19 February 2009

Minister Hargreaves promises the world to Causeway residents

| johnboy
Join the conversation
29

Our Minister for Housing, Mr John Hargreaves, has announced that he’ll do what ever it takes to get the Causeway public housing residents to pipe down.

    “Firstly, and most importantly, if there is a redevelopment of the Causeway and there is public housing in there, current residents will have the first offer of that accommodation.

    Secondly, no one will be forced to stay there if they don’t like the type of redevelopment and the accommodation there.

    Finally, if people want to move, no one will be asked to move to or even be made an offer to move to an apartment, elsewhere in Canberra.

Will that be enough?

Join the conversation

29
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The first three words of this article “Minister Hargreaves promises …” should of been the trigger for a mass turn off.

It’s called community jakez.

And just because one maybe from a lower socioeconomic group it doesn’t exist.

The people living on the causeway will be screwed over simply because the ACT government can make big money by selling the area to developers.

So much for human rights hey? I find it all quite sad actually.

They have one hell of a community Thumper. They can keep it when they can pay for it or find people to voluntarily do that for them.

For the record, Causeway pride is not a human right, never will be a human right, and this will not be the last time I reject provisions of the UN Declarations of Human Rights.

Maybe so, but it is their home, and has been for many, many years.

But hey, you can’t get in the way of progress hey? Especially when it fills the government coffers and keeps the developers happy.

No, it’s because they’re renters, and therefore have no security of tenure. No matter what bonds develop between a group of tenants, ultimately they’re vulnerable to what the owner of the property wants to do with it.

the causeway will definately dissapear sooner or later….and as the residents are government housing tenants perhaps the gov should look at trying to help those residents to move on from government housing into their own homes….not all will be able of course but i’m sure with a bit of assistance a fair percentage will be.

The people living on the causeway will be screwed over simply because the ACT government can make big money by selling the area to developers.

Yeah, although the money the gov’t will make from the sales can (at least in theory) purchase many more public housing dwellings than are in the Causeway. Stanhope and co are so far to the left that this may actually occur.

I understand the sense of community loss that these residents will feel, but the Causeway is in a lousy location, wedged between the train station and a power substation, and there are bugger-all amenities in the neighbourhood.

poptop said :

However it is not about a need to demolish serviceable housing to increase densities and all to do with gentrification of the locale.

Yep. I wholeheartedly agree.

I see no problems, the tenants will all be provided with some other form of housing if they are sold off. The high density areas of housing will all eventually go, to stop the housing slums that exist in most states. The tenants ultimately go where there is a vacancy (within other needs too) and are not guaranteed a house in a particular area.

I think all the Causeway residents should get ‘Causeway Pride’ tattoos, just like that brilliant topic a few years ago on RiotACT. What was it? Belco pride and the number 2620?

I have to say if anyone develops some sort of attachment to a public housing slum, then that is reason enough to get rid of it.

I’m sure the train station & yards, and miniture railway add sufficient character to the area – and the new residents will do their best to have them closed.

proofpositive2:54 pm 19 Feb 09

It could add character to the area to retain its own mini slum.

The plans for this area and for the whole of Eastlake have been known for some time and unfortunately the people of The Causeway are not part of them.
But hey, if people are willing to pay the stupid prices for the units around this area, the government would be mad not to redevelop.
As for the people of The Causeway, as Kramer said, beggars can’t be choosers

They are subject to exactly the same tenancy laws as other ACT tenants.

I don’t entirely agree with the idea that Government landlords should be able to behave in the same commercial way as private landlords (in which case, why bother having them?).

Being a social landlord implies some additional standards. That is partly why they get taxpayers money.

Kramer said :

I figure the current Causeway residents in govt owned properties should be subject to the usual tennancy laws. If the owner (in this case the govt) wants to discontinue their tennancy so they can redevelop the site, then give the tennants notice, and offer another accomodation choice. If they don’t like it they can rent privately – beggars can’t be choosers.

