17 August 2012

Housing cluster in Chisholm

| CRISIS_7B
Join the conversation
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.

Join the conversation

177
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Antagonist said :

From one housing tennant to another, you are a piece of sh!t.

So what’s standard procedure from here? Your son molests her daughter? Or do you steal each others’ staffies first?

poetix said :

If there was ever a thread that deserved the Mully…

Is it the thread or Miz who wins the mully? without the comments from Miz, I’m sure this would have been less of a contender!

poetix said :

If there was ever a thread that deserved the Mully…

What ‘he’ said! 🙂

If there was ever a thread that deserved the Mully…

LumpySpacePrincess11:23 am 27 Aug 12

miz said :

PS My life experiences (longterm child illness etc) have meant that I have learned how to fight for my children over a number of years. If some interpret that as being ‘a piece of work’, so be it.

However, this IS a democracy and no one should have their rights trampled on.

So what if for some reason your child needed this accommodation? You never know what’s going to happen in the future.

And if you can afford to pay full rent then GTFO of there and leave it available for someone who can’t!

I’ve never heard anything so selfish or hypocritical. Shame on you!

Darkfalz said :

milkman said :

Disagreeing with homosexuality versus helping millions of people all over the world for over 100 years. Sorry, but the two don’t compare.

Disagreeing that a gay relationship should be called a “marriage” is not the same as being “homophobic” either.

What is it then? It’s still discriminatory, Shit, by any other name, still stinks.

Maybe if Miz loses her publicly subsidised housing property, and her children are left homeless, and then THEY require support from this model of housing she might change her mind.

And before you say it AGAIN, I would very happily offer up my street for supported accommodation such as the one being suggested in your precious street. Housing is a basic human right, who am I to deny it to anyone?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:46 am 27 Aug 12

miz said :

Dear Lillypilly, Comic etc, why don’t you actually read the all of the posts, then feel free to ring Housing and volunteer your street for this.

I have read every single post in detail and have concluded that you are infact a form of human trash with no compassion for people who have/are living through the same sort of situation as you. You are self centered and greedy with some sort of twisted mindset that makes you think only you deserve to be helped out of the gutter.

miz said :

Dear Lillypilly, Comic etc, why don’t you actually read the all of the posts, then feel free to ring Housing and volunteer your street for this.

Or you could be proactive here and offer to volunteer at the cluster to help those less fortunate out and help make sure everything goes well.

I live near no government housing clusters of any kind, yet my house has been broken into twice in 11 years, I often get people hooning the streets and riding dirtbikes nearby etc. They could move this facility 2 or 3 streets away and if the perceived issues you think may happen actually do happen, then you could still be affected by the crime.

Actually just to burst your bubble, check out the ACT policing crime statistics website. Chisholm is one of the worst suburbs in Tuggeranong. Alarmingly compared to say Gilmore in Richardson, assault is very high in Chisholm already. Perhaps this is why they need this facility in Chisholm to try and fix the problem that already exists!

miz said :

It was acknowledged by the relevant authorities that the DA and related processes – including shoehorning a three house homeless refuge into a six house cul de sac in suburbia – had been extremely poor, conducted with subterfuge, and that residents, if informed at all, had been continually lied to.

Note to authorities: it’s never a good idea to try getting things in ‘under the radar’; transparency is respectful; sneakiness is not.

Ms Burch said that given the appalling process in this case, there would be a review of how these kinds of processes are done in the future.

However, the boss of Social Housing at Housing ACT stated that the internal review WILL be done at the one year mark, and that this cluster WILL be abandoned if it has created problems for residents during that trial year.

Good on you for getting them all to turn up.

There’s nothing new about this department carrying on like this – a full-on inquiry is really needed. Any internal review will find they did nothing wrong, or if they did, it wasn’t that bad anyway because the kids needed to live somewhere. Don’t believe a word they, or their Minister, say.

After reading thru this lengthy post I have concluded that it amounts to nothing worth reading, although I do agree with #161
This whole argument is an indication of how far some Canberra residents are away from the real world.

Mordd said :

poetix said :

Mordd said :

You get a 1 good sir

That’s the second time I’ve been demoted this fortnight! (-:

You lost me, did i get the gender wrong or you take it as an insult that I approved of your comment?

Definitely just the gender, my good sir!

Dear Lillypilly, Comic etc, why don’t you actually read the all of the posts, then feel free to ring Housing and volunteer your street for this.

Holden Caulfield12:31 am 27 Aug 12

miz said :

…[It is clear from this that the relevant authorities have backed themselves into a corner by not giving themselves enough time to seek alternative arrangements for when a current Anglicare facility’s contract expires on 30 September. ]…

Wrong. I think you’ll find they’ve backed themselves into a cul de sac.

Antagonist said :

miz said :

However, this IS a democracy and no one should have their rights trampled on.

Exactly what democratic right is it that you are trying to exercise? The right to pick and choose your neighbours? The right to pick and choose which government services appear near your (government provided) home? These are not democratic rights. These are wishes.

I put it to you that even if DHCS had informed you of what their plans were, you would have objected anyway. The only difference being that you would have known about it, at best, just a few weeks sooner. You still would have given a NIMBY objection based on emotion, with no facts to back it up.

For someone who claims to have such terrible life experiences that forced you to live in a public provided house for 19 years, you have no community spirit or compassion for others that are in a worse position than yourself. From one housing tennant to another, you are a piece of sh!t.

+1000

Miz – I would be quite happy to have a housing situation for at risk teenagers in my suburb or street. You see at that age, there’s a real chance lives can be turned around from a life of despair and uncertainty. As a neighbour I’d love to help teach some young folks that it can get better.

You, on the other hand, DO stay in chisholm. Least we can all now pin point some compassion-less morons to keep the hell away from.

poetix said :

Mordd said :

You get a 1 good sir

That’s the second time I’ve been demoted this fortnight! (-:

You lost me, did i get the gender wrong or you take it as an insult that I approved of your comment?

miz said :

However, this IS a democracy and no one should have their rights trampled on.

Exactly what democratic right is it that you are trying to exercise? The right to pick and choose your neighbours? The right to pick and choose which government services appear near your (government provided) home? These are not democratic rights. These are wishes.

I put it to you that even if DHCS had informed you of what their plans were, you would have objected anyway. The only difference being that you would have known about it, at best, just a few weeks sooner. You still would have given a NIMBY objection based on emotion, with no facts to back it up.

For someone who claims to have such terrible life experiences that forced you to live in a public provided house for 19 years, you have no community spirit or compassion for others that are in a worse position than yourself. From one housing tennant to another, you are a piece of sh!t.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:45 pm 26 Aug 12

miz said :

PS My life experiences (longterm child illness etc) have meant that I have learned how to fight for my children over a number of years. If some interpret that as being ‘a piece of work’, so be it.

However, this IS a democracy and no one should have their rights trampled on.

You are saying only you should be allowed to be helped by government housing?

miz said :

PS My life experiences (longterm child illness etc) have meant that I have learned how to fight for my children over a number of years. If some interpret that as being ‘a piece of work’, so be it.

However, this IS a democracy and no one should have their rights trampled on.

…….except the rights of homeless teenagers to have a safe roof over their heads, right?

Mordd said :

You get a 1 good sir

That’s the second time I’ve been demoted this fortnight! (-:

PS My life experiences (longterm child illness etc) have meant that I have learned how to fight for my children over a number of years. If some interpret that as being ‘a piece of work’, so be it. However, this IS a democracy and no one should have their rights trampled on.

Hi Ross, Canberra used to be a quiet place like a big country town. All the examples illustrate how continually hopeless our local govt is in informing people about things that might affect them.
Poetix, all persons on the Housing list are homeless. We have indicated that three homeless families would clearly be more appropriate in these houses, instead of a facility-by-stealth.
Comic, the new $80,000 thing does not affect anyone in this street at this time.

Wow miz you are truly an abhorrent human. You had/have the benefit of subsidised housing (note that full market rent charged by housing is lower than actual market rent) and you are so proud of yourself for trying to sabotage this refuge. You have been completely shameless in your claims about the refuge and your sense of entitlement.

And now you ask for tips on here about which lawyer might be good for you because you are still not done with your selfish mission.

You aren’t married to someone on here known as mr Gillespie? You’d be well suited methinks.

Miz, you might find this website of use, since it is obvious that you are not happy with your current landlords:

http://www.allhomes.com.au/ah/act/rent-residential

Woody Mann-Caruso5:21 pm 26 Aug 12

It was acknowledged by the relevant authorities that the DA and related processes…had been extremely poor, conducted with subterfuge, and that residents, if informed at all, had been continually lied to.

rofl

poetix said :

miz said :

It was freezing as the meeting was conducted outdoors (there were too many people for inside the premises)…..

Now that the meeting is over, advice from Rioters on which legal firms might assist us should we make an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (ACT) would be greatly appreciated.

Your lack of sympathy with homeless people forced to live outside in freezing conditions is quite stunning. The experience of having a meeting outside could have, perhaps, led you to a greater understanding of the tragedy of homelessness. But it didn’t.

Lawyers cost money. Market rates. Fortunately, in this case.

You get a +1 good sir

miz said :

It was freezing as the meeting was conducted outdoors (there were too many people for inside the premises)…..

Now that the meeting is over, advice from Rioters on which legal firms might assist us should we make an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (ACT) would be greatly appreciated.

Your lack of sympathy with homeless people forced to live outside in freezing conditions is quite stunning. The experience of having a meeting outside could have, perhaps, led you to a greater understanding of the tragedy of homelessness. But it didn’t.

