Public housing stigma continues

+1 Chewy14,

Governments everywhere ought to have no business owning real estate and then leasing it out on yields of 1% or less to government housing tenants. This is a demented wealth destruction policy that taxpayers get a very raw deal out of.

The author even admits taxpayers lifted him up the social ladder. Where is the equity in that?

Still, I do agree with the salt & pepper approach…just not the funding of it.

Just sayin, 13 minutes yep.
http://www.whereis.com/directions?na=Gold%20Creek%20Rd%2C%20Nicholls%2C%20ACT%202913&str=Gold%20Creek%20Rd&su=Nicholls&lat=-35.1930657105&lon=149.086905675&ena=Bunda%20St%2C%20Canberra%2C%20ACT%202601&estr=Bunda%20St&esu=Canberra&elat=-35.2789692888&elon=149.133214401&rt=fastest_tolls

Southmouth said :

There are a few distinct groups among public housing tenants. It’s those who choose not to participate in the employment sector who need to be “salt and peppered” to prevent them from forming their own subculture. It would make more sense to stop providing public housing as an inticment

Public housing isn’t an enticement, it is the last resort before a sleeping bag under an overpass.
There are families with children in waiting lists for public housing. Some of them sleep in friend’s lounge suites until an opportunity comes up. Maybe there are drug problems, maybe it is health problems, but they cannot afford or aren’t able to get a private rental – especially when you look at rental prices in the A.C.T and the hoops you have to jump through in order to qualify for one. Whatever the case, a government offered house is a better alternative to sleeping on the streets and it wouldn’t matter how far it is from public health or shopping facilities, the tenants would be grateful for a roof over their heads.
There are numerous townhouses located directly adjacent the shops and nearby the school and if the locals want to use a broad brush to paint the public housing tenants, I could use the same brush to identify townhouse complexes as criminal hideouts, full of burnout kings in beaten up cars who prowl the suburbs at night looking for homes to break in to. I have personally witnessed the prevalence of domestic disputes and all kinds of property damage in townhouse complexes. I will not go so far as to say that they are all like that nor that all their residents are like that. Unfortunately it appears that if the townhouses are occupied by high income earners then it is okay to live in Nicholls, but if they are on welfare they aren’t welcome.
As hard as the residents try to deny this and point to other factors, it won’t wash, the truth is there for all to see.

There are a few distinct groups among public housing tenants. It’s those who choose not to participate in the employment sector who need to be “salt and peppered” to prevent them from forming their own subculture. It would make more sense to stop providing public housing as an inticment

old canberran said :

I’m really having a problem believing what I am reading in this topic. Canberra was founded on Government funded housing. Every suburb contains Government built houses some more than others. O’Malley and Isaacs are the only ones to my knowledge that have none at all up to 1988 when I left Canberra. Some suburbs have as high as 60% govt. housing and other as low as 20%, all built without any interference from people like some of the residents of Nicholls.
I lived in Braddon in a Government House, the in one in Watson when I got married. Most public servants who moved to Canberra in the 60’s were houses in Government houses. So what’s the problem with the Nicholls residents? Is it perhaps the use of the word “public” instead of “Government”.
Are they reading it as housing for “low income” earners. Maybe the ACT Government needs to think about creating residential areas like the old Narrabundah pre-fabs and the Causeway.

It is housing for “low income earners”. Over a certain income a person doesn’t qualify for public housing. The average occupant of public houses these days is different to the average occupant of it when Canberra was first established. Then it was anyone; public servants, tradespeople (probably that should be tradesmen…could women get a house without a man?), etc. Now it is low income earners; many of whom are normal people, but a percentage are people with social difficulties, who would find renting privately almost impossible.

old canberran said :

I’m really having a problem believing what I am reading in this topic. Canberra was founded on Government funded housing. Every suburb contains Government built houses some more than others. O’Malley and Isaacs are the only ones to my knowledge that have none at all up to 1988 when I left Canberra. Some suburbs have as high as 60% govt. housing and other as low as 20%, all built without any interference from people like some of the residents of Nicholls.
I lived in Braddon in a Government House, the in one in Watson when I got married. Most public servants who moved to Canberra in the 60’s were houses in Government houses. So what’s the problem with the Nicholls residents? Is it perhaps the use of the word “public” instead of “Government”.
Are they reading it as housing for “low income” earners. Maybe the ACT Government needs to think about creating residential areas like the old Narrabundah pre-fabs and the Causeway.

Not low “income”; low “thinking”.

vintage123 said :

Um I tend to disagree. I live in a very nice area, albeit a laneway, of red hill and I have good friends that live in Nicholls. There home is very nice, the street is lovely and all of the blocks are 900m2 or larger. Access to civic is 13 minutes, bus services are good, schooling is excellent and gold creek provides a relaxing environment for a weekend luncheon. The clubs are of high standard and the golf courses are up there in terms of quality and design. Nicholls provides very nice modern homes on large land parcels in a convenient locale with most mod cons and services. You will never be able to buy into a new development which is designed like Nicholls. The only missing component is a hospital to the north.

Um, the numbers tend to disagree with you.
1) not all of nicholls is Harcourt hill.
2) nicholls is not zoned for medium or high density housing. Despite that, it has more than double the density of some of the *actual* prestige suburbs I mentioned. Those suburbs that have comparable density to Nicholls all have high-rise apartments which would push their average density up.

Add those factors together and you have cookie-cutter wannabe mcmansions crammed close together on small blocks with no yards or visual amenity, aka future ghetto. And as was already mentioned, your travel times to the city would assume a degree of flexibility in ACT road user laws, and probably the laws of physics.

The residents of Nicholls should know their place. The existing residents trying to distinguish themselves from the proposed new residents is, in economic terms, no more than hair-splitting. I suppose everyone wants to look down on someone, however this is just delusional.

I’m really having a problem believing what I am reading in this topic. Canberra was founded on Government funded housing. Every suburb contains Government built houses some more than others. O’Malley and Isaacs are the only ones to my knowledge that have none at all up to 1988 when I left Canberra. Some suburbs have as high as 60% govt. housing and other as low as 20%, all built without any interference from people like some of the residents of Nicholls.
I lived in Braddon in a Government House, the in one in Watson when I got married. Most public servants who moved to Canberra in the 60’s were houses in Government houses. So what’s the problem with the Nicholls residents? Is it perhaps the use of the word “public” instead of “Government”.
Are they reading it as housing for “low income” earners. Maybe the ACT Government needs to think about creating residential areas like the old Narrabundah pre-fabs and the Causeway.

taninaus said :

vintage123 said :

I spoke with friends from Nicholls last night regarding this, all they are seeking is assurance that the development will be used for aged care as opposed to generic public housing, principally because it is situated next door to the school and childcare centre. The vacant block is situated right next door to the school and childcare centre.

