Millers Point - Public Housing Sales - What is your opinion ?

• 

  Puska on 11/08/2014 - 16:36

  i assume they are living in government funded facilities and pay a small fee per a week. The housing commission next to the harbour bridge had people who were more than capable to pay rent somewhere else but because there parents were given the housing commission years prior, they just passed it down to their children. (giving the families in need of housing commission nothing! greedy). They were giving the government 10% of their wage for one of the best locations in sydney. absolute BS i reckon. fortunately they just sold it all off to pay for ALOT of new housing to be built for families in need.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 11/08/2014 - 16:47

  Surely the government can demolish these and give the land to a rich conglomerate to build a casino or something equally as hideous?

  • 

    tomleonhart on 11/08/2014 - 17:51

    +2

    I would have thought a hideous casino would create thousands of jobs which in turn feed thousands of families, also attract foreign cash/funds.

    And the tax the casino workers pay would then go to public housing. Yes it does benefit the rich but it gives benefit to thousand too.

    Or am i missing something here ?

• 

  melgibson on 11/08/2014 - 16:47

  +1

  If you agree that public housing is a necessary and ethical state initiative, the focus of attack should not be on the renters but on the process of selection. That Millers Point has now lost a community with deep historical and cultural connections to place, and that Millers point will now become the blank canvas for property investment, increases the soulesness of the city of sydney in which capital and consumerism fight it out in a cultural vacuum.

• 

  IIGnomeII on 11/08/2014 - 17:01

  Alongside this are the families that are waiting for houses that have multiple rooms but can't find anywhere as a lot of them are being taken by single residents.

  But back on topic, no I don't feel sorry for the residents that will be moved from these places in the inner city as long as they are being relocated to places that fit their requirement elsewhere (provided those requirements are not beach views in the inner city!).
  I have a bigger issue with foreigners buying up all the land close to the city pushing those that actually live here further out and pricing out first home buyers and others from ever being able to buy something.

• 

  mskeggs on 11/08/2014 - 17:15

  +1

  I have a desire to see public housing integrated throughout the community, including rich harbourside locations. The idea that a wealthy inner city resident can dispatch the poor to the far flung suburbs or country towns is problematic.
  But I am sympathetic to the notion that taxation resources should be spent for best value.
  I am also sympathetic to the idea that public housing should be rigorously means tested.
  So I would probably introduce a requirement that new developments must allocate x% (say 2%) for government managed public housing. So a new high rise would have 2 or 3 units included for public housing. Developments with less than 50 units could pay the cash equivalent or offer an equivalent discount to the gov to buy one unit.
  That will ensure an ongoing supply of new public housing throughout the community so you avoid geographical pockets of disadvantage, and ensure people throughout the community live in proximity to people from diverse incomes.
  I know some developments have already done things like this to gain approval concessions, and similar ideas happen internationally.

  • 

    whodidthat on 11/08/2014 - 17:25

    +1

    I get what you mean about integration but a word of warning, it does not always work.

    They tried it in several areas back in UK, around the area I came from.
    Only one area worked (Coulby Newham).

    The other two (Hemlington & Tower Green) were a disaster!
    Particularly Tower Green. Home owners walked away from their property when council house tennants created so many problems. The property owners ended up with negative equity. That area ended up being demolished.

• 

  whodidthat on 11/08/2014 - 17:19

  The history should remain but the price tag should be higher.

  For those that can't afford higher rents, they should be in areas affordable to them.
  Public housing isn't a right, it is there for those who cannot afford full rental rates. However it doesn't give them the right to specify where they live. If they owned the homes, different story.

  Over half our family back in UK used to be in council housing. Some in not particularly good areas.
  Some bought the council houses when given the chance back in Thatcher days. About a quarter are still in council houses.

• 

  maximum on 13/08/2014 - 21:47

  The public housing budget is not keeping pace with the demands. These properties would require substantial upkeep and if the money from the sale is put back into new properties in cheaper suburbs more families can be housed - without the high ongoing costs.
  Nobody's likes to move but like they say- beggars can't be choosers. No sympathy needed for these people - if they have been in the houses for decades that just means they have been living off the public purse for that long.