Lawyers cost money. Market rates. Fortunately, in this case.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd3:17 pm 26 Aug 12

You are a real piece of work, miz.

No change if it affects you adversely hey?

Great turnout, including three MLAs – Mr Smyth, Mr Hargreaves and Minister Burch; representatives of Tugg Community Council; Housing ACT reps; a Salvos Captain; youth workers; and around 50 concerned locals objecting to this ‘refuge by stealth’, which they have weasel-worded as a ‘cluster’ (facility). It was freezing as the meeting was conducted outdoors (there were too many people for inside the premises).

Both Mr Smyth and Mr Hargreaves jointly assisted local residents by running the meeting, for which we thank them. They had both been invited to the meeting to assist residents to put forward their concerns, with the goal of overturning the decision. We were also particularly pleased to have Ms Burch attend, given that her office had not been particularly helpful to residents during past weeks and had promulgated disinformation, including what is attached to this post.

Housing ACT explained the cluster model and why it is the new black. Salvos and youth workers spoke of their experiences at another refuge and of the monitoring and security processes that should be put in place. (Hopefully these will be proactive and not ‘after the event’). Salvos have signed a six year contract.

It was acknowledged by the relevant authorities that the DA and related processes – including shoehorning a three house homeless refuge into a six house cul de sac in suburbia – had been extremely poor, conducted with subterfuge, and that residents, if informed at all, had been continually lied to.

Concerns raised by residents included the misleading and/or non-existent consultation; the cluster model itself which puts vulnerable people together, thus magnifying the risk in a small geographic area; the age of the target group (16-25) which, as anyone with teenagers can attest, are difficult years at the best of times; the fact that residents had relied on Housing ACT’s statement to ACTPLA that ‘children would play’ in the private space of the dual occ now being appropriated for a refuge facility; that the cluster model inappropriately dominates the street (whereas one house or block would be more acceptable); serious concerns about the safety of existing residents and their children; and the fact that there are no guarantees as policy/funding place numbers can change at any time. There were more but I am so stressed I can’t think of them right now.

Ms Burch stated that she will provide written assurance to residents that the government would not alter the type of person/risk level housed in the facility. Mr Smyth stated that if elected the Libs would honour that written assurance.

Unfortunately, no contingency options were brought to the meeting. [It is clear from this that the relevant authorities have backed themselves into a corner by not giving themselves enough time to seek alternative arrangements for when a current Anglicare facility’s contract expires on 30 September. ] Note to authorities: it’s never a good idea to try getting things in ‘under the radar’; transparency is respectful; sneakiness is not.

Ms Burch said that given the appalling process in this case, there would be a review of how these kinds of processes are done in the future.

Ms Buch and Mr Hargreaves [who sadly appeared to lose his senses and become a turncoat] joined forces to foist what appeared to be a pre-arranged ‘compromise deal’ on residents, namely that residents should ‘give it a go’ for one year, after which an internal review will be conducted by Housing ACT. Mr Hargreaves stated that ‘he could not think of a better community’ to put the refuge in. (Thanks so much, not.) This was despite attendees not feeling sufficiently assured to raise their hands in support of this compromise.

However, the boss of Social Housing at Housing ACT stated that the internal review WILL be done at the one year mark, and that this cluster WILL be abandoned if it has created problems for residents during that trial year.

I strongly recommend that ACT residents everywhere keep abreast of any DAs in their area on Housing ACT properties, and also note where the 200 or so purpose properties are in case yout own street gets targeted for a ‘cluster’ facility.

Now that the meeting is over, advice from Rioters on which legal firms might assist us should we make an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (ACT) would be greatly appreciated.

I have to say that I am so sick of govts wanting to undo the very reasons people live in Canberra. I will vote for any party that stops bugging people about stuff. I am sick to death of having to fight just to live a quiet and peaceful suburban life. Just a few I could mention re inappropriate or incompetent govt action and/or development over the last five or six years are school closures, wanting to locate a cemetery and crematorium right near a permanently stinky tip (irk), flats proposed on a local park, massive power stations adjacent to suburbia, threats to horse paddocks, and now secretly bunging in a refuge. And this is just in my part of Tuggeranong.

If they could just stick to ‘roads rates and rubbish’ I would be so happy.

Holden Caulfield1:31 pm 26 Aug 12

miz said :

Hi Rioters, reminder to Chisholm residents about community meeting re homeless cluster, Sat 25th 3pm. Street is well signposted from Lucy Gullett Cct. See you there.

How did it go?

Was the point in post #142 discussed as well?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

pink little birdie said :

today’s Canberra times announced a crackdown on public housing tenants paying full rent in their properties and an asset test for most tenants. Those with an income over $80,000 pa are being given 6 months notice.

Oh wow that’s incredibly awesome.

Please tell me that this topic caused this?

It’s the power of RA. Bask in its warm glow while you can.

I’m looking forward to hearing the results of the public meeting.

Pork Hunt said :

Deref said :

HenryBG said :

Religious belief might be delusional, but you can’t say it’s good for nothing.

Quite. Though their delusions lead them to do as much (actually a lot more, in general) that’s very bad indeed, they do do some good along the way.

My question didn’t relate to religions’ right to do their charitable work, but governments have no right to contract them to provide social services that must be provided without prejudice.

Yet non government organisations run jails in this country…
Is one being punished by the govt or Serco (or whatever they are called this week)?

Good point.

One is being punished by us – by you and me – with the government acting directly as our agent.

There are some things that governments need to be directly responsible for, with no middle man. These include the justice system, particularly the courts and the prisons, and the military. In those, in particular, we – you and I – are directly responsible for decisions that dramatically affect people’s lives, including, in some cases, their non-continuation and we need to be as close as it’s possible to be to those things. The more removed we are, the less we’re able to feel the essential sense of personal responsibility for those actions and the more likely we are to take decisions (or to let our representatives take them for us) without due care.

The more directly our institutions affect, on our behalf, people’s lives, the closer to them we need to be.

For others, it’s not that important. I don’t care if the government buys road building services, for example, though I expect them to buy those services from people who are competent to build roads. When they don’t (e.g. the chipseal on the Federal Highway) we have a right to be pissed off about it but there’s an immense difference between deciding on a road contractor and deciding to wage war.

In the case at hand the government’s bought a human service – one that directly affects people’s lives – from an organisation that regularly demonstrates its philosophical incompetence to deal with everyone on a completely equitable basis; and the government knows that to be the case.

Perhaps if they contracted the Salvation Army (or the Scientologists for that matter) to chipseal the Federal Highway, they could do the job without prejudice (and perhaps more competently than the people who did do it). But human service delivery? No way.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:40 pm 25 Aug 12

pink little birdie said :

el said :

miz said :

Comic, incorrect; as noted previously, the street is a mix of private owners and tenants.

Yep – the OP mentioned they’ve been living in a housing property for 19 years.

I can’t imagine why there’s a shortage of emergency accommodation places available for the homeless/at risk.

today’s Canberra times announced a crackdown on public housing tenants paying full rent in their properties and an asset test for most tenants. Those with an income over $80,000 pa are being given 6 months notice.

Oh wow that’s incredibly awesome.

Please tell me that this topic caused this?

pink little birdie2:56 pm 25 Aug 12

el said :

miz said :

Comic, incorrect; as noted previously, the street is a mix of private owners and tenants.

Yep – the OP mentioned they’ve been living in a housing property for 19 years.

I can’t imagine why there’s a shortage of emergency accommodation places available for the homeless/at risk.

today’s Canberra times announced a crackdown on public housing tenants paying full rent in their properties and an asset test for most tenants. Those with an income over $80,000 pa are being given 6 months notice.

miz said :

Comic, incorrect; as noted previously, the street is a mix of private owners and tenants.

Yep – the OP mentioned they’ve been living in a housing property for 19 years.

I can’t imagine why there’s a shortage of emergency accommodation places available for the homeless/at risk.

Deref said :

stillflying said :

GBT said :

In the end though, marriage equality is one of those things that you can never convince bigots (a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) is a good thing. You just have to hope that commonsense backed by majority public opinion wins out in the end.

I’m 22, and I don’t know anyone my generation who is against gay marriage. We’re basically just waiting for the stubborn older generations to die out and give up their vote.

Don’t be ageist, sonny – it’s the same as being homophobic.

See you at the marriage equality rally.

It’s not intentional sorry. Of course there ARE those who are elder that support it but from personal experience the only ones I’ve witnessed happy to verbally announce their opposition are older generations and the amount of them could drown a boat. Of course happy to welcome your support.

If it does cause property prices to drop then good ! Maybe some of these youth will then be able to afford their own place !!

Disgraceful pack of selfish people. How dare you deny homeless youth a place to stay ? Do you want 16 year old children walking the street homeless because you’re too selfish and snobby to have them living on your street ?

stillflying said :

GBT said :

In the end though, marriage equality is one of those things that you can never convince bigots (a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) is a good thing. You just have to hope that commonsense backed by majority public opinion wins out in the end.

I’m 22, and I don’t know anyone my generation who is against gay marriage. We’re basically just waiting for the stubborn older generations to die out and give up their vote.

Don’t be ageist, sonny – it’s the same as being homophobic.

See you at the marriage equality rally.

Comic, incorrect; as noted previously, the street is a mix of private owners and tenants.

Oh and by the way it’s a piece of history that most Australian’s are unaware of.