I am not sure what the point of this argument is from your friends – why would the age of the tenants make any difference?

I agree with you John that the quotes in the article were very narrow minded and terribly ignorant. Unfortunately a typical media beat up. Yes there are public housing tenants that are not nice to live next to, but I have also had my share of living next to people who owned or rented houses in the burbs that were not nice to live next to as well. I have also had public housing tenants who were lovely to live near and a positive part of our local community. This is the best thing about Canberra, you might be able to pick the public housing tenant, but in most cases you can’t.

Because during the consultation process only elderly aged care was proposed. As the process is moving to the right it is changing and those who agreed to the original proposal are now questioning where it is going. I my eyes there is no difference however I don’t think it is ethical for tick to consultation development box with a business case stipulating aged care and elderly and then change scope once impacted residents have on the specifics.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Xtra said :

I too read the Canberra Times article concerning public housing planned for Nicholls and local resident’s reaction. How ignorant and precious are those who oppose the planned public housing.

To re-cap, the ACT Government is planning on putting 14 supportive homes on a community facility zoned block on Kelleway Ave. So to be clear this is a parcel of land which permits such a use. These homes will be used to house aged public housing tenants.

The suggestion by resident’s that public housing tenants are by nature paedophiles and drug users is absurd and totally ignorant.

To the comments which suggest that the public housing tenants do not use services such as hairdressers, shame on you!

The article says more about those who made the comments and to those of you who call themselves Christians- you really need to assess what Christianity is all about.

Oh and by the way- there is public housing in Nicholls – you just don’t know where. So, to the lady who won’t let her son play outside if public housing comes to Nicholls, I guess you’ll be moving or keeping him inside a lot! As John pointed out public housing also includes single residential homes.

Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.

“Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.”

That is true – it’s one of those quirky things about Canberra
Unfortunately, people like me who once lived there found out too late that crime is a big issue and it was all emanating from the public housing ghettos in the suburbs and Narrabundah.
It was so bad we couldn’t even have guests around in the evening because their cars were broken into.
My neighbour awoke one night to find someone ransacking his bedside table. It was so bad we moved to another suburb, checking first that there was no public housing in that area. I have had only one similar incident since moving, over 25 years ago.
Friends in the inner south area tell me crime is still a big problem but don’t expect anyone to admit it publicly.

I’ve lived in Narrabundah for over thirty years and never had any problem, unless you count my garbage bin and mop being stolen. There were incidents (fortunately not involving me), but they came from both government houses and privately owned houses. Two houses across the street for instance, were dealing in drugs; one was a government house (I think), but the other house was owned by the pushers. I will admit though, that my observation was that the government houses, on average, were less cared for. An old story from many years ago. At one stage Narrabundah’s break-ins dropped dramatically and Griffiths went up. We were told this at a Neighbourhood Watch meeting, but the police didn’t know why. Nothing was said, but we knew why. The story circulating was, local burglars had had a visit from some locals and told to leave Narrabundah alone or else. That was the old Narrabundah. Times have moved on.

Salt and pepper is the way to go. I lived next to a family in public housing in Narrabundah. They were fine. In fact they were more vigilant of human dross than me. Luck of the draw, but spreading it out gives the decent families a safer, more normal environment. No suburb should be too good for salt and peppering.

There is some nice slow moving traffic in the Gungahlin area that could well use a few window washers – job opportunities for the new tenants and a public service to all those Nicholls residents who don’t have a decent transport network and rely on their Prados and Beemers to get to Civic for work. It’s win-win and a great way for the two distinctively different socioeconomic classes to meet and greet.

Postalgeek said :

The Government should shift all inner public housing to Gungahlin to free up prime real estate so they can flog it to raise some cash for the light rail

I think you’re right. Our ACT Labor Government isn’t really trying to do the right thing by the public housing tenants, they’re trying to get them out of the way. The real agenda here is a cash grab so they can waste $800 million + building a train… it’s irresponsible government.

I think the real problem is that there is little community trust in our ACT Labor Government. They claim that the land will be used to house the elderly and disabled, which on the surface is fine, but the ACT Government is not prepared to assure Nicholls’ residents that the situation won’t change in 5 or 10 years. In that time the property could turn into drug and alcohol rehabilitation housing.

To claim that property values don’t drop when near public housing is ridiculous. Take two identical houses, one next to a public housing estate and one 500m up the road, where will the greater market demand be… obviously up the road. The tenants currently living in the public housing might be model citizens that you might like to invite over for lunch, but there is a far higher chance than normal that problems will occur with later tenants… and people don’t want to take that risk.

I wrote to ACT Government concerning this development, not on the basis of “dangerous tenants”, or crime etc., as I agree with John, it’s an overgeneralisation and unfair to the majority of ACT Housing tenants. I wrote to ACT Government about the suitability of the development for housing elderly and disabled people… there are going to be 14 properties, crammed into a small space, a long way for decent medical and other facilities… it’s an injustice to the tenants.

Some of my points were:

– The complex is meant to have two parking spaces per unit. To those people thinking about writing that most of these people don’t have cars etc., that is irrelevant as the intention is for two car spaces per unit, if the ACT Government didn’t want this then they wouldn’t design it this way. The problem is that the car spaces are extremely narrow and in no way meet the requirements of car spots for people with disability.

– The roads are very narrow, they appear to be less than one car length wide, a young fit person would have trouble parking there – definitely not suitable for the elderly or disabled.

– There’s insufficient parking for support vehicles on property, e.g. carers, ambulances, etc. According to ACT Legislation all on-stay and operational car parking must be on-site; this will not be possible with this development.

– As the property is intended for the elderly and disabled it would be better located near facilities for the elderly and disabled… it’s no-where near such facilities, and good luck trying to get into a doctor in Gungahlin that bulk bills in a short timeframe.

– The position of the driveway is going to represent a traffic hazard and, as the architect points out in the plan, can’t be sensibly moved.

I think it’s the ACT Government that John needs to be directing its comments to, as our Government shouldn’t be suggesting that the elderly and people with disability live in this type of property. I get the impression that ACT Government is trying to shove these people out of the way; away from areas such as Civic that have a wealth of amenities to the far ends of Canberra.

Andrew Barr wrote back to me regarding my letter; I was outraged at his response. He sent back a generic response about how the Public Housing Renewal Taskforce had carefully listened to the people of Nicholls and they’d reduced the development from 16 to 14 properties. Well Andrew Barr clearly hadn’t been listening, as his response didn’t come close to addressing any of the points in my letter. Our ACT Labor Government doesn’t really care about these people; it’s just trying to get them out of the way and its using political spin to justify it.

