Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Expert strata, facilities & building management services

Housing cluster in Chisholm

By CRISIS_7B - 16 August 2012 177

In September, the ACT Government plans to begin operating a “youth emergency accommodation network cluster” in Chisholm.

The facility will take over THREE Housing ACT homes in a small street of seven homes – XXXX Place – and will house homeless youths aged between 16 and 25 years. It is expected to operate like the purpose-built homeless facility in XXXX Cres, Florey (a large street of about 50 houses). XXXX Place is clearly an inappropriate location on this ground alone.

Such a facility will decrease property values in the Chisholm/Gilmore area, increase crime rates and jeopardise community safety.

Once ‘locked in’ as a Government facility, the persons accommodated could change at the Minister for Housing’s discretion (eg released prisoners, Karalika style drug rehab). This is set out under principle 3 of Housing ACT’s own Asset Management Strategy (on the DHCS website).

When XXXX Place residents objected to a dual occupancy that forms part of the ‘cluster’, Joy Burch received a copy of the objection that stated ‘if the proposed development is intended for any other purpose (than ordinary families off the waiting list), such as a development similar to Karalika, a refuge or any similar group accommodation, please inform the current residents of XXXX Place as soon as possible.’ Resident have not been kept in the loop by Joy Burch or ACTPLA as advised by both parties in September/October 2011. One reply from each saying “I have asked that they (ACTPLA) provide a copy of any comments to you” Joy Burch 18/10/2011 and “The issues raised in your submission will be taken into consideration during the assessment of the development application and you will be notified in writing once a decision has been made.” ACTPLA 13/09/2011. There has been ZERO consultation with Chisholm residents. The residents only found out from a tradesperson that it was going to be a homeless shelter.

It was realised many a year ago that clustering of government housing created the stigma that housing tenants were not a respected part of the community. This clustering was phased out because of the stigma and the concentration of problems in a small geographic area. Now we find that Housing ACT are intending to go back to ‘clustering’.

It has been confirmed that one tenant of XXXX Place was given ‘an offer she could not refuse’ (a larger home than entitlement and money) to move out, so the ‘cluster’ could utilise three houses.

You CAN Help stop the facility by:

– lodging your objection with the Minister for Housing and Community Services, Joy Burch MLA, at burch@act.gov.au or 6205 0020

– contacting Brendan Smyth MLA, who actively opposes the proposal, at smyth@act.gov.au

– attending a meeting at 7B XXXX Place (off Lucy Gullett Cct) on Sat 25 August 2012 at 3pm. PLEASE COME.

Yours sincerely Concerned Chisholm Residents.


UPDATE 16/08/12 11:23: Joy Burch’s office has been in touch with these points:

— There are 3 properties in a street in Chisholm which will be used to accommodate young people aged between 16 and 25 years of age who are homeless under the Emergency Accommodation Network.

— The Salvation Army will operate the service at the Chisholm properties. At present only two of the properties will be used.

— Up to 6 young people will be accommodated at any one time across the 3 properties.

— The same model of accommodation, also operated by the Salvation Army, has operated in a street in Florey since April without any issues.

— It is not Housing ACT practice to consult residents about the location of social housing properties such homelessness accommodation or women’s refuges, particularly where minors are involved, as is the case here in Chisholm. The residents are entitled to some privacy and dignity, which would be compromised if details of their circumstances are disclosed to neighbours.

— The young people occupying these properties are not exiting correctional facilities or drug rehabilitation programs, nor is there any intention to allocate these properties for those purposes. Rather, access to the service at Chisholm will be through Housing ACT’s First Point gateway – the starting point for all people seeking public housing, community housing or emergency accommodation.

— Residents of the street who have raised concerns about these properties have been briefed by Housing ACT and Minister Burch’s office about the nature of this program, and have been invited to receive additional information from the Salvation Army about the program.