I’d suggest you all go and watch the movie ‘oranges and sunshine’ before you make your educated statement on the value of religious groups and their values. I personally had a lot to do with the Salvation Army as a child and was appalled at some of the leaders of the church condoning their childrens behaviour, (I was a child myself 11-13 yo).

I will not donate a single thing to the Salvation Army.

Pork Hunt said :

OK, I give up. What’s a pos? Seen it in a couple of posts now.

Piece Of Shittake or a Pile Of ‘Shrooms

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:47 pm 24 Aug 12

Pork Hunt said :

OK, I give up. What’s a pos? Seen it in a couple of posts now.

Piece Of S(poo)

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:47 pm 24 Aug 12

Mordd said :

I think its great, i would have no issue living near there myself, and frankly the OP and the other commentors in here making judgements about ppl receiving assistance make me sick, how dare you judge the less vulnerable members of our society, pray that you or your kids never need assistance like this themselves, frankly there are some extremely selfish and stuck up ppl living in canberra, makes me ashamed to call myself a resident of this city sometimes.

The irony is, that everyone on that street is a government housing tenant. But for some reason this bunch seem to think they better than any new tenants. They already have had the help of society, so screw anyone else that needs it.

I think its great, i would have no issue living near there myself, and frankly the OP and the other commentors in here making judgements about ppl receiving assistance make me sick, how dare you judge the less vulnerable members of our society, pray that you or your kids never need assistance like this themselves, frankly there are some extremely selfish and stuck up ppl living in canberra, makes me ashamed to call myself a resident of this city sometimes.

stillflying said :

GBT said :

In the end though, marriage equality is one of those things that you can never convince bigots (a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) is a good thing. You just have to hope that commonsense backed by majority public opinion wins out in the end.

I’m 22, and I don’t know anyone my generation who is against gay marriage. We’re basically just waiting for the stubborn older generations to die out and give up their vote.

Interesting comment. Marriage equality or any other matter of conscience (euthanasia, helping the less fortunate…) are really not divided on generational lines. I’m not 22 (I was once) and I’d hope you would accept my vote for change before I die out. I don’t think these issues are even divided on religious lines. My parents and in-laws are even older than me (by biological definition) and relatively religious, but they all want marriage law reform and euthanasia law reform. I think these issues are divided on “idiot lines” or maybe “hatred lines” or “control lines”. Idiots who hate others and want to control them have very nasty things to say about marriage equality, the right to die, and the requirement of us all to help unfortunate young people who are trying to escape hell.

Unfortunately, hearing the comments made by many of my children’s 20-something and late teen colleagues on various matters, I don’t hold out for generational change to end the idiocy or the hatred. That said, I hope the young people who have sparked this thread get a fair go and an opportunity to re-establish their lives.

I’ll leave it there and let the trolls and haters take over.

OK, I give up. What’s a pos? Seen it in a couple of posts now.

Deref said :

HenryBG said :

Religious belief might be delusional, but you can’t say it’s good for nothing.

Quite. Though their delusions lead them to do as much (actually a lot more, in general) that’s very bad indeed, they do do some good along the way.

My question didn’t relate to religions’ right to do their charitable work, but governments have no right to contract them to provide social services that must be provided without prejudice.

Yet non government organisations run jails in this country…
Is one being punished by the govt or Serco (or whatever they are called this week)?

johnboy said :

Sieg Heil!

Lol i just got a little aroused!

It’s about being dictated TO, by the govt of the day, without any transparency whatsoever. But frankly, whatever it takes.

miz said :

Hi Rioters, reminder to Chisholm residents about community meeting re homeless cluster, Sat 25th 3pm. Street is well signposted from Lucy Gullett Cct. See you there.

Can I come and voice my objections to having to share my neighbourhood with all housos?

Hi Rioters, reminder to Chisholm residents about community meeting re homeless cluster, Sat 25th 3pm. Street is well signposted from Lucy Gullett Cct. See you there.

GBT said :

In the end though, marriage equality is one of those things that you can never convince bigots (a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) is a good thing. You just have to hope that commonsense backed by majority public opinion wins out in the end.

I’m 22, and I don’t know anyone my generation who is against gay marriage. We’re basically just waiting for the stubborn older generations to die out and give up their vote.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Wow – this is still going.

I’m firmly on the side of the Salvos good works far outweighing any perceived issues with not liking gay people.

Some good points in there by Darkfalz, too.

Are you kidding? They are the same weakminded arguments to justify discrimination that get trotted out again and again.

Denying a right readily available to all other consenting adults to one segment of the population based purely on sexual preference is exactly what discrimination is. Saying that supporting gay marriage is discriminatory against Christians is baseless as they are not being denied anything (except maybe the right to discriminate). As for discriminating against nuclear families……..wtf?

Studies have shown that there is no detrimental effect to society by allowing gay marriage, and this has begen proven in other countries where it is legal, so that is complete crap. It is far from a “valid idea of what a marriage and a family is.” Let’s not forget that marriage never started out as a religious institution and was only later turned into one.

In the end though, marriage equality is one of those things that you can never convince bigots (a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices) is a good thing. You just have to hope that commonsense backed by majority public opinion wins out in the end.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back9:19 am 23 Aug 12

Wow – this is still going.

I’m firmly on the side of the Salvos good works far outweighing any perceived issues with not liking gay people.

Some good points in there by Darkfalz, too.

Darkfalz said :

GBT said :

milkman said :

johnboy said :

milkman said :

To compare the two is laughable.

Only to someone who doesn’t think discrimination against homosexuals is a terrible thing.

The Salvo’s don’t support homosexuality, but nor do they persecute. And frankly, I think the suffering of hunger, homelessness and substance abuse that the Salvos deal with on a daily basis all over the world is much worse.

This fixation people have with homosexuality is really surprising. Homosexuals are really no different to heteros except in the bedroom.

And that is exactly why discrimination against gay people is so terrible. It’s discriminating against something they have no control over and which forms such a tiny part of who they are yet can cause such a huge problem when such discrimination occurs.

Not supporting gay marriage is not discrimination any more than supporting gay marriage is discrimination against Christians or nuclear families. It’s two opposing and equally valid ideas of what a marriage and a family is and their role and benefit to society. People are tuning out when you’re so eager to throw “homophobic” and “bigoted” at perfectly rational people expressing a widely held belief and I can tell you, it’s not doing you any good. Especially when you try to shoehorn it into debates that the issue has no bearing on like this one.

I don’t believe both are equally valid. I believe marriage means something very simple. Two people declare their love in a way that the state recognises as a valid partnership. That’s all it means.

If you can explain why the argument against that is valid, I’ll be happy to hear it. Two caveats:

1) You can’t use children as part of your argument. Children are not a legally necessary part of any marriage requirements in Australia – the infertile, the not-intending to have children, all able to get married as long as one’s a man and one’s a woman.

2) You also can’t use religion. Recent statistics say 69.2% of marriages are performed by civil celebrants (i.e. with no religious component whatsoever). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/1B42D16E581BD55FCA2579A3001C3D97?opendocument. Also, several religions DO allow same-sex marriage (including several Christian denominations – despite the attempts of organisations like the Australian Christian Lobby, Christianity is not a solid bloc on this issue, or indeed, on many issues).

With those two caveats in mind (and also bearing in mind things like “it just feels icky” will also be judged as invalid), go for your life.

GBT said :

milkman said :

johnboy said :

milkman said :

To compare the two is laughable.

Only to someone who doesn’t think discrimination against homosexuals is a terrible thing.

The Salvo’s don’t support homosexuality, but nor do they persecute. And frankly, I think the suffering of hunger, homelessness and substance abuse that the Salvos deal with on a daily basis all over the world is much worse.

This fixation people have with homosexuality is really surprising. Homosexuals are really no different to heteros except in the bedroom.

And that is exactly why discrimination against gay people is so terrible. It’s discriminating against something they have no control over and which forms such a tiny part of who they are yet can cause such a huge problem when such discrimination occurs.

Not supporting gay marriage is not discrimination any more than supporting gay marriage is discrimination against Christians or nuclear families. It’s two opposing and equally valid ideas of what a marriage and a family is and their role and benefit to society. People are tuning out when you’re so eager to throw “homophobic” and “bigoted” at perfectly rational people expressing a widely held belief and I can tell you, it’s not doing you any good. Especially when you try to shoehorn it into debates that the issue has no bearing on like this one.

milkman said :

Disagreeing with homosexuality versus helping millions of people all over the world for over 100 years. Sorry, but the two don’t compare.

Disagreeing that a gay relationship should be called a “marriage” is not the same as being “homophobic” either.

GBT said :

milkman said :

johnboy said :

milkman said :

To compare the two is laughable.

Only to someone who doesn’t think discrimination against homosexuals is a terrible thing.

The Salvo’s don’t support homosexuality, but nor do they persecute. And frankly, I think the suffering of hunger, homelessness and substance abuse that the Salvos deal with on a daily basis all over the world is much worse.

This fixation people have with homosexuality is really surprising. Homosexuals are really no different to heteros except in the bedroom.

And that is exactly why discrimination against gay people is so terrible. It’s discriminating against something they have no control over and which forms such a tiny part of who they are yet can cause such a huge problem when such discrimination occurs.

How people can think that it’s such a small problem and is basically just a minority having a whinge is beyond me. In other words, it doesn’t affect me so it isn’t a problem.

While the Salvos may not discriminate against homosexuality in that they still help everyone, they do in plenty of other ways which others have pointed out. And all in the name of religion.