Comments by the residents were terrible. So much stereotyping, and counterproductive. Concentrate disadvtange and you create stigma, isolation and the woes become a certainty. Break up into the community and its much better.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Xtra said :

I too read the Canberra Times article concerning public housing planned for Nicholls and local resident’s reaction. How ignorant and precious are those who oppose the planned public housing.

To re-cap, the ACT Government is planning on putting 14 supportive homes on a community facility zoned block on Kelleway Ave. So to be clear this is a parcel of land which permits such a use. These homes will be used to house aged public housing tenants.

The suggestion by resident’s that public housing tenants are by nature paedophiles and drug users is absurd and totally ignorant.

To the comments which suggest that the public housing tenants do not use services such as hairdressers, shame on you!

The article says more about those who made the comments and to those of you who call themselves Christians- you really need to assess what Christianity is all about.

Oh and by the way- there is public housing in Nicholls – you just don’t know where. So, to the lady who won’t let her son play outside if public housing comes to Nicholls, I guess you’ll be moving or keeping him inside a lot! As John pointed out public housing also includes single residential homes.

Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.

“Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.”

That is true – it’s one of those quirky things about Canberra
Unfortunately, people like me who once lived there found out too late that crime is a big issue and it was all emanating from the public housing ghettos in the suburbs and Narrabundah.
It was so bad we couldn’t even have guests around in the evening because their cars were broken into.
My neighbour awoke one night to find someone ransacking his bedside table. It was so bad we moved to another suburb, checking first that there was no public housing in that area. I have had only one similar incident since moving, over 25 years ago.
Friends in the inner south area tell me crime is still a big problem but don’t expect anyone to admit it publicly.

I’ve lived in Narrabundah for over thirty years and never had any problem, unless you count my garbage bin and mop being stolen. There were incidents (fortunately not involving me), but they came from both government houses and privately owned houses. Two houses across the street for instance, were dealing in drugs; one was a government house (I think), but the other house was owned by the pushers. I will admit though, that my observation was that the government houses, on average, were less cared for. An old story from many years ago. At one stage Narrabundah’s break-ins dropped dramatically and Griffiths went up. We were told this at a Neighbourhood Watch meeting, but the police didn’t know why. Nothing was said, but we knew why. The story circulating was, local burglars had had a visit from some locals and told to leave Narrabundah alone or else. That was the old Narrabundah. Times have moved on.

That’s an urban myth.

Or should I have said “sub-urban myth”.
Either way it has offended the moderators.

Postalgeek said :

So Nicholls is a prestige suburb..snork!

The Government should shift all inner public housing to Gungahlin to free up prime real estate so they can flog it to raise some cash for the light rail servicing all the new public housing in Gungahlin.

Also consider moving it to AMC so visiting hours can be easier.

wildturkeycanoe said :

John Hargreaves said :

People don’t deserve to live in such conditions and the buildings actually encourage crime and drug use.

That’s like saying guns make people want to go out and kill. How on earth could a building make you want to use drugs?

Every time I drive past the pop up village at West Acton I pop a valium.

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

Maya123 said :

justin heywood said :

John Hargreaves said :

The thing about salt and pepper is that one puts a family in one of a number of dwellings in an area, not into a high rise ghetto. the ABC buildings in Civic and the like are ghettos, make no mistake. People don’t deserve to live in such conditions and the buildings actually encourage crime and drug use.

Well given the vast sums Govco is likely to make from the sale of these inner city ‘ghettos’, the government could use that money to ‘salt an pepper’ them into the inner city areas, instead of sending them out to the edge of the city, far away from the services so many of them require?

Nicholls is commuter belt. OK if you have a steady job, a couple of cars and don’t need government services, but I doubt that many of the residents of Bega Flats fit into that category.

Why send them out to areas totally unsuitable for their needs?

Call me cynical, but it’s not as cynical as banishing the needy from your sight, selling their amenity and then dressing it up as caring for their needs.

It always seem strange to me that it’s okay for first home buyers, who might be struggling to make ends meet, pay for a car and run it, etc, to live in the outer suburbs, but it’s not okay for government tenants to live there. If people want the “salt and pepper” approach to government tenants, then that means spreading them across all suburbs, not only the inner suburbs.

I think you’ll find that Public housing is spread across all suburbs. Has been ever since the Federal Public Service moved to Canberra form Sydney and Melbourne and the Federal government provided the “Public” housing for all of these public servants. So that would mean a lot of todays generation’s parents would have started out in Public Housing. And look how they turned out.

You do point out the historic existence of public housing. They would have been in the older suburbs, and many of those houses still exist. When I moved to Narrabundah, most of the houses in my street were public housing, because of this historical factor, and although I don’t live in that street now, when I revisit it, most of the houses I would guess are still public houses (style and condition), and many of the other streets in the area are the same. Public houses might be spread across the suburbs, but some suburbs have a higher percentage than others. I would like to see a map of Canberra giving the percentages each area. Not per suburb, as some suburbs are big, and giving the percentage per suburb can mask that certain areas have a high number of public housing. Using Narrabundah as an example for that; so called Lower Narrabundah likely has got a high percentage, while Upper Narrabundah might not. Giving that figure for all of Narrabundah it might then be argued that Narrabundah could have some more public housing, and where do you think they would be likely to be built? Lower Narrabundah of course, concentrating the public houses even more there, but overall the statistics might say Narrabundah does not have more than its fair share.

John Hargreaves said :

The thing about salt and pepper is that one puts a family in one of a number of dwellings in an area, not into a high rise ghetto. the ABC buildings in Civic and the like are ghettos, make no mistake. People don’t deserve to live in such conditions and the buildings actually encourage crime and drug use.

When the residents of the flats in Kingston left and went to the suburbs they were not part of a culture of poor societal behaviour but part of a nurturing community. And never heard of by authorities since.

And…. people in public housing have kids who would like to go to school. having them close to their school means they have the same opportunities to grow and develop as the non public housing people do.

Very interesting points, John, and I think you’ve brought up some interesting things to think about.

I would argue that it is not the buildings themselves that cause the problem, but rather having the tenants living all together that stops problems from being resolved. When the ‘salt and pepper’ approach is used many neighbours simply won’t put up with behaviours and problems that go unreported when tenants are placed into a group (ie like in a block of flats). With a bit of structure and community expectation it’s surprising how many can rise to the challenge.

The ACT govt could also help itself in this space if it actually dealt with problem tenants more effectively.

