), but those who are need serious help to get back on track.

dexi said :

PB I think you will find that they already do that and it covers damage. What often happens is that a single mum gets a house then a boyfriend fills the walls full of holes. She is forced to move or go into hiding but still carries the damage cost. Ive seen this happen multiple times. Finally the single mum has to seek private housing because of unpaid housing debt.

Well that’s one tale. So we should continue to give property, at taxpayers expense, to people who vandalise and destroy public housing because someone, someone you may or may have not made up, has poor choice in partners…

Makes sense to me…

Oh, hang about… no it doesn’t.

“hey should, and I believe do, sign a contract when they take public housing.”

PB I think you will find that they already do that and it covers damage. What often happens is that a single mum gets a house then a boyfriend fills the walls full of holes. She is forced to move or go into hiding but still carries the damage cost. Ive seen this happen multiple times. Finally the single mum has to seek private housing because of unpaid housing debt.

That’s right – damn the greedy landlords/investors/real estate agents and Banks. Anyone who is trying to make some money as opposed to those who couldn’t be stuffed getting off their butt to work/ study/ better their position. Everyone should be equal with the same stuff etc… It would be like a utopia. I think it has been tried before.

@ skid -ACT Public Housing is nasty and cheap. I don’t know if you have looked at many of the places lately. The ones that are nasty and cheap are that way due to tenant neglect and damage. Others are brand new houses and units which most people would be very happy to live in. My neighbours place is 3 bed x govie in Cook on over 1400 sqm block – hardly crappy.

sepi said :

You can’t just kick people out onto the streets – they will only turn to crime and cause more problems.

Then they will have to face the consequences of those actions.

I would have a tiered system = you trash your nice 3 bedroom house, you get one further out in the sticks. You trash that, you get one with polished concrete floors and a very very basic kitchen and bathroom.

If you trash that I’m not sure…caravan?

Oh god, so the taxpayer should pay to continually rehouse people who trash public housing, until they have worked their way down through several buildings? What rot!

They should, and I believe do, sign a contract when they take public housing. The contract should contain a clause which indicates that those who damage to any great degree the property will not be considered for further housing.

Market Rent.

Hmmm…. let me see now. Paying a ridiculous, inflated, arbitrary amount of money that is decided by disgustingly greedy real estate agents and investors…

Oh, that’s right – economic rationalism still has credibility with some people.

My dear old uncle refused to believe that anybody could be expected to pay two-thirds of their income in rent – he simply refused to comprehend that there was such vile greed (to him) in the world. Such an egalitarian mind-set, nu? To obstinately believe that no one could be so heartless and greedy as to set rental rates at such a crippling rate.

Call him delusional, if you like – but he certainly made me ponder again my acceptance of sky-rocketing housing values, and I now equate those artifically high rates with greed and moral vacuity.

bd84 @#3 – not sure I buy the argument that people staying in their govvie house paying market rents provides the ability to provide more houses for people in need. For one thing, market rent on a old house takes probably 15 years or more to repay its capital cost. Second all those people in govvie houses who can afford to move into the private market are consuming management, admin and maintenance type resources which would not be needed otherwise. (or alternatively, Housing could put more needy people into a smaller number of houses if they kicked out the people who can now afford to be in the private market).

You can’t just kick people out onto the streets – they will only turn to crime and cause more problems.

I would have a tiered system = you trash your nice 3 bedroom house, you get one further out in the sticks. You trash that, you get one with polished concrete floors and a very very basic kitchen and bathroom.

If you trash that I’m not sure…caravan?

Pommy bastard said :

let’s start by kicking out those who trash and vandalise the housing that we pay for, eh?

I know of several flats and townhouses which have been thoroughly trashed by their occupants, to the point where they are uninhabitable.

Alternatively, lets start with prosecution as criminals as would happen if private property was damaged, its not as if the offenders (tenants) would be hard to identify (perhaps hard to catch).

Speaking of finances, it has always amazed me how the tender system works for public housing maintenance. Should they decide to cut corners / bill for additional work / bill for work not even carried out, they are only required to repay the difference to ACT housing, and only if caught, which itself is exceedingly rare given no inspections are carried out. Additionally they are then invited to bid on the very next job they win, regardless of how many times they have done this.

I completely agree regarding tenure, in fact, why does the housing department allow the unemployed to continue living at subsidised rents indefinitely anyway? If the tenants are able to work, I would rather see heavily subsidised rents which increase to market rates the longer they remain unemployed. I would expect that would be a major incentive to enter the workforce, otherwise they must give up the property when they can no longer afford it and join the back of the queue for another one.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Why should people have tenure? It’s a public resource – you use it when in need and then move on once you’ve sorted yourself, much like other forms of social security.

I fully agree.

But let’s not start by punishing those who have worked to better themselves, let’s start by kicking out those who trash and vandalise the housing that we pay for, eh?

I know of several flats and townhouses which have been thoroughly trashed by their occupants, to the point where they are uninhabitable.