Would you prefer they disbanded and the good works they do weren’t done? Because if they were, lots of those people they help will fall through the cracks.

Discrimination against gays is a problem, but the Salvos tackle bigger problems. They aren’t perfect by a lot of measures, yet they do more to help the down and out than almost any other organisation in existence.

milkman said :

johnboy said :

milkman said :

To compare the two is laughable.

Only to someone who doesn’t think discrimination against homosexuals is a terrible thing.

The Salvo’s don’t support homosexuality, but nor do they persecute. And frankly, I think the suffering of hunger, homelessness and substance abuse that the Salvos deal with on a daily basis all over the world is much worse.

This fixation people have with homosexuality is really surprising. Homosexuals are really no different to heteros except in the bedroom.

And that is exactly why discrimination against gay people is so terrible. It’s discriminating against something they have no control over and which forms such a tiny part of who they are yet can cause such a huge problem when such discrimination occurs.

How people can think that it’s such a small problem and is basically just a minority having a whinge is beyond me. In other words, it doesn’t affect me so it isn’t a problem.

While the Salvos may not discriminate against homosexuality in that they still help everyone, they do in plenty of other ways which others have pointed out. And all in the name of religion.

milkman said :

johnboy said :

milkman said :

To compare the two is laughable.

Only to someone who doesn’t think discrimination against homosexuals is a terrible thing.

The Salvo’s don’t support homosexuality, but nor do they persecute. And frankly, I think the suffering of hunger, homelessness and substance abuse that the Salvos deal with on a daily basis all over the world is much worse.

If you don’t call encouraging others to infringe upon peoples basic rights persecution… At the end of the day, it won’t stop me from donating to them when I have the chance because yes they do good things. I’ll donate to the salvos set up in shopping centres and the St Vincent Door Knock Appeals and other appeals in general, but if I ever had to choose between the Salvos and a non-religious open equality charity, I’d choose the latter.

johnboy said :

milkman said :

To compare the two is laughable.

Only to someone who doesn’t think discrimination against homosexuals is a terrible thing.

The Salvo’s don’t support homosexuality, but nor do they persecute. And frankly, I think the suffering of hunger, homelessness and substance abuse that the Salvos deal with on a daily basis all over the world is much worse.

This fixation people have with homosexuality is really surprising. Homosexuals are really no different to heteros except in the bedroom.

milkman said :

To compare the two is laughable.

Only to someone who doesn’t think discrimination against homosexuals is a terrible thing.

johnboy said :

At the risk of invoking Godwin.. How do you rate economic revival and the trains running on time v. WWII?

To compare the two is laughable.

johnboy said :

At the risk of invoking Godwin.. How do you rate economic revival and the trains running on time v. WWII?

😀 I was tempted, but I refrained.

Well, the nazis seem to be with us already on this one…

Having gone to Chisholm High school, which competes with i think Kaleen for worst high school in Canberra, I’m pretty certain Chisholm is not the hidden gem of a suburb to live in. While this facilty may be obvious, I’m pretty certain there are plenty of other people nearby that I’d be more worried about. The bikie killing a few years ago was just down the road.

Have you actually thought that letting these youths move in and being friendly neighbours, may actually be better for their lives and possibl;y even yours as well. Causing conflict because of things that may happen with very little proof or evidence, doesn’t make the residents of the street look too good, especially when they received the same help and support from my tax dollars.

I’m also offended by the family mantra that goes on in modern life. Family this and family that. If I was requiring housing as a single male i’m pretty certain i’d be a good neighbour, yet i’d also be prejudiced against because i’m a single male. Its the latest trend for some reason.

Disagreeing with homosexuality versus helping millions of people all over the world for over 100 years. Sorry, but the two don’t compare.

At the risk of invoking Godwin.. How do you rate economic revival and the trains running on time v. WWII?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:52 am 22 Aug 12

Darkfalz said :

Spiral said :

Yes they do good things.

Yes they are Homophobic.

“Don’t you dare feed poor people until you renounce your belief in mum and dad!”

Seriously, libtards sometimes.

You don’t get to freely be a pos just because you do other good things.
Defending them of their homophobia puts you in the same basket as the swine who defended mully

CRISIS_7B said :

I have lived in my housing home for 19 yrs and another neigbour 28+yrs which they bought…. Oh and by the way they are all supposidly Males.

Couple of things. Public housing is (ideally) only meant to be short term. People live in their next-to-free house for long enough they start to think they own it. They make it nice and get attached to it. But it belongs to the taxpayer, not you.

Of course they’re going to be males. Unless they wanted to be raped, I wouldn’t think women would want to be there. A house of 6 girls though would have different issues (probably less worry of assault and burglary, but you’d need to put up with their screaming, scrags and an constant flow of different boyfriends coming and going at all times.

Sucks to be you but as I said, you were privileged to have it so good for so long at the taxpayer’s expense. It is because of people like you who take root in public housing that there is such a short supply they need to cram 6 individuals into 3 homes.

Spiral said :

Yes they do good things.

Yes they are Homophobic.

“Don’t you dare feed poor people until you renounce your belief in mum and dad!”

Seriously, libtards sometimes.

And to all those who think the residents are overreacting lets all tell Ms Burch she is on the money with this and petition for cluster rollouts in all suburbs, it can only be a good thing for those in need.

I visited XXXX Place to see what the hoo haa was about, the blue magna wagon jacked up on the front lawn at the street entry was a nice touch.

Spiral said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

Jethro said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

salvos are indeed a religious organism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army

Where did I say they weren’t? I said that not everyone who gives to the Salvos is religious.

I really didn’t want to pick – but you asked me to haha – you said :
” Let’s not forget that plenty of people who give to religious organisations such as World Vision or the Salvos aren’t religious themselves.”

Off to remedial reading you go.

Yeaaah. If you read carefully you’ll notice he’s saying the people donating aren’t necessarily religious themselves, and giving examples of religious organisations. It’s okay to make mistakes but you probably shouldn’t try to lord it over other people when you’re the one who has gotten it wrong…

TheDancingDjinn said :

Jethro said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

salvos are indeed a religious organism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army

Where did I say they weren’t? I said that not everyone who gives to the Salvos is religious.

I really didn’t want to pick – but you asked me to haha – you said :
” Let’s not forget that plenty of people who give to religious organisations such as World Vision or the Salvos aren’t religious themselves.”

Off to remedial reading you go.

TheDancingDjinn8:16 am 21 Aug 12

Jethro said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

salvos are indeed a religious organism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army

Where did I say they weren’t? I said that not everyone who gives to the Salvos is religious.

I really didn’t want to pick – but you asked me to haha – you said :
” Let’s not forget that plenty of people who give to religious organisations such as World Vision or the Salvos aren’t religious themselves.”

TheDancingDjinn said :

salvos are indeed a religious organism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army

Where did I say they weren’t? I said that not everyone who gives to the Salvos is religious.

TheDancingDjinn11:37 pm 20 Aug 12

Jethro said :

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

Mysteryman said :

Deref said :

Why is a religious organisation doing running these places?

Because atheists are too busy looking out for number 1. If it wasn’t for religious organisations like the Salvos, a great many people would never be looked after.

Red Cross, Oxfam, Unicef, Fred Hollows Foundation, Save the Children, The Smith Family… all non-religious charities that do great work.

Oxfam certainly does a great job at maintaining some huge personal mortgages in Surrey on behalf of a lucky band of long-serving Oxfam “employees”. I wouldn’t give them a red cent, considering they’re basically one big scam.

Red Cross? Red Cross? You figure it out.

Fact is, these organisations add up to very little when compared with their religious equivalents. Christian charity is very real, while non-church-goers in Australia give very, very little to charity by comparison.

Religious belief might be delusional, but you can’t say it’s good for nothing.

Red Cross is not Christian HenryBG. The Red Cross’s symbol is an inverse of the Swiss flag and symbolises neutrality, not Christianity. Let’s not forget that plenty of people who give to religious organisations such as World Vision or the Salvos aren’t religious themselves. However, their charity dollar often goes towards proselytising; World Vision for example spends a great deal of time providing ‘religious aid’ (ie. preaching) to the people they are helping.

Charity doesn’t need to be religious and you don’t need to be religious to be charitable.

salvos are indeed a religious organism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army

Henry, the Red Cross is called the Red Crescent in islamic countries and their flag has, you guessed it, a red crescent for obvious reasons.

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

Mysteryman said :

Deref said :

Why is a religious organisation doing running these places?

Because atheists are too busy looking out for number 1. If it wasn’t for religious organisations like the Salvos, a great many people would never be looked after.

Red Cross, Oxfam, Unicef, Fred Hollows Foundation, Save the Children, The Smith Family… all non-religious charities that do great work.

Oxfam certainly does a great job at maintaining some huge personal mortgages in Surrey on behalf of a lucky band of long-serving Oxfam “employees”. I wouldn’t give them a red cent, considering they’re basically one big scam.

Red Cross? Red Cross? You figure it out.

Fact is, these organisations add up to very little when compared with their religious equivalents. Christian charity is very real, while non-church-goers in Australia give very, very little to charity by comparison.

Religious belief might be delusional, but you can’t say it’s good for nothing.

Red Cross is not Christian HenryBG. The Red Cross’s symbol is an inverse of the Swiss flag and symbolises neutrality, not Christianity. Let’s not forget that plenty of people who give to religious organisations such as World Vision or the Salvos aren’t religious themselves. However, their charity dollar often goes towards proselytising; World Vision for example spends a great deal of time providing ‘religious aid’ (ie. preaching) to the people they are helping.