I spent time in a housing commission home as a kid, and can assure you our neighbourhood was nothing like when we lived in a private rental!

chewy14 said :

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

chewy14 said :

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

chewy14 said :

John is correct but the solution is not to continue with public housing, it’s to eliminate it almost entirely and replace it with rental assistance for those families who need it so they can enter the private market.

If the % of troublesome tenants is as low as John suggests, then why can’t they rent private properties with financial assistance from the government instead of being provided with a government owned property? How would you ever know that your neighbour is receiving assistance if the government doesn’t own the house/unit?

The government should only own a miniscule amount of public housing stock for those citizens who are truly unable to live in private rentals.

Most public rental people would never be able to afford Private rental even with rental assistance as you suggest , because of the extremely high and volatile private rental market. And the lack or security of having to renew the lease every six months or so due to the changing private rental market.

How does the government afford to provide them this housing then? The overall cost should be the same whether the government is providing it or they are renting privately.

And if privately renting property is so insecure, why is it OK for regular working citizens who pay for it themselves?

Thats because the Government owns the property and is not subject to market speculation. Just real market value in terms of rental. The more income you have, the more rent you pay until eventually you will be paying full market rent. It depends on your circumstances. Some Property is offerer up for purchase to the renter. but the is rear as a lot of Renters can’t even afford to do this.

You may earn up a thousand or more dollars a week. Most Public Housing tenants only receive two hundred or so dollars after rent and axileries in a fortnight. In short , you can afford it and Public Housing tennants can not.

The private market IS the real value of “market rental value”. So it costs the public the same exact amount either way. It’s either a direct financial cost to the taxpayer through subsidy or an opportunity cost to the government in not being able to privately rent or sell the property.

None of this is a reason for the government to own this amount of property for use as public housing.

Yes – it’s difficult to see why people whose income is deemed sufficient to pay full market rent should remain in public housing while others (who may, in truth, be somewhat less well off) have to take their chances in the private market.

Putting aside the minor…. detail that we have a whopping great budget deficit, perhaps some of the proceeds from selling off the Northbourne flats (and further savings which might be made from a more rational approach to public housing) could be used to help the people who are homeless – most particularly those who are being turned away from shelters due to lack of space.

So Nicholls is a prestige suburb..snork!

The Government should shift all inner public housing to Gungahlin to free up prime real estate so they can flog it to raise some cash for the light rail servicing all the new public housing in Gungahlin.

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

chewy14 said :

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

chewy14 said :

John is correct but the solution is not to continue with public housing, it’s to eliminate it almost entirely and replace it with rental assistance for those families who need it so they can enter the private market.

If the % of troublesome tenants is as low as John suggests, then why can’t they rent private properties with financial assistance from the government instead of being provided with a government owned property? How would you ever know that your neighbour is receiving assistance if the government doesn’t own the house/unit?

The government should only own a miniscule amount of public housing stock for those citizens who are truly unable to live in private rentals.

Most public rental people would never be able to afford Private rental even with rental assistance as you suggest , because of the extremely high and volatile private rental market. And the lack or security of having to renew the lease every six months or so due to the changing private rental market.

How does the government afford to provide them this housing then? The overall cost should be the same whether the government is providing it or they are renting privately.

And if privately renting property is so insecure, why is it OK for regular working citizens who pay for it themselves?

Thats because the Government owns the property and is not subject to market speculation. Just real market value in terms of rental. The more income you have, the more rent you pay until eventually you will be paying full market rent. It depends on your circumstances. Some Property is offerer up for purchase to the renter. but the is rear as a lot of Renters can’t even afford to do this.

You may earn up a thousand or more dollars a week. Most Public Housing tenants only receive two hundred or so dollars after rent and axileries in a fortnight. In short , you can afford it and Public Housing tennants can not.

The private market IS the real value of “market rental value”. So it costs the public the same exact amount either way. It’s either a direct financial cost to the taxpayer through subsidy or an opportunity cost to the government in not being able to privately rent or sell the property.

None of this is a reason for the government to own this amount of property for use as public housing.

John Hargreaves said :

People don’t deserve to live in such conditions and the buildings actually encourage crime and drug use.

That’s like saying guns make people want to go out and kill. How on earth could a building make you want to use drugs?

wildturkeycanoe said :

….it shows the true colors of the Nicholls residents

Alexandra Craig said :

It’s so elitist it actually makes me sick.

JC said :

I had to laugh at a one Mr Rush who was whinging…..

Yes I bet the journalist couldn’t wait to get back to the office to get all these idiotic/bigoted/insensitive comments into his article. Any reasonable and thoughtful responses were winnowed out of course.

The REAL story seems to be that the entire suburb of Nicholls is an enclave of elitist snobs.

You have to know your audience; the journalist and the OP certainly know theirs.

chewy14 said :

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

chewy14 said :

John is correct but the solution is not to continue with public housing, it’s to eliminate it almost entirely and replace it with rental assistance for those families who need it so they can enter the private market.

If the % of troublesome tenants is as low as John suggests, then why can’t they rent private properties with financial assistance from the government instead of being provided with a government owned property? How would you ever know that your neighbour is receiving assistance if the government doesn’t own the house/unit?

The government should only own a miniscule amount of public housing stock for those citizens who are truly unable to live in private rentals.

Most public rental people would never be able to afford Private rental even with rental assistance as you suggest , because of the extremely high and volatile private rental market. And the lack or security of having to renew the lease every six months or so due to the changing private rental market.

How does the government afford to provide them this housing then? The overall cost should be the same whether the government is providing it or they are renting privately.

And if privately renting property is so insecure, why is it OK for regular working citizens who pay for it themselves?

Thats because the Government owns the property and is not subject to market speculation. Just real market value in terms of rental. The more income you have, the more rent you pay until eventually you will be paying full market rent. It depends on your circumstances. Some Property is offerer up for purchase to the renter. but the is rear as a lot of Renters can’t even afford to do this.

You may earn up a thousand or more dollars a week. Most Public Housing tenants only receive two hundred or so dollars after rent and axileries in a fortnight. In short , you can afford it and Public Housing tennants can not.

I had to laugh at a one Mr Rush who was whinging in the Crimes the other day. He said that the housing planned for Nicholls could not be for the elderly because the plans quite clearly showed the houses as having 2 bedrooms.

Seriously what kind of thought bubble is that? Are the elderly allowed to have two bedrooms?

Maya123 said :

justin heywood said :

John Hargreaves said :

The thing about salt and pepper is that one puts a family in one of a number of dwellings in an area, not into a high rise ghetto. the ABC buildings in Civic and the like are ghettos, make no mistake. People don’t deserve to live in such conditions and the buildings actually encourage crime and drug use.

