Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Buying off the plan?
View our developments

Use of vacant public housing properties

By Jacqui Burke MLA 16 December 2005 23

I note with interest that there is still on-going debate regarding public housing. I am pleased that Riot Act contributors continue to follow and energetically add to the debate.

I have recently issued a media release to canvass the use of vacant public housing units particularly at multi unit complex sites (such as Fraser Court, Kanangra Court, Currong & Hartigan Gardens) to assist in relieving the pressure on the crisis accommodation sector, in the short term.

I would be interested to hear from you regarding this aspect of using vacated properties in the short term that are awaiting refurbishment or redevelopment.

On another note……I could have sworn I saw ‘Johnboy’ in the Public Gallery of the Legislative Assembly this week taking a keen interest in local politics (or not??). If not John you have a twin out there………

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to
Use of vacant public housing properties
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Maelinar 9:59 am 20 Dec 05

I agree, as I have on numerous occasions stated, it is my belief that public housing has been provided out of our genuine social concern that people should at a minimum have a roof over their heads.

I also believe that because it has been provided out of our social concience, we reserve the right to disallow or discontinue that priviledge that we are providing upon any funny business occurring.

I continue to fail to understand why we are so complacent regarding public housing. It has been provided at our expense, and is provided to people in housing distress, and is a short term solution.

If people want to play funny business, watch them whinge from a tent, at the bottom of the list.

Perhaps this is because so many of those said people in housing assistance are those members of the general public who are so fragile that it is remarkable they have shown up to work fully clothed, fed, watered, showered and shaven, yet seem to be ok with ranting about how hard done by they are to the nearest Naomi or Ray, all the while glorifying how much they look like the aussie battler when it could be no farther from the truth.

The inclusion of four simple words in the contract would fix this entire situation; “subject to annual review”.

bulldog 9:06 am 20 Dec 05

Thanks seepi – I didn’t know there was a specific timeframe involved. Although it worries me that at any one time there may be so many houses sitting idle while people are effecetivley homeless. Three months is too long for out resources to go untouched and unused. If people vacate a property for more than a month without informing ACT housing, they should lose their spot and it should be allocated to the next on the list.

Ms Burke, thanks again for taking the time to answer a couple questions relating to subjects often discussed at RA.

seepi 8:07 pm 19 Dec 05

Yes – I haven’t heard a single person support either the arboretum or the busway. I actually think the busway is Simon Corbell’s red herring that he drags out to occupy the media whenever he is about to pass some dodgy land deal.

To answer a question above, ACT housing properties are left alone for 3 months after being reported as empty, in case the tenants return.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site