Charity doesn’t need to be religious and you don’t need to be religious to be charitable.

HenryBG said :

Religious belief might be delusional, but you can’t say it’s good for nothing.

Quite. Though their delusions lead them to do as much (actually a lot more, in general) that’s very bad indeed, they do do some good along the way.

My question didn’t relate to religions’ right to do their charitable work, but governments have no right to contract them to provide social services that must be provided without prejudice.

Jethro said :

Mysteryman said :

Deref said :

Why is a religious organisation doing running these places?

Because atheists are too busy looking out for number 1. If it wasn’t for religious organisations like the Salvos, a great many people would never be looked after.

Red Cross, Oxfam, Unicef, Fred Hollows Foundation, Save the Children, The Smith Family… all non-religious charities that do great work.

Oxfam certainly does a great job at maintaining some huge personal mortgages in Surrey on behalf of a lucky band of long-serving Oxfam “employees”. I wouldn’t give them a red cent, considering they’re basically one big scam.

Red Cross? Red Cross? You figure it out.

Fact is, these organisations add up to very little when compared with their religious equivalents. Christian charity is very real, while non-church-goers in Australia give very, very little to charity by comparison.

Religious belief might be delusional, but you can’t say it’s good for nothing.

Mysteryman said :

Deref said :

Why is a religious organisation doing running these places?

Because atheists are too busy looking out for number 1. If it wasn’t for religious organisations like the Salvos, a great many people would never be looked after.

Red Cross, Oxfam, Unicef, Fred Hollows Foundation, Save the Children, The Smith Family… all non-religious charities that do great work.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd1:32 pm 20 Aug 12

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Oh, and I had reason to drive past the street in question over the weekend. Not much point removing the name of the street – there are large hand-painted signs over half the freakin suburb about this issue!

angry nutters at work

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:13 pm 20 Aug 12

LumpySpacePrincess said :

FreshKidIce said :

So out of all the streets in all the suburbs in Canberra, they chose yours? LOL

Buy a lottery ticket and move out champ, but just don’t move into my street. I hate poor people.

Hahaha!

What is he wins the lottery?

LumpySpacePrincess12:53 pm 20 Aug 12

FreshKidIce said :

So out of all the streets in all the suburbs in Canberra, they chose yours? LOL

Buy a lottery ticket and move out champ, but just don’t move into my street. I hate poor people.

Hahaha!

VYBerlinaV8_is_back12:43 pm 20 Aug 12

Oh, and I had reason to drive past the street in question over the weekend. Not much point removing the name of the street – there are large hand-painted signs over half the freakin suburb about this issue!

So out of all the streets in all the suburbs in Canberra, they chose yours? LOL

Buy a lottery ticket and move out champ, but just don’t move into my street. I hate poor people.

LumpySpacePrincess11:31 am 20 Aug 12

Wow, this makes me really sad. If not your street, then where?

I was homeless at the age of 16. I have never been in trouble with the law. I was not a hoodlum. I used emergency accommodation as I had no other options available to me. I did not disturb my neighbours or rob them. Nor did I have friends over who would be likely to cause trouble.

Three houses. Six young people. Is it really so scary?

How about a little compassion?

Here_and_Now10:48 am 20 Aug 12

housebound said :

So where we are up to is:
(Neat recap.)

(Voiceover) ‘Previously, on The RiotACT…’

VYBerlinaV8_is_back10:30 am 20 Aug 12

Deref said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Perhaps you could tell me what these ‘bad things’ actually are. Have the Salvos actively campaigned against gay rights?

Sure. How many would you like? Here are a few from just one page:

“When New Zealand considered passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986, the Salvation Army collected signatures in an attempt to get the legislation killed.

In the United Kingdom, the Salvation Army actively pushed passage of an amendment to the Local Government Act. The amendment stated that local authorities “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”

In 2001, the organization tried to extract a resolution from the White House that they could ignore local non-discrimination laws that protected LGBT people. While the commitment would have applied to all employees, the group claimed that it needed the resolution so it “did not have to ordain sexually active gay ministers and did not have to provide medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.” After lawmakers and civil rights activists revealed the Salvation Army’s active resistance to non-discrimination laws, the White House admitted the charity was seeking the exemptions.

Also in 2001, the evangelical charity actively lobbied to change how the Bush administration would distribute over $24 billion in grants and tax deductions by urging the White House deny funding to any cities or states that included LGBT non-discrimination laws.

In 2004, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their soup kitchens in New York City to protest the city’s decision to require all vendors and charities doing business with the city to adhere to all civil rights laws. The organization balked at having to treat gay employees equal to straight employees.”

I can post more if you want them.

Wow, thanks for that, I just learnt something.

It won’t stop me supporting them, though.

pink little birdie9:34 am 20 Aug 12

*strict rules (I was on my phone).

I know this from the exeperinces of my friends who used these services in high school

pink little birdie7:41 pm 19 Aug 12

The 10 bedrooms is reasonable for 6 kids. 1 room for the overnight Carer and one for the emergency worker and then 2 rooms for servic like counseling and mediation. es. Most public high schools have this kind of accommodation within walking distance. It’s short term accommodation so most kiss who are there will be too busy dealing with the reason they are there after school and these places have fairly scruffy rules so won’t be terrorizing you.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Perhaps you could tell me what these ‘bad things’ actually are. Have the Salvos actively campaigned against gay rights?

Sure. How many would you like? Here are a few from just one page:

“When New Zealand considered passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986, the Salvation Army collected signatures in an attempt to get the legislation killed.

In the United Kingdom, the Salvation Army actively pushed passage of an amendment to the Local Government Act. The amendment stated that local authorities “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”

In 2001, the organization tried to extract a resolution from the White House that they could ignore local non-discrimination laws that protected LGBT people. While the commitment would have applied to all employees, the group claimed that it needed the resolution so it “did not have to ordain sexually active gay ministers and did not have to provide medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.” After lawmakers and civil rights activists revealed the Salvation Army’s active resistance to non-discrimination laws, the White House admitted the charity was seeking the exemptions.

Also in 2001, the evangelical charity actively lobbied to change how the Bush administration would distribute over $24 billion in grants and tax deductions by urging the White House deny funding to any cities or states that included LGBT non-discrimination laws.

In 2004, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their soup kitchens in New York City to protest the city’s decision to require all vendors and charities doing business with the city to adhere to all civil rights laws. The organization balked at having to treat gay employees equal to straight employees.”

I can post more if you want them.

Fab and Tomorrow, we don’t believe the ‘6 persons’ statement because they will have 10 bedrooms (ie, nine persons plus one care worker). We have been lied to and deceived by Housing ACT all along, so why would they stop now? Their own discussion paper at http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/177743/Discussion_Paper_Modernising_Youth_Housing_and_Homelessness_services-Designer_Version.pdf
says that the ‘First Point’ service will allocate and ask questions later, so there is no guarantee about the risk level of the persons accommodated.
And remember there will be ‘churn’ (not to mention all their pals) so we will have ‘all sorts’ coming in and out of our tiny street (second right off Lucy Gullett – now well sign-posted).

LIke anyone, govt and private tenants alike are entitled to the enjoyment of the premises in which they reside, and use the premises in reasonable peace, comfort and privacy (Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), and probably mirror law for owner-occupiers – we are a community of both). The proposed cluster will significantly interfere with this.

I reiterate, feel free to nominate your own street for this youth emergency ‘cluster’ if you are that thrilled about it.

Tomorrow_is_Yesterday1:45 pm 19 Aug 12

Lillypilly said :

Now if I was the government, if I needed to provide some accommodation to young folks like that, I surely wouldn’t want the location I may need to shift these kids into publicised. This may explain the lack of “transparency” you’re jumping up and down about, and it would explain why JB has edited the post.

But by your behaviour, you’ve pretty much chucked all that out the window. There’s no way you could safely house an at risk teenager there now. All a person with bad intentions would now need to do, is google the right search terms and they could potentially come wandering down your street.

So well done on that.

I’m guessing that they might hope to force this to go elsewhere if they put the location out enough.

I also agree with other posters that it is a bit rich to sit in your government house and complain about the government providing crisis accomodation for homeless youth, and really it is none of your business who ends up living in those houses anyway.

If your problem is the consultation, and now you know what is going on, what is the issue?

Massive over-reaction or what ? We are talking about a maximum of 6 young people over 3 properties. The properties and the residents will be carefully supervised by the Salvation Army.
Frankly, I am speechless that people who already have the benefit of Government housing due to their own personal difficulties would DARE try to deny others who are even more desperate. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, we are talking about Joy Burch and her department.

I would think the blanking out of the street name is a good idea.

If they’re not offenders or rehab candidates, and they’ve termed the houses to be crisis accommodation, I would think they’re probably going to be used for housing young folks who’ve come out of a pretty bad situation in a hurry. Pondering it over in my head the first thing I think of is domestic violence, or in fact the fallout of violence/crime of any sort.

Now if I was the government, if I needed to provide some accommodation to young folks like that, I surely wouldn’t want the location I may need to shift these kids into publicised. This may explain the lack of “transparency” you’re jumping up and down about, and it would explain why JB has edited the post.

But by your behaviour, you’ve pretty much chucked all that out the window. There’s no way you could safely house an at risk teenager there now. All a person with bad intentions would now need to do, is google the right search terms and they could potentially come wandering down your street.

So well done on that.