Well given the vast sums Govco is likely to make from the sale of these inner city ‘ghettos’, the government could use that money to ‘salt an pepper’ them into the inner city areas, instead of sending them out to the edge of the city, far away from the services so many of them require?

Nicholls is commuter belt. OK if you have a steady job, a couple of cars and don’t need government services, but I doubt that many of the residents of Bega Flats fit into that category.

Why send them out to areas totally unsuitable for their needs?

Call me cynical, but it’s not as cynical as banishing the needy from your sight, selling their amenity and then dressing it up as caring for their needs.

It always seem strange to me that it’s okay for first home buyers, who might be struggling to make ends meet, pay for a car and run it, etc, to live in the outer suburbs, but it’s not okay for government tenants to live there. If people want the “salt and pepper” approach to government tenants, then that means spreading them across all suburbs, not only the inner suburbs.

I think you’ll find that Public housing is spread across all suburbs. Has been ever since the Federal Public Service moved to Canberra form Sydney and Melbourne and the Federal government provided the “Public” housing for all of these public servants. So that would mean a lot of todays generation’s parents would have started out in Public Housing. And look how they turned out.

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

chewy14 said :

John is correct but the solution is not to continue with public housing, it’s to eliminate it almost entirely and replace it with rental assistance for those families who need it so they can enter the private market.

If the % of troublesome tenants is as low as John suggests, then why can’t they rent private properties with financial assistance from the government instead of being provided with a government owned property? How would you ever know that your neighbour is receiving assistance if the government doesn’t own the house/unit?

The government should only own a miniscule amount of public housing stock for those citizens who are truly unable to live in private rentals.

Most public rental people would never be able to afford Private rental even with rental assistance as you suggest , because of the extremely high and volatile private rental market. And the lack or security of having to renew the lease every six months or so due to the changing private rental market.

How does the government afford to provide them this housing then? The overall cost should be the same whether the government is providing it or they are renting privately.

And if privately renting property is so insecure, why is it OK for regular working citizens who pay for it themselves?

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

chewy14 said :

John is correct but the solution is not to continue with public housing, it’s to eliminate it almost entirely and replace it with rental assistance for those families who need it so they can enter the private market.

If the % of troublesome tenants is as low as John suggests, then why can’t they rent private properties with financial assistance from the government instead of being provided with a government owned property? How would you ever know that your neighbour is receiving assistance if the government doesn’t own the house/unit?

The government should only own a miniscule amount of public housing stock for those citizens who are truly unable to live in private rentals.

Most public rental people would never be able to afford Private rental even with rental assistance as you suggest , because of the extremely high and volatile private rental market. And the lack or security of having to renew the lease every six months or so due to the changing private rental market.

The standard lease is twelve months; not six months. If they prove to be good tenants, as long as the house is continued to be let, they should have no trouble renewing the lease. It’s an expense on owners to change tenants and often costs more to change tenants than what the extra rent will bring in.
Re whether they can afford private rental in the first place though I couldn’t say. And government tenants have a PR problem.

justin heywood said :

John Hargreaves said :

The thing about salt and pepper is that one puts a family in one of a number of dwellings in an area, not into a high rise ghetto. the ABC buildings in Civic and the like are ghettos, make no mistake. People don’t deserve to live in such conditions and the buildings actually encourage crime and drug use.

Well given the vast sums Govco is likely to make from the sale of these inner city ‘ghettos’, the government could use that money to ‘salt an pepper’ them into the inner city areas, instead of sending them out to the edge of the city, far away from the services so many of them require?

Nicholls is commuter belt. OK if you have a steady job, a couple of cars and don’t need government services, but I doubt that many of the residents of Bega Flats fit into that category.

Why send them out to areas totally unsuitable for their needs?

Call me cynical, but it’s not as cynical as banishing the needy from your sight, selling their amenity and then dressing it up as caring for their needs.

It always seem strange to me that it’s okay for first home buyers, who might be struggling to make ends meet, pay for a car and run it, etc, to live in the outer suburbs, but it’s not okay for government tenants to live there. If people want the “salt and pepper” approach to government tenants, then that means spreading them across all suburbs, not only the inner suburbs.

chewy14 said :

John is correct but the solution is not to continue with public housing, it’s to eliminate it almost entirely and replace it with rental assistance for those families who need it so they can enter the private market.

If the % of troublesome tenants is as low as John suggests, then why can’t they rent private properties with financial assistance from the government instead of being provided with a government owned property? How would you ever know that your neighbour is receiving assistance if the government doesn’t own the house/unit?

The government should only own a miniscule amount of public housing stock for those citizens who are truly unable to live in private rentals.

Most public rental people would never be able to afford Private rental even with rental assistance as you suggest , because of the extremely high and volatile private rental market. And the lack or security of having to renew the lease every six months or so due to the changing private rental market.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Xtra said :

I too read the Canberra Times article concerning public housing planned for Nicholls and local resident’s reaction. How ignorant and precious are those who oppose the planned public housing.

To re-cap, the ACT Government is planning on putting 14 supportive homes on a community facility zoned block on Kelleway Ave. So to be clear this is a parcel of land which permits such a use. These homes will be used to house aged public housing tenants.

The suggestion by resident’s that public housing tenants are by nature paedophiles and drug users is absurd and totally ignorant.

To the comments which suggest that the public housing tenants do not use services such as hairdressers, shame on you!

The article says more about those who made the comments and to those of you who call themselves Christians- you really need to assess what Christianity is all about.

Oh and by the way- there is public housing in Nicholls – you just don’t know where. So, to the lady who won’t let her son play outside if public housing comes to Nicholls, I guess you’ll be moving or keeping him inside a lot! As John pointed out public housing also includes single residential homes.

Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.

“Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.”

That is true – it’s one of those quirky things about Canberra
Unfortunately, people like me who once lived there found out too late that crime is a big issue and it was all emanating from the public housing ghettos in the suburbs and Narrabundah.
It was so bad we couldn’t even have guests around in the evening because their cars were broken into.
My neighbour awoke one night to find someone ransacking his bedside table. It was so bad we moved to another suburb, checking first that there was no public housing in that area. I have had only one similar incident since moving, over 25 years ago.
Friends in the inner south area tell me crime is still a big problem but don’t expect anyone to admit it publicly.

I’ve lived in Narrabundah for over thirty years and never had any problem, unless you count my garbage bin and mop being stolen. There were incidents (fortunately not involving me), but they came from both government houses and privately owned houses. Two houses across the street for instance, were dealing in drugs; one was a government house (I think), but the other house was owned by the pushers. I will admit though, that my observation was that the government houses, on average, were less cared for. An old story from many years ago. At one stage Narrabundah’s break-ins dropped dramatically and Griffiths went up. We were told this at a Neighbourhood Watch meeting, but the police didn’t know why. Nothing was said, but we knew why. The story circulating was, local burglars had had a visit from some locals and told to leave Narrabundah alone or else. That was the old Narrabundah. Times have moved on.