— The ACT Government does have a policy of breaking down the concentration of public housing created by multi-unit developments, which house up to hundreds of people in close proximity. A “cluster” of two or three properties serviced by a community organisation (in this case the Salvation Army) that accommodates no more than six people is an entirely different proposition and in no way inconsistent with this policy.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
177 Responses to
Housing cluster in Chisholm
Deref 2:06 pm 16 Aug 12

Why is a religious organisation doing running these places?

The Salvation Army, in particular, is well known for its nasty anti-gay policies. It’s not difficult to imagine that at least some of these homeless kids may be gay, and I shudder to think what kind of reception they’d get from this bigoted organisation.

colourful sydney rac 1:55 pm 16 Aug 12

miz said :

‘residents have been briefed’ is codswallop BTW. We only got confirmation when MLAs got involved and got a briefing last week.

So you have been briefed?

miz 12:59 pm 16 Aug 12

‘residents have been briefed’ is codswallop BTW. We only got confirmation when MLAs got involved and got a briefing last week.

Primal 12:49 pm 16 Aug 12

Antagonist said :

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

Well this sounds about as close to an actual issue in their BY as you can get without it literally being a case of something in their BY.

milkman 12:44 pm 16 Aug 12

Antagonist said :

milkman said :

Antagonist said :

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

Sounds like you never near close to such a facility.

Not any more, but was very close to Karalika until not so long ago. The arguments against the facility appear (IMO) to be based more on emotion than factual evidence.

I wouldn’t have thought Karalika would be that bad, although I don’t have first hand knowledge of it.
My experience was that just because kids/youths with issues were being housed didn’t mean that those issues would go away. This translated to petty crime, vandalism, fights in the street and garbage left everywhere. Not nice at all.

Antagonist 12:39 pm 16 Aug 12

milkman said :

Antagonist said :

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

Sounds like you never near close to such a facility.

Not any more, but was very close to Karalika until not so long ago. The arguments against the facility appear (IMO) to be based more on emotion than factual evidence.

Chop71 12:37 pm 16 Aug 12

I think it is a fantastic location. (and wish all the kids the best of luck)

milkman 12:30 pm 16 Aug 12

Antagonist said :

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

Sounds like you never near close to such a facility.

Tetranitrate 12:28 pm 16 Aug 12

Antagonist said :

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

As much as I’m normally hard on NIMBYism, I can see some pretty legitimate concerns.

Antagonist 12:15 pm 16 Aug 12

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

miz 12:05 pm 16 Aug 12

Note -not a ‘street’ – a cul de sac of seven homes of which the three are right at the end.
I seriously doubt the place at Florey has been ‘without any issues’ – can anyone advise?
We will be barricading the cul de sac.

dpm 11:31 am 16 Aug 12

I’m neutral as I don’t live near there. But I wonder if any political party would get more or less votes if they denounced this? Probably not a big enough issue….
It make me think though, surely just before this election is a good time for people to air their issues and see which side will take up their point of view! 🙂

johnboy 11:26 am 16 Aug 12

Now with comment from Joy Burch’s office

milkman 10:09 am 16 Aug 12

Have lived near a similar facility many years ago, all I can say is get yourselves some big nasty dogs and secure anything that isn’t nailed down. These places are a hotbed of crime and antisocial behaviour.

miz 9:47 am 16 Aug 12

I live on this street in Chisholm and can confirm that we are all extremely upset and angry. It is clear that Housing ACT wanted to get this thing set up ‘under the radar’.

At least one real estate agent has advised home owners to ‘get out now’; people who have lived near similar facilities have warned of significant increased in petty crime, theft etc; and a former youth worker has advised that ‘not even (alleged) low risk is acceptable in suburbia’.

All we want is for ordinary families off the Housing list to live in our small street, not an inappropriate ‘cluster’ facility. I don’t think that is too much to ask, given everyone on the Housing list is homeless or practically homeless.

1 2 3 12

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site