No affordable housing in Canberra - Official

Mael you should run for local parliament!

G, I looked at it that way, and while that would work for a tennancy corporation, or even the Defence Housing Authority, ACT Housing was never set up or intended to become a rent subsidy/income generating business.

It WAS set up however to provide homes to people who can’t put a roof over their heads.

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this same statement, it’s ok being a lefty, and it’s ok to consider fellow man, but Deb Foskey doesn’t need an ACT Housing subsidised house.

Since the need has been removed, by virtue of her earning in one year what it takes me four to earn, regardless of the fact that she is paying full market rent (oblivious of the fact that I consider the pittance she’s paying NOT full market rent), she is tying up a HOUSE that is provided for HOMELESS/DESTITUTE people.

The theme of this thread is that there is no affordable housing in Canberra. The reason there is no affordable housing in Canberra is because rich people who have no need to be living in subsidised housing (before you start, read my comment above about full market rent), and that can afford to purchase more expensive housing, are malingering in the cheap seats.

To put it more simply, that house if vacated would provide a home for one homeless family. Deb Foskey has the resources to purchase an alternative home, and so therefore won’t be harmed other than she’ll be back out in the real world with all us other suckers.

That’s one more homeless family off the streets. Think about that for a moment all you lefties. This is coming from one of the hardest right wingers on this site.

Special G – Housing only earns around $12mill a year out of full market renters. As the system currently operates, Housing ACT apparently has to rely on this income to subsidise the rest of the tenants.

Economically, there is no sound argument for running a dept that also makes around $20mill loss each year…it needs a clean-up and it is moderately surprising that Canberrans aren’t annoyed that there are some very ‘comfortable’ tenants in public housing when you would expect govt to be working harder to house those ‘who are in need’. Hypocrysy comes to mind.

fosky is an old slapper living off our taxes. Kick her out, fast.

What if you looked at it this way.

ACT Housing is Canberra’s biggest landlord. Deb Fosky is paying market rent on a house which is generating income for ACT Housing which is used to subsidise the rent of two other tenants. In that situation it would be well worth while for ACT Housing to rent places to full rent paying people so that they could generate income.

Being a landlord in Canberra is good, especially if you bought years ago (I am pretty sure ACT Housing did this.) They would be making a buckload from full rent paying tenants.

There are plenty of units at Kanangra Court at the moment that are being refurbed – maybe Deb could move in there.

G

Bulldog. Cash crops. Worked for a heap of us in belco!

Wait for the bubble bulldog, wait for the bubble..

Simple: She shouldn’t be there.

As far as “market rent” goes, I believe that it wold be well short of the median rental price for the area; although I am truly curious to know what she is paying.

If and when “market rent” is ever established, the prinible remains that she is tying up a resource that could be better utilised for someone NEEDY. On an MLA’s wage I don’t think you qualify as needy.

As far as Canberra housing costs; it’s tough. I bought last year and it has been a bit of a sruggle keeping my head above the water. But what can we do about it? Seriously, not trying to be facetious, just looking for any constructive information that might lead to a solution to the ACT’s cost of living ‘crisis’. Any help from players with a better grasp of the economy than I?

I think I would give away the rights to my unborn child for a house in Yarralumla paying “full market rent”.

I think you’ll find that the “full market rent” falls substantially short of what anybody else in Yarralumla on the public market is paying, again something that has already been covered previously.

Good point about the simple allegation and complex explanation, the problem being is the explanation was never quite sufficient enough.

I’m remarkably well aware of the conversations (I’ve been on the site at least as long as you have, if not longer) but if you’ll recall the “full market rent” excuse was used all over the place back then, and, as long as it genuinely is a full market rent, it’s a decent rebuttall to the “Deb’s housing is costing us money” argument you were running.

Having said that, it’s not good public relations, since the allegation is simple and the explanation is complicated, it’s a conflict of interest, and it tends to expose ACT public housing as not being primarily run in the interest of housing people in need.