That’s an urban myth.

vintage123 said :

I spoke with friends from Nicholls last night regarding this, all they are seeking is assurance that the development will be used for aged care as opposed to generic public housing, principally because it is situated next door to the school and childcare centre. The vacant block is situated right next door to the school and childcare centre.

I am not sure what the point of this argument is from your friends – why would the age of the tenants make any difference?

I agree with you John that the quotes in the article were very narrow minded and terribly ignorant. Unfortunately a typical media beat up. Yes there are public housing tenants that are not nice to live next to, but I have also had my share of living next to people who owned or rented houses in the burbs that were not nice to live next to as well. I have also had public housing tenants who were lovely to live near and a positive part of our local community. This is the best thing about Canberra, you might be able to pick the public housing tenant, but in most cases you can’t.

vintage123 said :

devils_advocate said :

I think you have all missed the point.
Nicholls is a hole. The residents *think* they live in a prestigious suburb because they paid a lot for their houses. This tendency to equate “prestige” with the price someone paid for something was reflected in the crimes article the other day, claiming that nicholls was the most prestigious suburb in Gungahlin because it had the most million dollar homes. How ridiculous.
These are cookie-cutter houses built on blocks of 500m or less, with little access to anything useful. You can’t even begin to compare them to the actual prestige addresses in Canberra.
Anyone whose socio-economic circumstances drive them to live in Nicholls would definitely be looked down upon by those in suburbs such as Griffith, O’Malley, Forrest or Turner.

The real question is, why would we want to condemn vulnerable public housing tenants to a life of living in the cultural, social and intellectual wasteland that Nicholls has proved itself to be?

Access to civic is 13 minutesquote]

Nicholls to Civic in 13 minutes? In a WRC-spec Ford RS200 at 2 am, maybe.

John Hargreaves said :

The thing about salt and pepper is that one puts a family in one of a number of dwellings in an area, not into a high rise ghetto. the ABC buildings in Civic and the like are ghettos, make no mistake. People don’t deserve to live in such conditions and the buildings actually encourage crime and drug use.

Well given the vast sums Govco is likely to make from the sale of these inner city ‘ghettos’, the government could use that money to ‘salt an pepper’ them into the inner city areas, instead of sending them out to the edge of the city, far away from the services so many of them require?

Nicholls is commuter belt. OK if you have a steady job, a couple of cars and don’t need government services, but I doubt that many of the residents of Bega Flats fit into that category.

Why send them out to areas totally unsuitable for their needs?

Call me cynical, but it’s not as cynical as banishing the needy from your sight, selling their amenity and then dressing it up as caring for their needs.

We used to live across the road from some public tenants. When they first moved in (at around the same time we did), we would frequently need to call the police to come and intervene in domestic disputes or deal with excessive noise all night. Their kids and pets used to roam the streets, swearing at neighbours and rarely attending school. However, over time, things calmed down and while their home did often look untidy and uncared for, they became part of the neighbourhood – often giving a wave and a ‘hello’ to others in the street. The children would join us as we walked our dog, and come door knocking to sell raffle tickets or while trick-or-treating. I can see the point of ‘salt-and-peppering’. This family really did benefit from settling into an established area with non-public tenants for neighbours. Our home was never broken into and we never felt unsafe. It’s important to give all people a chance to lead better lives – that’s the only way to break what might be a multi-generational cycle of poverty. How else do you give disadvantaged kids the chance to see that despite what they might witness at home, there are opportunities out there for them, and other ways to live?

devils_advocate said :

I think you have all missed the point.
Nicholls is a hole. The residents *think* they live in a prestigious suburb because they paid a lot for their houses. This tendency to equate “prestige” with the price someone paid for something was reflected in the crimes article the other day, claiming that nicholls was the most prestigious suburb in Gungahlin because it had the most million dollar homes. How ridiculous.
These are cookie-cutter houses built on blocks of 500m or less, with little access to anything useful. You can’t even begin to compare them to the actual prestige addresses in Canberra.
Anyone whose socio-economic circumstances drive them to live in Nicholls would definitely be looked down upon by those in suburbs such as Griffith, O’Malley, Forrest or Turner.

The real question is, why would we want to condemn vulnerable public housing tenants to a life of living in the cultural, social and intellectual wasteland that Nicholls has proved itself to be?

Um I tend to disagree. I live in a very nice area, albeit a laneway, of red hill and I have good friends that live in Nicholls. There home is very nice, the street is lovely and all of the blocks are 900m2 or larger. Access to civic is 13 minutes, bus services are good, schooling is excellent and gold creek provides a relaxing environment for a weekend luncheon. The clubs are of high standard and the golf courses are up there in terms of quality and design. Nicholls provides very nice modern homes on large land parcels in a convenient locale with most mod cons and services. You will never be able to buy into a new development which is designed like Nicholls. The only missing component is a hospital to the north.

John Hargreaves said :

The thing about salt and pepper is that one puts a family in one of a number of dwellings in an area, not into a high rise ghetto. the ABC buildings in Civic and the like are ghettos, make no mistake. People don’t deserve to live in such conditions and the buildings actually encourage crime and drug use.

When the residents of the flats in Kingston left and went to the suburbs they were not part of a culture of poor societal behaviour but part of a nurturing community. And never heard of by authorities since.

And…. people in public housing have kids who would like to go to school. having them close to their school means they have the same opportunities to grow and develop as the non public housing people do.

Important points, well made.

I had the same reaction reading this article this morning. It’s ridiculous. Public housing tenants need to live somewhere! The ‘not in my backyard’ approach is absurdly self-centred.

The thing about salt and pepper is that one puts a family in one of a number of dwellings in an area, not into a high rise ghetto. the ABC buildings in Civic and the like are ghettos, make no mistake. People don’t deserve to live in such conditions and the buildings actually encourage crime and drug use.

When the residents of the flats in Kingston left and went to the suburbs they were not part of a culture of poor societal behaviour but part of a nurturing community. And never heard of by authorities since.

And…. people in public housing have kids who would like to go to school. having them close to their school means they have the same opportunities to grow and develop as the non public housing people do.

dungfungus said :

Xtra said :

I too read the Canberra Times article concerning public housing planned for Nicholls and local resident’s reaction. How ignorant and precious are those who oppose the planned public housing.