ACT public libraries has free internet, and printers for those who can’t afford a connection, and/or a PC. It’s a bit of a hassle, but it will probably save over $500 a year.

While foxtel might not be a necessity, if you have school aged kids then internet pretty much is. Kids are seriously disadvantaged at school these days if they don’t have access to a computer, printer and email. Public high schools give kids an email account! Many public housing tennents have school aged kids and many of those are on the wrong side of the digital divide. Let’s not begrudge broadband to those that kids, publicly housed or not, that do have it.

That $10-20 a week means $500-1000 a year. If you are in public housing I’d have thought a thousand bucks a year could be better spent than buying Foxtel.

I’m not saying these people can’t have any recreation, but Foxtel is a luxury.

Foxtel costs between about $10 to $20 a week depending on what channels you’re buying, which is not really in the ballpark of rents, is it now?

You may not think its a great look, but if you start down that road you might as well say that public housing tenants shouldn’t eat takeaway, or go to the movies, or do any of the other little recreational things that cost around the same or less. Seems ridiculous to me.

Gee, public housing tenants who have to choose between Foxtel or a second car. They sound real hard up! Neither of these things are necessities in my books.

Or, Market = those who have make mutual arrangements to get more of same and set up systems to keep on excluding those who don’t

Government = system approved by the majority to ensure the assisting those those who do not have what is deemed to be necessities, for the benefit of all (so they do not commit crimes to survive).

30 years ago, tv, phone would not be considered a necessity. They are now. Maybe not foxtel, though . . . but perhaps those people really love sport and have made a choice to go without eg a second car (or sim decision made about their discretionary income).

miz said :

Given the economic climate, I wouldn’t be surprised if public housing was re-discovered as a way to keep people housed and off the street. I think we have all woken up to the fact that the market does NOT solve everything, and a half-decent society looks after its own.

Market (a group of people voluntarily engaging with one another to achieve diverse objectives (eg, icecream manufacturing, charity) = not society

Government (an institution holding a monopoly on force and funded through compulsorily acquired taxation thus meaning people are free of actually having to choose to help their neighbour) = society looking after its own

…umm what?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Why should people have tenure? It’s a public resource – you use it when in need and then move on once you’ve sorted yourself, much like other forms of social security.

Gee, brings to mind the three families I know of personally in govvie housing that have foxtel, broadband etc. Two of them even have foxtel in 2 rooms in the house. If I was paying their rent instead of what the market dictates, then maybe I could afford it all too.

If you can afford foxtel\subscription tv, you do not “need” to be on the housing welfare train.

Ratepayers? I think you’ll find that most, if not all, of the money for ACT Housing comes from a federal grant under the CSHA (Cth-State Housing Agreement). All Australian States and Territories are beneficiaries. If there were no public housing, many people would not be able to manage, which would create far more serious social problems for many more people than the whining of a few comfortable neo-conservatives . . .

Given the economic climate, I wouldn’t be surprised if public housing was re-discovered as a way to keep people housed and off the street. I think we have all woken up to the fact that the market does NOT solve everything, and a half-decent society looks after its own.

miz said :

There’s no sec of tenure any more, remember? If you have a spare room, out you go.
(No wonder private rental is impossible)

You are kidding Miz. Inner north family of five people is STILL occupying 10 bedrooms in $1.8 million dollars worth of ACT Housing property (three houses).

Poor things were asked to give up a further one-bedroom flat they were occupying. Only because ACT Housing noticed that the same single occupant was somehow occupying an entire three-bedroom house AND a government flat! Did they ask him to vacate the three-beddy? No. He was allowed to keep the house!

No choice but to suck it up, ratepayers.

And I’m not convinced that ACT Housing should be looking to make a profit – their job is to house the needy.

Exactly. And moving on people who can afford to pay market rent means they would have fewer clients and less work to get through, and would thus cost us less to run the service.

I wonder how the other states manage to get people to move out once they are no longer in need?

And I’m not convinced that ACT Housing should be looking to make a profit – their job is to house the needy.

Yes, ACT Public Housing is nasty, cheap, overcrowded, and underresourced…

There -is- a govt program which is designed to increase rental housing stock, and encourage institutions to create large-scale property consortia to rent to lower-income families through rental subsidies.
Making it wierdly hybridised public-private housing stock…

We should be careful not to create a disincentive to sorting yourself out, though.

I also feel it should be pointed out that as an investment property owner, it’s in your interest to boot people from public housing.

You do realise that those people with an income above the threshold pay market rent for their properties? It’s actually more profitable for Housing ACT to have full market renters in some of the properties because it allows them to put the extra money towards the purchase of new houses. This in turn allows someone paying, for example, $60 a fortnight to live in a house with a market rate of $400.

They have programs in place now anyway to encourage and assist people earning the threshold consistently to purchase the property or to move to a smaller house if the house is too big.

Why should people have tenure? It’s a public resource – you use it when in need and then move on once you’ve sorted yourself, much like other forms of social security.

There’s no sec of tenure any more, remember? If you have a spare room, out you go.
(No wonder private rental is impossible)