This is pretty much what I was going to say- when my last landlord decided to sell despite our having been there several years, it was here’s your notice and bad luck. And here, the landlord is the government, and sure its a real pain to have to move from somewhere you are settled, but thats life when you’re a renter. And guess what- not all of us private renters are living in our first preference location either- more where we can afford.

I figure the current Causeway residents in govt owned properties should be subject to the usual tennancy laws. If the owner (in this case the govt) wants to discontinue their tennancy so they can redevelop the site, then give the tennants notice, and offer another accomodation choice. If they don’t like it they can rent privately – beggars can’t be choosers.

I’m not real keen on the places they have been building at the Kingston Foreshore (except a few of the big, massively overpriced penthouses), but they seem to be selling. So if there’s a market, then why not develop the area – it will keep the Canberra economy moving, and further build the property market.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy1:38 pm 19 Feb 09

What ‘Human Rights’ exactly are being taken away??

proofpositive1:28 pm 19 Feb 09

Everyone not involved with the Causeway redevelopment can relax, the residents on the other hand should prepare to arm themselves with flaming torches and pitchforks to fight to protect their rights to protect whatever their human rights are that Hargreaves is taking away.

As usual everything the Government is promising at the moment is aspirational only.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy11:42 am 19 Feb 09

OK, I see your point now. Fair enough.

I’m surprised the developers of the Kingston Foreshore think they can sell that many dwellings. The stock they currently have is damn expensive, and not that nice.

VY, I am concerned because I believe the Government is preparing to redevelop the Causeway, not for the reasons you are espousing, but to pander to the wealthier lobby groups.

While these are all rental properties (although I thought a small number had been sold) and so the tenants should understand they have no ownership rights or ultimate security of tenure, the reality is that lots of the people there have been there since the great post-flood rebuild of the Causeway back in the ’70s and some of them from before then.

It’s one thing to redevelop through need and quite a different thing to redevelop to build another Kingston Foreshore, with the added side benefit of getting ride of the unattractive neighbours.

Let the ACT Government demonstrate a capacity to increase stock numbers with the vacant residential land they already have. They can even use the economic stimulus money to build the stock.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy11:00 am 19 Feb 09

Poptop, I’m not for a moment going to defend the govt’s record for management. I’m just suggesting what I think is a sensible view of the world. Govt’s in general aren’t very good at implementing things like this, because they don’t take a business view of their activities. If they started thinking more in terms of outcomes versus costs along the lines that business considers profit and costs, I suspect we would have much more efficient housing (for private, public and developers).

They aren’t winning many brownie points for their management of capital programs just now. Or ever, really.

Exactly.

johnboy: Apologies, should’ve been separate topic. Noted, feel free to delete/move etc.

Skidbladnir: Right, “you’s” being Mr Hargreave’s usual term of endearment for us.

Isn’t this proposal for the Causeway the opposite to the intentions of the residential zoning changes of the Territory Plan, back in 2004, which was to allow urban in-fill and up the numbers of dwellings in existing areas where they don’t deem enough people are crammed in together per square km and within a certain distance (1km?) of shopping centres.

Reference ABC News Sep 30, 2004: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1210095.htm

Are they going the other way, in this case?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Agreed. It’s about working out ways to provide additional housing stock at the lowest cost to the public purse.

By just selling it off (Lachlan Court)

By exchanging 200 odd public housing dwellings for less than 30 in the new development(MacPherson Court)?

By holding and then selling off public housing land to the highest bidder (Burnie Court)so it lies vacant for 8 years?

Or just fencing it off (Fraser Court)?

Or transferring stock, publically announced as unsafe, to community management for student accommodation (Currong Apartments) and leave it majorly vacant?

Or any of the other many examples of good management of public housing stocks?

I don’t have a problem with wanting to increase housing stock in a responsible manner, but am arguing that this is not a sensible starting point. Perhaps the ACT Government can look at their existing green and brownfield sites before bulldozing the Causeway.