To re-cap, the ACT Government is planning on putting 14 supportive homes on a community facility zoned block on Kelleway Ave. So to be clear this is a parcel of land which permits such a use. These homes will be used to house aged public housing tenants.

The suggestion by resident’s that public housing tenants are by nature paedophiles and drug users is absurd and totally ignorant.

To the comments which suggest that the public housing tenants do not use services such as hairdressers, shame on you!

The article says more about those who made the comments and to those of you who call themselves Christians- you really need to assess what Christianity is all about.

Oh and by the way- there is public housing in Nicholls – you just don’t know where. So, to the lady who won’t let her son play outside if public housing comes to Nicholls, I guess you’ll be moving or keeping him inside a lot! As John pointed out public housing also includes single residential homes.

Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.

“Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.”

That is true – it’s one of those quirky things about Canberra
Unfortunately, people like me who once lived there found out too late that crime is a big issue and it was all emanating from the public housing ghettos in the suburbs and Narrabundah.
It was so bad we couldn’t even have guests around in the evening because their cars were broken into.
My neighbour awoke one night to find someone ransacking his bedside table. It was so bad we moved to another suburb, checking first that there was no public housing in that area. I have had only one similar incident since moving, over 25 years ago.
Friends in the inner south area tell me crime is still a big problem but don’t expect anyone to admit it publicly.

I’ve lived in Narrabundah for over thirty years and never had any problem, unless you count my garbage bin and mop being stolen. There were incidents (fortunately not involving me), but they came from both government houses and privately owned houses. Two houses across the street for instance, were dealing in drugs; one was a government house (I think), but the other house was owned by the pushers. I will admit though, that my observation was that the government houses, on average, were less cared for. An old story from many years ago. At one stage Narrabundah’s break-ins dropped dramatically and Griffiths went up. We were told this at a Neighbourhood Watch meeting, but the police didn’t know why. Nothing was said, but we knew why. The story circulating was, local burglars had had a visit from some locals and told to leave Narrabundah alone or else. That was the old Narrabundah. Times have moved on.

1967 said :

Wow.
I’ve been working around the Gungahlin area since Ngunnawal was started and I kind of always assumed that most of it was public housing.

I think we are converging on a conclusion: Gungahlin is a disaster.

Wow.
I’ve been working around the Gungahlin area since Ngunnawal was started and I kind of always assumed that most of it was public housing.

I think you have all missed the point.
Nicholls is a hole. The residents *think* they live in a prestigious suburb because they paid a lot for their houses. This tendency to equate “prestige” with the price someone paid for something was reflected in the crimes article the other day, claiming that nicholls was the most prestigious suburb in Gungahlin because it had the most million dollar homes. How ridiculous.
These are cookie-cutter houses built on blocks of 500m or less, with little access to anything useful. You can’t even begin to compare them to the actual prestige addresses in Canberra.
Anyone whose socio-economic circumstances drive them to live in Nicholls would definitely be looked down upon by those in suburbs such as Griffith, O’Malley, Forrest or Turner.

The real question is, why would we want to condemn vulnerable public housing tenants to a life of living in the cultural, social and intellectual wasteland that Nicholls has proved itself to be?

Certainly some intemperate comments to the media from affected residents – most of us love nothing more than a good self-righteous sneer when middle-class suburbia complains about anything.

But consider this aspect of the article

“…..residents will be moved from the Northbourne Avenue housing precinct, the Allawah, Bega and Currong flats in the city, and estates in Griffith, Woden and Red Hill…..as the government looks to decentralise properties and cash in on valuable inner-city land”.

I used to know someone in Bega Flats, and had the misfortune to visit him there several times. Thee would hardly be any group in society more dependent on government services that the residents of these flats.

To shift them out to far-flung suburbs, lacking in services, lacking in transport options and with even lower prospects for the types of employment these people often participate in, is cruel.

To do this in order to make a few bucks shows where the government’s true priorities lie.

I hate to tell the residents of Nicholls, their suburb already has public housing properties, these will not be the first. I believe only one Canberra has none, and you will need to be a diplomat or very rich to live there.

A multi-unit development for public housing does go against the no high-concentration of dwellings policy, but as long as the development is only for elderly or disabled residents it shouldn’t be a problem. Housing should ensure that the requirements for residency of these dwellings are permanent and do not change in the future. Even the small developments can end up as ghettos if it becomes part of the general stock, as seen as in other developments across the city.

Alexandra Craig said :

I would actually be so embarrassed if I was one of the people quoted in that Canberra Times story. How humiliating knowing that work colleagues, friends, people you mix with in social circles, people at the local shops etc now know that you’re trying to block some members of our community from living in your suburb.

It’s so elitist it actually makes me sick.

To paint all people that live or have previously lived in housing commission as drug addicts, paedophiles, and mentally disabled is so misguided and wrong. And not all people with mental disabilities and not all people with drug addictions are dangerous. It’s so insulting that this kind of garbage is being peddled.

Also, there is housing commission all over Canberra. There is probably already housing commission in Nicholls (in the form of houses, not apartments) and these horrible people in the article don’t even know about it.

The refreshing thing about this is that once something is on the internet, it’s on the internet forever. Maybe one day these people might have a google search done on them and miss out on opportunities they wouldn’t have missed out on if they kept their snobby, misguided, and offensive comments to themselves.

Don’t worry, use the force of the attacker against them. There is a huge potential win here, just think:

Enclaves of McMansions and giant luxury monster trucks on the outskirts of Canberra. Fully of elitist, snobby people all happy in their own la-la land. Sweet – for the rest of us.

I would actually be so embarrassed if I was one of the people quoted in that Canberra Times story. How humiliating knowing that work colleagues, friends, people you mix with in social circles, people at the local shops etc now know that you’re trying to block some members of our community from living in your suburb.

It’s so elitist it actually makes me sick.

To paint all people that live or have previously lived in housing commission as drug addicts, paedophiles, and mentally disabled is so misguided and wrong. And not all people with mental disabilities and not all people with drug addictions are dangerous. It’s so insulting that this kind of garbage is being peddled.

Also, there is housing commission all over Canberra. There is probably already housing commission in Nicholls (in the form of houses, not apartments) and these horrible people in the article don’t even know about it.

The refreshing thing about this is that once something is on the internet, it’s on the internet forever. Maybe one day these people might have a google search done on them and miss out on opportunities they wouldn’t have missed out on if they kept their snobby, misguided, and offensive comments to themselves.

Xtra said :

I too read the Canberra Times article concerning public housing planned for Nicholls and local resident’s reaction. How ignorant and precious are those who oppose the planned public housing.

To re-cap, the ACT Government is planning on putting 14 supportive homes on a community facility zoned block on Kelleway Ave. So to be clear this is a parcel of land which permits such a use. These homes will be used to house aged public housing tenants.