I can’t even start getting into the laughable sense of entitlement someone in Govt housing think they have, over what happens on their street/neighbourhood. There are far more things that are fun to do on a Sunday.

TheDancingDjinn11:38 pm 18 Aug 12

miz said :

We’re not going to suck it up – we’re going to ACAT. As a result, Housing ACT is going to have to find an alternative anyway, in view of the fact that the ‘cluster’ plan cannot progress until the ACAT review is completed.

I note that the original post no longer contains the street of the planned ‘cluster’ in Chisholm; I hope that pressure was not applied by govt to do this (after all, people are perfectly entitled to tell people where they live; no homeless persons reside there yet); but no matter, today we distributed over 400 flyers today to local residents, all containing the Hester Place address.

Farnarkler, there are many examples of homelessness and distressing circumstances. As noted above, we are not anti-homeless at all – in fact, we have all been there ourselves and value the opportunity we were given. However, it is that a tiny street in suburbia is inappropriate for being taken over by a govt facility, and the fact the no one bothered to mention it to the people who would have to live with it.

We have clearly stated above that the houses in Hester Place are best suited for homeless families off the waiting list. We would know, as we live here.

BTW, one of the three houses has been empty since August 2011, and another has been empty since April 2012. This is appalling.

Actually as a result all ACAT will do is drag it out and then tell you to suck it up. No one has won against housing yet, people who own their homes, and have serious violent instances with their housing neighbors are told to go jump because housing wont move them. You will not be any different, best to just calm down and live your life.

We’re not going to suck it up – we’re going to ACAT. As a result, Housing ACT is going to have to find an alternative anyway, in view of the fact that the ‘cluster’ plan cannot progress until the ACAT review is completed.

I note that the original post no longer contains the street of the planned ‘cluster’ in Chisholm; I hope that pressure was not applied by govt to do this (after all, people are perfectly entitled to tell people where they live; no homeless persons reside there yet); but no matter, today we distributed over 400 flyers today to local residents, all containing the Hester Place address.

Farnarkler, there are many examples of homelessness and distressing circumstances. As noted above, we are not anti-homeless at all – in fact, we have all been there ourselves and value the opportunity we were given. However, it is that a tiny street in suburbia is inappropriate for being taken over by a govt facility, and the fact the no one bothered to mention it to the people who would have to live with it. We have clearly stated above that the houses in Hester Place are best suited for homeless families off the waiting list. We would know, as we live here.

BTW, one of the three houses has been empty since August 2011, and another has been empty since April 2012. This is appalling.

Woody Mann-Caruso6:13 pm 18 Aug 12

We are oppossed to the lack of communication from the departments that are involvoed!

Nobody consults with me when they move in next door, no matter how much I think they might lower property values. In turn, I could ask a couple of troubled relatives to move in with me tomorrow and there’s nothing my neighbours could do about it. I’m not sure why your oposse is somehow entitled to a different standard. Also not sure why it’s worth consulting when you already know the answer. I suppose I might’ve done it for the delicious irony of hearing Chisholm housos label somebody else ‘undesirables’.

(And are Volvos really the car of choice for the ACT govt fleet? Seems like that would get expensive.)

Consultation or no consultation you’re going to have to suck it up and hope your new neighbours are decent human beings.

WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE HOMELESS OR THE SALVOS!!!!! We are oppossed to the lack of communication from the departments that are involvoed! Even when asked the question about the houses becoming CRISIS centers the government gave roundabout answers. It was only 6 or so weeks ago that the truth came out. Governmet official has stated “housing for people on low incomes and who are amoung the most vulnerable in our community” Residents of said cul de sac also only found out about the Salvo involvement 6ish weeks ago. Everyone is going on about PRIVACY, RESPECT AND DIGNITY for these youths but what about the same for the existing owners and tenants!!!!! One bad apple in a bunch eventually turns the lot rotten!!! LABOUR GOVT ARE ALL LAIRS!!!!!! GET RID OFF THE LABOUR GOVT!!!!

IF what Burch is saying about the residents not being criminals or drug rehab youths then might it be worth giving the residents a chance? You’ve already tarred them with the same brush as scum who drive white commodores at 160km on a daily basis or heroin/ice/crack addicts who’ll be shooting up on the front lawn.

Perhaps one of the residents will be a girl who’s trying to get away from a stepfather who’s raped her. Would you deny someone like that a government funded roof over her head?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:20 am 18 Aug 12

miz said :

Dear Brianna, my problem is the lack of due process and disingenuous actions of Minister Burch. Feel free to volunteer houses next door to you for this cluster. They are certainly going to have to find another location for this facility, as we are not having it here.
Last time I looked, this was a democracy not a dictatorship.

BTW, getting back to the OP, at no time has anyone been ‘invited’
to get any info from the Salvos – in fact, all the info from Ms
Burch’s office attached to the original post is generously sprinkled
with BS.

Why not buy a house? Then you can choose your neighbours.

Dear Brianna, my problem is the lack of due process and disingenuous actions of Minister Burch. Feel free to volunteer houses next door to you for this cluster. They are certainly going to have to find another location for this facility, as we are not having it here.
Last time I looked, this was a democracy not a dictatorship.

BTW, getting back to the OP, at no time has anyone been ‘invited’
to get any info from the Salvos – in fact, all the info from Ms
Burch’s office attached to the original post is generously sprinkled
with BS.

I don’t know what miz’s problem is. She is lucky enough to live in a property which is most likely on a subsidised rent. Why does she think she is entitled to be consulted about who moves in near her? Is she a princess? If she is an owner, sell up. If she is a housing tenant on full rent, go rent privately. I am a private owner and no-one consults me about who might move in next door or in my street. Grow up.

colourful sydney racing identity2:35 pm 17 Aug 12

poetix said :

.

No room at the inn in Chisholm.

I think it is a tavern rather than an inn, and having been there a few times, it is no place for children.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back2:26 pm 17 Aug 12

poetix said :

1 John 3:17. But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

Unbelievable that people would complain about a proposal for housing a few homeless individuals, who just happen to be young. Look out your window (whether you own it, rent at market value, or pay greatly reduced public housing rates) and imagine being homeless, particularly in this weather.

No room at the inn in Chisholm. Which is particularly ironic given the suburb is, I assume, named after a woman who did so much for the poor and despised.

But did Chisolm endorse homosexuality? Seems to be a big issue for some…

1 John 3:17. But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

Unbelievable that people would complain about a proposal for housing a few homeless individuals, who just happen to be young. Look out your window (whether you own it, rent at market value, or pay greatly reduced public housing rates) and imagine being homeless, particularly in this weather.

No room at the inn in Chisholm. Which is particularly ironic given the suburb is, I assume, named after a woman who did so much for the poor and despised.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:48 pm 17 Aug 12

Spiral said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I agree that they don’t agree with homosexuality, but the first part of the LGBT issues section in your link says:

“The Salvation Army offers its services to all who are in need, regardless of sexual orientation, and opposes the abuse of people based on sexual orientation.”

And the very next word says?

I save you looking it up. It is: “However”

So they say one thing nice thing and do a bad things that goes against what they say. Surprise surprise.

I agree. The Salvation Army do good work. But the people setting up these houses have to monitor them to make sure the Salvos don’t push their twisted morality on residents.

They aren’t the only religious group who see the weak and vulnerable as a group who can be impressed with their own ideals. That is a really old and common tactic.

I’m not disagreeing. What I’m saying is that the good they do far outweighs the perceived damage of not endorsing homosexuality.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I agree that they don’t agree with homosexuality, but the first part of the LGBT issues section in your link says:

“The Salvation Army offers its services to all who are in need, regardless of sexual orientation, and opposes the abuse of people based on sexual orientation.”

And the very next word says?

I save you looking it up. It is: “However”

So they say one thing nice thing and do a bad things that goes against what they say. Surprise surprise.

I agree. The Salvation Army do good work. But the people setting up these houses have to monitor them to make sure the Salvos don’t push their twisted morality on residents.

They aren’t the only religious group who see the weak and vulnerable as a group who can be impressed with their own ideals. That is a really old and common tactic.

CRISIS_7B said :

I have lived in my housing home for 19 yrs

….after 19 years of ACT residents helping to fund your home, you now have a whinge because others are getting a helping hand.

#$%^ me

Deref said :

Why is a religious organisation doing running these places?

Because atheists are too busy looking out for number 1. If it wasn’t for religious organisations like the Salvos, a great many people would never be looked after.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back12:44 pm 17 Aug 12

Spiral said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Perhaps you could tell me what these ‘bad things’ actually are. Have the Salvos actively campaigned against gay rights?

Apprently yes they have in several countries.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#LGBT_Issues
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Controversy

I agree that they don’t agree with homosexuality, but the first part of the LGBT issues section in your link says:

“The Salvation Army offers its services to all who are in need, regardless of sexual orientation, and opposes the abuse of people based on sexual orientation.”

Are they perfect? No they aren’t. But they’re doing more than pretty much anyone else to help those in need.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Perhaps you could tell me what these ‘bad things’ actually are. Have the Salvos actively campaigned against gay rights?

Apprently yes they have in several countries.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#LGBT_Issues
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Controversy

FioBla said :

Keep the Salvos out.

Build a mosque there instead.

Not until they’ve had a reformation.

I could say negative things about all public housing tenants …. but I won’t, because I don’t know their circumstances, how they came to need housing assistance, what has happened in their life up until that point to give them no other option than to require government assistance to have a roof over their heads. You wouldn’t like to be tarred with the same brush as the “bad” tenants you mention, so why assume that these youth (and young people) will steal your cars, cut up your hoses and scream obscenities at their case workers when the curfew cuts in? If they do, report it and have something to complain about, until then give them the same chance someone else gave you once upon a time.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back12:02 pm 17 Aug 12

FioBla said :

Keep the Salvos out.

