Taskforce to fix longstay caravan park problem

Many of the homes are works in progress.

Yes the gravel roads are in poor condition. The Sundown motel and Caravan Park next door proposed to seal them if they had been successful with their bid to buy it from Koomarri.

(I understand that Koomarri had indicated it would seal them earlier on but failed to deliver.)

“I disagree with the air of neglect comment “

How would they objectively be described then?

…woman!

…I’m not old!

…37

…who are the britons?

…how do you become king then?

Sorry Blinker and dusty, I lost my shirt playing 2-up with a greens politician. Ronald the Green, was his name, or something like that….

God save us from the disgusting ataxic drunk men with no shirts and long necks, FFS.

Yes, well my apologies for offending anyone with my ‘air of neglect’comment, but, I still stand by it. The Longstay has long suffered from a lack of good maintenance for some time, it appears. Unmown grass, cracked and potholed roads, tumbledown and patched up “caravans”, dry and dusty, no facilities to speak of. If Koomarri have really spent $200 k on maintenance of late, as they claim, I think they should ask for a refund. You can’t see that sort of money anywhere. It seems that while the residents are keen to stay, that there should be a better alternative for them than that place. I know its better than nothing but I’m sure glad that I dont have to live there. At least its a step up from the Fyshwick Caravan Park, on Canberra Ave, which with its tavern, has obvious huge social problems. I had a look in there too lately and was horrified by a disgusting drunk old man with no shirt on staggering around with a longneck in his hand- gross.
Anyway, surely the Longstay could have been improved to include something like short term pod housing- a cheap, adaptive, flexible and very comfortable modular alternative- the ACT government could provide easily for a whole lot of people on their waiting list. What a great way to reduce waiting times for govvie houses, trouble is that they’re so easy to live in the tenants would probably want to stay. I include a link to Houses of the Future for your reference
http://www.housesofthefuture.com.au/hof_houses03.html

Rustic living?

Ashamedly I have had enough to do with long stay caravan parks to know that “air of neglect” is probably the most appropriate way to describe the majority of dwellings found within such establishments. The same could be said for quite a number of Government funded, low income housing as well.
However being that the above is generally a reflection of the tennants attitude, there are always exceptions of well kept premises.

Okay, Roland, how would you describe them then?

Renovators dream project?

Olde Worlde charm?

I disagree with the air of neglect comment

Dear Thumper and shauno, sorry to disappoint you both but I must point out to you that what you have stated is incorrect. The 2 Allhomes listings you have linked to are not in the Longstay Caravan Park at all, but in the privately run Sundown Van Park, which is next door. The Sundown used to be the drive-in. Sundown is a completely different caravan park, and is well-kept and privately run.
Narrabundah Longstay is next door, a little further up Narrabundah Lane.
The Sundown should not be confused with the little more ‘down-at-mouth’ Longstay. You do not see residences like those pictured on Allhomes at the Longstay, ever. Most at the Longstay are pretty run down, with a general air of neglect. I know because I had a drive around there recently.

I couldn’t believe how much they wanted to sell their relocatable homes for. $165k and $236K!!!! And you don’t own any land for that money! There are plenty of units for sale for those $$. Check out the Queanbeyan unit market on allhomes for a comparison – and they’re literally minutes up the road.
I also agree with the comments above about Housing – they should be seeking value for money in terms of getting a roof over needy peoples’ heads, not buying places like City Edge.

“These are an example of the so called caravans.

http://allhomes.com.au/c/ah?a=sp&p=257773

http://allhomes.com.au/c/ah?a=sp&p=261584“

Are those in the caravan park in question. If so the owner must be pissed off at the timing. No one is going to buy that now.

The information about the homes in question being permanent structures is incorrect. All the homes on site at Narrabundah ARE transportable, regardless of how they appear. It is a legal requirement for dwelling(s) placed on a long stay site to be readily moveable. This doesn’t necessarily mean just hitching a van up to their Kingswood and hauling their arse out of there, but any of these places could be moved if need be.