The suggestion by resident’s that public housing tenants are by nature paedophiles and drug users is absurd and totally ignorant.

To the comments which suggest that the public housing tenants do not use services such as hairdressers, shame on you!

The article says more about those who made the comments and to those of you who call themselves Christians- you really need to assess what Christianity is all about.

Oh and by the way- there is public housing in Nicholls – you just don’t know where. So, to the lady who won’t let her son play outside if public housing comes to Nicholls, I guess you’ll be moving or keeping him inside a lot! As John pointed out public housing also includes single residential homes.

Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.

“Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.”

That is true – it’s one of those quirky things about Canberra
Unfortunately, people like me who once lived there found out too late that crime is a big issue and it was all emanating from the public housing ghettos in the suburbs and Narrabundah.
It was so bad we couldn’t even have guests around in the evening because their cars were broken into.
My neighbour awoke one night to find someone ransacking his bedside table. It was so bad we moved to another suburb, checking first that there was no public housing in that area. I have had only one similar incident since moving, over 25 years ago.
Friends in the inner south area tell me crime is still a big problem but don’t expect anyone to admit it publicly.

Grimm said :

How about you live next door to a public housing place?

I’m sure SOME public housing tenants are ok. In my experience though, a very large portion of these people are in public housing because they have made a life of bad decisions, and are just outright housos.

Selling drugs, taking drugs, domestics every other day, harassing their neighbours, stealing anything that isn’t nailed down etc etc etc. You are kidding yourself by pretending otherwise. I’ve seen it time and time again with public housing, and been unfortunate enough to live near public housing on a few occasions. ALL of the tenants were the same.

Some people need public housing for legitimate reasons. Many need it because they are either too lazy to work or can’t get a job because of their criminal history. These people shouldn’t be inflicted upon everybody else. Keep them all in their own little slums and let the rest of us live in peace.

A couple of years ago I lived a street away from Illawarra Flats in central Belconnen, our street was very quiet, made up of public servants from the nearby offices, young couples and mostly asian university students. We had very few issues, no crime to speak of and only the occasional late night drunk. I am totally in favour of the salt and peeper method, it prevents slums like MacFields, Mt Druitt and Toorak.

I spoke with friends from Nicholls last night regarding this, all they are seeking is assurance that the development will be used for aged care as opposed to generic public housing, principally because it is situated next door to the school and childcare centre. The vacant block is situated right next door to the school and childcare centre.

wildturkeycanoe said :

A Nicholls resident said”The IGA supermarket is expensive along with the hairdresser so will not be in the price range for low income people to afford.”
Well, perhaps they should lower their prices then. What an absurd reason to oppose bringing “undesirable” people into their neighborhood.
They also raised concerns about increased traffic and a lack of car parking. Well obviously these tenants will not be able to afford cars if they can’t afford to shop at the IGA.
They also said “People who require supportive housing need access to larger scale supermarkets, doctors and Centrelink”. Does that mean they are proposing putting the public housing near the Gungahlin town center instead, where these services are located. Imagine the outcry from the people in the apartments around the “G”, bleating about drugos destroying their cafe district.
There is no justification, the crime stats for Nicholls aren’t much better than any Canberra suburb that has public housing.
I agree with Xtra, it shows the true colors of the Nicholls residents who would probably feel justified in building a wall around their suburb to keep out troublemakers and anyone not earning six figure salaries.

Maybe we could give them what they want. Then the way would be clear for ghettoes of McMansions for snobs, which would keep them out of sight!

A Nicholls resident said”The IGA supermarket is expensive along with the hairdresser so will not be in the price range for low income people to afford.”
Well, perhaps they should lower their prices then. What an absurd reason to oppose bringing “undesirable” people into their neighborhood.
They also raised concerns about increased traffic and a lack of car parking. Well obviously these tenants will not be able to afford cars if they can’t afford to shop at the IGA.
They also said “People who require supportive housing need access to larger scale supermarkets, doctors and Centrelink”. Does that mean they are proposing putting the public housing near the Gungahlin town center instead, where these services are located. Imagine the outcry from the people in the apartments around the “G”, bleating about drugos destroying their cafe district.
There is no justification, the crime stats for Nicholls aren’t much better than any Canberra suburb that has public housing.
I agree with Xtra, it shows the true colors of the Nicholls residents who would probably feel justified in building a wall around their suburb to keep out troublemakers and anyone not earning six figure salaries.

How about you live next door to a public housing place?

I’m sure SOME public housing tenants are ok. In my experience though, a very large portion of these people are in public housing because they have made a life of bad decisions, and are just outright housos.

Selling drugs, taking drugs, domestics every other day, harassing their neighbours, stealing anything that isn’t nailed down etc etc etc. You are kidding yourself by pretending otherwise. I’ve seen it time and time again with public housing, and been unfortunate enough to live near public housing on a few occasions. ALL of the tenants were the same.

Some people need public housing for legitimate reasons. Many need it because they are either too lazy to work or can’t get a job because of their criminal history. These people shouldn’t be inflicted upon everybody else. Keep them all in their own little slums and let the rest of us live in peace.

I too read the Canberra Times article concerning public housing planned for Nicholls and local resident’s reaction. How ignorant and precious are those who oppose the planned public housing.

To re-cap, the ACT Government is planning on putting 14 supportive homes on a community facility zoned block on Kelleway Ave. So to be clear this is a parcel of land which permits such a use. These homes will be used to house aged public housing tenants.

The suggestion by resident’s that public housing tenants are by nature paedophiles and drug users is absurd and totally ignorant.

To the comments which suggest that the public housing tenants do not use services such as hairdressers, shame on you!

The article says more about those who made the comments and to those of you who call themselves Christians- you really need to assess what Christianity is all about.

Oh and by the way- there is public housing in Nicholls – you just don’t know where. So, to the lady who won’t let her son play outside if public housing comes to Nicholls, I guess you’ll be moving or keeping him inside a lot! As John pointed out public housing also includes single residential homes.

Prestige suburbs like Red Hill and Griffith have not suffered a decline in value because of the presence of public housing- so any argument which suggests house prices will fall is also lame.

John is correct but the solution is not to continue with public housing, it’s to eliminate it almost entirely and replace it with rental assistance for those families who need it so they can enter the private market.

If the % of troublesome tenants is as low as John suggests, then why can’t they rent private properties with financial assistance from the government instead of being provided with a government owned property? How would you ever know that your neighbour is receiving assistance if the government doesn’t own the house/unit?

The government should only own a miniscule amount of public housing stock for those citizens who are truly unable to live in private rentals.