Build a mosque there instead.

If the mosque takes in the homeless and cares for them, go for it.

Drayven said :

miz said :

…info was provided to MLAs last week confirming our worst nightmare.

I hope one day to live a life so rich in privilege that my ‘worst nightmare’ consists solely of a government department using property that already belongs to them to allow a charity organisation to help those far less privileged than myself.

+1

Keep the Salvos out.

Build a mosque there instead.

Holden Caulfield11:43 am 17 Aug 12

miz said :

Thanks Housebound for your succinct summary of the situation. We also appreciate the support of other posters.

Small clarification of Housebound’s excellent summary – at this time, two dwellings on one block and currently one dwelling on adjoining block are intended as the ‘cluster’ crisis accom. However, correspondence from Ms Burch dating from Oct 2011 states that ‘it is not possible to provide you with an assurance that development of the properties will not occur in the future. It is important that the public housing portfolio be managed in such as way that it is able to respond to the changing demand for public housing.’

It therefore appears highly likely that a further dual occ will occur unless we stop the cluster.

Highly likely, or just a possibility if needs dictate?

I’ve no real interest in your “plight” but no politician can win in a situation like that. If they say there’ll be no development and then a later need deems it necessary to change their position, they’ll get slammed. If they take a realistic approach and remain open then they get slammed for suggesting development is “highly likely” to happen, when that’s not actually what was said.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back11:37 am 17 Aug 12

Deref said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Deref said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Deref said :

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.

Are you kidding? The Salvation Army do a LOT of very constructive stuff with the down and out, and are one of the biggest coal-face type charities in the country.

Yep. They’re also infamous for their anti-gay bigotry.

Go read post #40.

That’s a great idea – oppose criticism of people who do bad things if they do good things too.

Perhaps you could tell me what these ‘bad things’ actually are. Have the Salvos actively campaigned against gay rights?

Thanks Housebound for your succinct summary of the situation. We also appreciate the support of other posters.

Small clarification of Housebound’s excellent summary – at this time, two dwellings on one block and currently one dwelling on adjoining block are intended as the ‘cluster’ crisis accom. However, correspondence from Ms Burch dating from Oct 2011 states that ‘it is not possible to provide you with an assurance that development of the properties will not occur in the future. It is important that the public housing portfolio be managed in such as way that it is able to respond to the changing demand for public housing.’

It therefore appears highly likely that a further dual occ will occur unless we stop the cluster.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Deref said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Deref said :

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.

Are you kidding? The Salvation Army do a LOT of very constructive stuff with the down and out, and are one of the biggest coal-face type charities in the country.

Yep. They’re also infamous for their anti-gay bigotry.

Go read post #40.

That’s a great idea – oppose criticism of people who do bad things if they do good things too.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back10:16 am 17 Aug 12

Deref said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Deref said :

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.

Are you kidding? The Salvation Army do a LOT of very constructive stuff with the down and out, and are one of the biggest coal-face type charities in the country.

Yep. They’re also infamous for their anti-gay bigotry.

Go read post #40.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Deref said :

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.

Are you kidding? The Salvation Army do a LOT of very constructive stuff with the down and out, and are one of the biggest coal-face type charities in the country.

Yep. They’re also infamous for their anti-gay bigotry.

54-11 said :

Antagonist said :

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

A typically ignorant, throw-away line, without even attempting to understand the issues raised by the OP and subsequent posters.

When stupid people use the term NIMBY to denigrate those who have a genuine concern, it just shows what an intellectual vacuum exists in their tiny brains.

I posted this at #10, not three posts later:

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 know where the intellectual vacuum lies, 54-11. Do try to keep up.

So where we are up to is:
1. Three houses in a cul-de-sac of eight houses are being converted to dual occupancy
2. The new units will house 6-12 teenaged boys in difficult situations (unclear whether this is total or in each house)
3. No one bothered telling the people who already live there
4. When asked, Joy Burch said she didn’t know anything about it, despite having signed a contract – surprisingly, this means that either her department has not told her what is happening or she is lying
5. The ACT’s peppercorn approach to public housing has been very successful in the past, but having six (three dual-occupancy) out of nine dwellings allocated for one demographic does not seem very ‘peppercorn’
6. Concentrating teenaged boys from difficult circumstances has not always proven to be a highly successful approach to social harmony, but no one has provided enough detail about this case.
7. People who already live there are concerned and some seem to be a bit frightened of the potential outcomes.
8. People don’t live in the street accuse the people who will have to live with it of all sorts of nimby-based biases.

Antagonist said :

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

A typically ignorant, throw-away line, without even attempting to understand the issues raised by the OP and subsequent posters.

When stupid people use the term NIMBY to denigrate those who have a genuine concern, it just shows what an intellectual vacuum exists in their tiny brains.

3 dual occupancies in one street is not a cluster. I call a entire main road + several side streets full of 3-4 storey apartments full of Housing tenants a cluster. 6-12 homeless youths (many of which are probably there because of their parents’ stuff ups) trying to give themselves another chance at a proper living is a cause to be supported.

Spiral said :

MissOpinion said :

I feel saddened that we still live in a society of such close minded, short sighted, ridiculously judgemental people.

It is Major Andrew Craibe of the Salvation Army you are referring to here isn’t it? Sounds like you can’t get much more close minded, short sighted and ridiculously judgemental than him.

OK, cancel everything the Salvos do for the hundreds of thousands of underprivileged Australians because some thin-skinned drama queen can’t cope with people having differing beliefs from her.

This brave new world of yours is shaping up nicely.

Hi all. I agree that the youth of ACT and all states need a place to live and not on the streets! The problem here in this situation are a plenty! Some out there are in favour of this well I put it to you. HAVE THIS” CLUSTER” PUT IN YOUR STREET NEXT DOOR TO YOU! HAVE YOUR STREET TURN INTO A “CLUSTER” THAT EFFECTIVLY IS THE MAJORITY OF THE STREET”. I have lived in my housing home for 19 yrs and another neigbour 28+yrs which they bought. When i moved in the first thing my children learnt was not to go near this neighbours lawn as they are not very nice people. This was told to me by another housing tenant. This statement was further from the truth. In actual fact they were the nicest people in the street. Since then the other tenants moved out and apart from 1 of the houses (govt owned) had good people move in. This 1 house has always attracted not bad tenantsbut not so nice either. And over the yrs I and all the other neighbours have tried to support and help the people in this house only to have damage and abuse in return. So why should we continue to try to help only to bring more trouble onto our really nice and very small cul de sac. In the street there was 5 houses now 6. 2 are now privately owned which leaves 4 and 3 of them the govt want to use for this “cluster” and within these 3 homes there are 10 bedrooms. Now the Govt have finally stated that a maximum of 6 homeless youths (16-25yrs old) will occupy the said properties. So why have 10 rooms? There will be 1 carer per shift to support 6. How does this work? What a waste of rooms! As for those that think we have not checked out things and dont have the facts, well you could not be further from the truth. We have checked into the crime rates in other “HOT SPOTS” which have all had an increase in crime. Land prices have decreased and residents have had trouble selling their homes because of this others have had increases in their insurance both on their houses and cars. I have personally spoken to people who have worked in these facilities and they have told me of very scary things that have happened to them while at work and outside of their work hours. These houses are at the top of the street and they have to pass all the other houses to get out of the street. So when they have been “locked out” after the 10.30pm curfew they will be angry and start yelling in the street and probably damaging whatever they can along the way. Oh and by the way they are all supposidly Males. Further more I was under the impression that once you turn 18 you are and Adult not a Youth.
Residents of the street became suspisious when the new fences were erected with a gate in it and then found out about the “cluster” from tradies about 4/5 weeks ago. Up until then we were under the impression that these homes would be for families in need but .That is when neighbouring street homeowners were spoken to by myself and other neighbours to find out what was going on. This is why we started to approach Govt officals all to be told that this was not the case and Joy Burch stated that she knew nothing about it but sign the contract in April (I think it was).
My appologies for raving but everyone is going on about security, dignity and respect. Well where is my rights to respect dignity and security. Why should my daughter who is having to live back home due to the crisis of housing who is having a baby in 2 mths and is afraid NOW to bring her baby home as she will be at home all day until 5.30pm when her partner or i get home from 1 off the 2 jobs that I personnaly have to do to pay full market rent in the only HOME for 19yrs that she has ever known. If I could afford to buy then I would but I CAN’T. But i tell you one thing if I could afford to buy it NOW WOULD NOT BE THIS HOUSE. Notice how our family home has now become a house.
AGAIN I SAY NO TO THIS CLUSTER PUT IT ELSEWHERE!!!!!!!!

miz said :

Hey Hutch, we have had our share of difficult families in the past but would rather take our chances with families off the list than a facility that dominates the street – after all, we were ‘those families’ ourselves.
As you can see from the OP (my neighbour), the key problem has been a total lack of due process. At no time were residents informed what Housing were planning, yet this has been going on since September 2011 when they sought permission for a dual occ. Not a peep was heard from Housing about the plan until the stink became so great we sought assistance from MLAs. Housing refused to talk to us, but info was provided to MLAs last week confirming our worst nightmare.
A letter from Housing arrived yesterday about the meeting. This letter is the first and only written confirmation we have received.
Put yourself in our shoes.