They aren’t winning many brownie points for their management of capital programs just now. Or ever, really.

Can Digga stay on topic\go in mod?
They appear to be a single-issue NIMBY, who wants everyone to read their NIMBY-rants, so cross-post everywherethat the name Hargeaves gets mentioned.

PS: @Digga: In Modern English, the plural of you is ‘you’. You’s is only found Modern Bogan.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy9:51 am 19 Feb 09

However it is not about a need to demolish serviceable housing to increase densities and all to do with gentrification of the locale.

Agreed. It’s about working out ways to provide additional housing stock at the lowest cost to the public purse.

One axe ground at a time please Digga.

Let’s concentrate on housing at the causeway on this thread eh?

Hargreaves doesn’t care at all for you’s all or trying to appease the community. He doesn’t even represent you’s all.

Did you miss his ramblings in Southside Chronicle last week?
http://www.canberrapowerstation.info/Images/Chronicle-10Feb09.jpg

Followed up succinctly by a letter to the editor in this week’s edition:
Divide and Conquer (Letter to the Editor, Southside Chronicle, 17 February 2009)

THERE is the stinky whiff of the old divide and conquer emanating from your report “Council receives threat” (The Chronicle, February 10). Apparently, an un-named politician threatened to cut the Tuggeranong Community Council’s (TCC) grant if a member of the Canberrans for Power Station Relocation gained a seat on the TCC executive. This threat is a measure of the CPR’s success in making the Labor Government feel uncomfortable. But I doubt whether the old divide and conquer trick would have any marked effect on most Canberrans who are too politically sophisticated to be duped by such tactics.

Of more concern is the behaviour and comments of the Member for Brindabella, John Hargreaves. He did correct the record by reassuring TCC that even if a member of CPR infiltrated the council, the government would not cut the funding because the constitution of such boards was a part of the democratic process. He stated that the “government would still listen to that organisation”. So far so good. He rather rashly emailed a CPR member that “any conversation or community with CPR will be ignored… I will listen to individuals but not CPR. And if the individual is a front for the CPR and I will know it, that will be the end of them too.” When a politician takes the oath of office, he or she undertakes to represent the community without fear or favour. Politicians do not have the mandate to pick and choose which community organisation he or so is prepared to represent. To do so would be extremely undemocratic. As for listening to individuals, politicians rarely do that.

John Hargreaves excused his discriminatory attitude by alleging that he was stalked, abused, threatened and cajoled in the name of CPR during the election campaign. He should have called the police. Such unlawful behaviour needs to be reported.

We cannot have demented community activists running around the countryside, indulging in such outlandish behaviour, upsetting the sensitivities of thin skinned politicians. In addition, a police report would have lent some credibility to his claims of harassment.

Australians are understandably cynical about what their elected representatives get up to. This exchange brings ACT politics to new lows. John Hargreaves should be removed from his portfolio before he does any more damage, along with the un-named politician who made the alleged spurious threat to cut the TCC funding.

Caroline Ambrus.
Calwell.”

If that was the logic train I’d agree with you.

However it is not about a need to demolish serviceable housing to increase densities and all to do with gentrification of the locale.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy9:22 am 19 Feb 09

That is, foolish NOT to explore options… etc

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy9:21 am 19 Feb 09

If we want property prices (especially rents) to ease, we need more housing. Holding up development like this is driving up the prices people pay for rent.

That said, I’m not complaining, but it’s foolish to explore options for relocating people and allowing new dwellings to be built.

The ambiguity of whether there will be public housing in the long term will not make the sitting tenants feel any calmer or more secure. There are lots of Ministerial assurances except for the one that matters to tenants – if you want to stay in your current home no-one will force you to relocate.

What appears obvious is that the intention is to bulldoze the Causeway and redevelop it with high density residential or mixed use development. The decision about whether there will be any public housing, depends on how much a developer is prepared to pay to keep the barbarians outside the gates.

Bottom line – Kingston Foreshore killed the Causeway.

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.