Still, thats probably not a major issue in the argument over the future of the park.

Big Al may have touched on something there. “decisions made about their “investment” in that dwelling were based on an assumption that the zoned land use would remain a constant and that while owners of the caravan park may change, their tenure would be secure as long as they kept up their lease payments.”

It appears they have not kept up their lease payments which may be the reason Koomari decided to sell. It was not financially viable to keep in open.

I am still going to play devils advocate in this one as no one else seems to.

If ACT housing invested in more low income housing that was similar to these home they could have housed all these people and the ones on the waiting list in parks like the one we are talking about. Instead they pay market rates for houses in the suburbs and apartments (for example City Edge in O’Connor). For each of these places they could probably build 5 smaller dwellings in a park.

You can’t jump up and down about these people saving Housing money. I saved Housing money by getting off my arse going to work and buying my own house as well. Does that make me a Saint in your eyes?

Big Al, you’re dead right, on every count. These are homes, not readily transportable, and in many cases there is a big investment there. Beacuse these homes are not separately titled, they would have had problems seeking finance, and I doubt very much if these people would be eligible for things like the First Home Owners Grant.

Therefore, they have already saved the taxpayer money, they have shown initiative in what they’ve done (they are in a low-income, low socio-economic group, and a few are “damaged” in some way).

They’ve solved their own housing problem, relieved the govt of that burden, yet have been badly let down by government, business and the community.

It’s all a bloody shame, which could have been prevented if Corbell had done something when Deb Foskey first raised this as an issue prior to the sale.

With the current emergency housing list at 12 months before placement, I don’t see a snowball’s chance in hell at getting these people housing without pushing someone just a needy out of the way to do it.

I think that some understanding of the type of accommodation might be useful – there seems to be a presumption that the dwellings these people are living in are readily transportable – like a traditional caravan. Although this is not an unreasonable assumption, given that they are living in a caravan park, the reality is that many of these dwellings are in fact small houses.

Some are similar to the upmarket accommodation on offer at caravan parks on the south coast – with two or three bedrooms, separate bathroom or en suite, conventional plumbing etc. Others are more makeshift – perhaps being a bit like a site shed from a construction site and no doubt some are genuine caravans in the traditional sense.

The people living here have leased the space within the caravan park and have built a dwelling on that space that I would imagine meets whatever planning requirements are in place. One can only assume that decisions made about their “investment” in that dwelling were based on an assumption that the zoned land use would remain a constant and that while owners of the caravan park may change, their tenure would be secure as long as they kept up their lease payments.

These people have accommodated themselves comfortably at what could only be described as the lowest end of the housing market – probably with little assistance from government housing schemes. I’d suggest that the issue here is not about finding these people somewhere else to “park” their caravan, but rather that it is about finding these people homes.

I can’t find a fault in the eviction notice serviced to the residents at the park. Changes to the law would be more productive in the sense of moving forward – govt has missed the boat on this one, and…everyone will be looking to the ads on the LHS of this webpage for a place to plonk the van once the landlord has insisted upon moving on the residents at Narrabundah Park.

In another thread on the topic Johnboy said: “It would be very easy for Simon, after the site has been cleared out by the police, to say “well with everyone booted out what’s the point” and agree to change the land use.”

From this release it looks like he was right.

What about all those school ovals that are unusable due to the drought ?

Perfect spot for a few vans.

I would hope they have an expert lawyer on drafting legislation on contracts in caravan parks and transferral of the land to a new owner. The law is sadly lacking! The eviction notice that the Narra Longstay residents find themselves with must be addressed first. Residents in all ACT Caravan parks are now in no man’s land legally and commercially.
The Property Council must be proud of their man, as they gave him an award awhile back.
Trust that the task force canvasses all the possible options, and I have no problem with it’s finding not being made public, as long as the residents have a good outcome.