I agree that the situation is undesirable. I’d prefer not to live next to a housing property/ies. Whilst the majority of housing tenants are fine, if you get a bad one it can destroy your life (until you move).

But I still stand by argument that if it had to happen, I would prefer living next to the housing model proposed… My preference.

I can understand why you wouldn’t be happy about it. So good luck to you. I just don’t think it’ll be as bad as you think it will be.

However, please don’t make out this is a case of ‘key problem has been a total lack of due process’. No matter how much ‘due process’ and consultation occurred, you wouldn’t be happy with this. Not suggesting you should be happy about, but call a spade a spade.

boffins said :

Spiral said :

MissOpinion said :

I feel saddened that we still live in a society of such close minded, short sighted, ridiculously judgemental people.

It is Major Andrew Craibe of the Salvation Army you are referring to here isn’t it? Sounds like you can’t get much more close minded, short sighted and ridiculously judgemental than him.

The words of one close minded moron should not retract from the many amazing things the Salvos do for the needy. I seriously doubt the employees of the proposed houses would subscribe to the hateful statements referred to above.

*detract

miz said :

…info was provided to MLAs last week confirming our worst nightmare.

I hope one day to live a life so rich in privilege that my ‘worst nightmare’ consists solely of a government department using property that already belongs to them to allow a charity organisation to help those far less privileged than myself.

boffins said :

The words of one close minded moron should not retract from the many amazing things the Salvos do for the needy. I seriously doubt the employees of the proposed houses would subscribe to the hateful statements referred to above.

I agree. If it was just one moron. Do some google searches. Read the wiki page on the Salvos.

Yes they do good things.

Yes they are Homophobic.

It is not just one person. I don’t doubt there are Salvos who are not Homophobic, but the organisation is.

They are probably just a bigger, less extreme Hillsong.

Gonz73 said :

So, there are existing public housing tenants in the street, do you think housing should have vetted those in-need tenants with other residents in the street?

Pot-kettle…!

OMG, my public housing proved house will be close to other public housing houses with KIDS
…….oh the injustice

Spiral said :

MissOpinion said :

I feel saddened that we still live in a society of such close minded, short sighted, ridiculously judgemental people.

It is Major Andrew Craibe of the Salvation Army you are referring to here isn’t it? Sounds like you can’t get much more close minded, short sighted and ridiculously judgemental than him.

The words of one close minded moron should not retract from the many amazing things the Salvos do for the needy. I seriously doubt the employees of the proposed houses would subscribe to the hateful statements referred to above.

So, there are existing public housing tenants in the street, do you think housing should have vetted those in-need tenants with other residents in the street?

Pot-kettle…!

MissOpinion said :

I feel saddened that we still live in a society of such close minded, short sighted, ridiculously judgemental people.

It is Major Andrew Craibe of the Salvation Army you are referring to here isn’t it? Sounds like you can’t get much more close minded, short sighted and ridiculously judgemental than him.

Hey Hutch, we have had our share of difficult families in the past but would rather take our chances with families off the list than a facility that dominates the street – after all, we were ‘those families’ ourselves.
As you can see from the OP (my neighbour), the key problem has been a total lack of due process. At no time were residents informed what Housing were planning, yet this has been going on since September 2011 when they sought permission for a dual occ. Not a peep was heard from Housing about the plan until the stink became so great we sought assistance from MLAs. Housing refused to talk to us, but info was provided to MLAs last week confirming our worst nightmare.
A letter from Housing arrived yesterday about the meeting. This letter is the first and only written confirmation we have received.
Put yourself in our shoes.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back3:47 pm 16 Aug 12

Spiral said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

According to the Salvos web page they have two obvious stated aims, the second being to “meet human needs in His name without discrimination”.

According to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Australia

“On the 21st of June 2012, in an interview with Melbourne radio station Joy 94.9 FM, Major Andrew Craibe, the Salvation Army’s Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria, stated that non-celibate gay people deserved to die. He explained that this was part of the Salvation Army’s belief system, as discussed in “Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine.” He also claimed in the interview that being gay was a choice, like the consumption of alcohol. “

Nasty stuff, and not supported by material on their web site.

I feel that it is preposterous that people are making wild statements and assumptions about young people in homelessness that the Chisholm site proposes to house. Housing is a human right that should be made available to all people without judgment or ill nformed assumptions being passed. Without factual evidence of heightened crime rates and other suggested negative consequences of this youth service, any fears are based on close minded opinion. The salvation army and other homelessness services in Canberra provide food, shelter, safety and support to people experiencing homelessness and one of the direct benefits of this is that this provides an opportunity for young people to turn their lives around and cease survival on the streets where it is possible that undesirable behaviours such as theft can occur.
Services and government facilities that assist people suffering homelessness exist all around Canberra and it is highly likely that most “ordinary families” as someone so crassly put it, are completely unaware of their status. Therefore a push to increase personal security is ridiculous. Is it not far more plausible to think that if someone were inclined to commit crime they would preferably do it outside of their home area?
As for the ridiculous comments about the salvation army having questionable views about homosexuals; the service is to support young people experiencing homelessness. I assume the service would not be discriminatory against these young people in need in the same way as the nasty people commenting to this proposal.
I feel saddened that we still live in a society of such close minded, short sighted, ridiculously judgemental people. I only hope that you never have to experience homelessness yourselves, or family breakdown resulting in services like the salvation army needing to step in and provide support when other tactics have failed.
You should all be so lucky to stay in your ordinary families in your ordinary coul de sacs in your ordinary suburbs and I hope that the original post and it’s successors that named and made public the proposed homelessness service site do not inadvertently bring on the crime and disorder which you are all so sure will come as a result of trying to help our troubled youths. For shame on you all

I lived until recently near a property in Wanniassa which is used by Housing for a similar purpose and had been used as such for as long as I can remember. Yes, they did not going around telling everybody about it and I figured it out from observation, but then i don’t think they needed to tell everybody. I never had any problems with anybody residing there in the 10 or so years I lived there… The supervision probably has a lot to do with that.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

According to the Salvos web page they have two obvious stated aims, the second being to “meet human needs in His name without discrimination”.

According to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Australia

“On the 21st of June 2012, in an interview with Melbourne radio station Joy 94.9 FM, Major Andrew Craibe, the Salvation Army’s Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria, stated that non-celibate gay people deserved to die. He explained that this was part of the Salvation Army’s belief system, as discussed in “Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine.” He also claimed in the interview that being gay was a choice, like the consumption of alcohol. “

The residents are probably lucky.

There are 3 housing properties in this street/cul-de-sac. If this program doesn’t proceed, those houses would be used to house 3 families off the waiting list. If this occured, there is the possibility that one of those houses could be given to a ‘nightmare family’. This family would have very little supervision and be very difficult to remove. You could get lucky and get 3 great families, but there is a chance you will not (my experience is that 90% of housing tenants are fine; the other 10% though…)

The program on the table will be managed by the Salvation Army, which will include a greater level of supervision than given to a normal housing tenant. Additionally, removing troublesome people will be easier in this situation as they will be on ‘occupancy agreements’ as oppossed to ‘tenancy agreements’.

I grew up on a street with a high percentage of government housing. If I had to do it again, I’d prefer that I was stuck next to the housing model proposed.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back3:10 pm 16 Aug 12

johnboy said :

Can you imagine the screaming if a young gay men’s organisation wanted to do work in this area?

Depends on where the screaming comes from. I’d have thought most people would be more interested in the work being done, although the stated aims of the organisation will still have a large impact.

According to the Salvos web page they have two obvious stated aims, the second being to “meet human needs in His name without discrimination”.

If a young gay men’s organisation had a similar stated aim I’d say good on them, get stuck in.

Institute, we are an approximately even mixture of tenants and owners.

Chop71 said :

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

Yeah, it’s nowhere near my place, either.

So the article reads as though there is already ACT Housing properties in the cul de sac “…confirmed that one tenant of Hester Place was given ‘an offer she could not refuse’”. So it’s not like the government, out of the blue has bought up the properties, a reshuffle at best. Doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.

Out of interest, the residents posting here, are you owners or ACT housing tenants? I’m not sure the later have to much to complain about.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back2:44 pm 16 Aug 12

Deref said :

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.

Are you kidding? The Salvation Army do a LOT of very constructive stuff with the down and out, and are one of the biggest coal-face type charities in the country.

Can you imagine the screaming if a young gay men’s organisation wanted to do work in this area?

Pfffft, all the occupants will probably be locals from the area anyway, no big deal.

miz said :

At least one real estate agent has advised home owners to ‘get out now’;

Nice push to get your home on the market with them. Wonder if they will disclose this new cluster to potential buyers?

Holden Caulfield2:31 pm 16 Aug 12

miz said :

…At least one real estate agent has advised home owners to ‘get out now’…

Stop the presses!!! Real estate agent advises homeowner to sell.

It must be a crisis!

Concerned Chisolm Residents say Brendan Smyth MLA, who actively opposes the proposal.

Doesn’t Brendan Smyth live in Chisolm?
Is this the same Brendan Smith who secured all that money for a local park near his own house so his kids can play there?

Give me an N, give me an I, give me an M,B,Y

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 racing identity1:55 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?

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

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.

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.

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

Antagonist said :

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

Sounds like you never near close to such a facility.

Tetranitrate12:28 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.

Sounds like classic NIMBYism to me.

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.

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! 🙂

Now with comment from Joy Burch’s office

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.

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.

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.