The real problem is the lazy and feckless public service we are saddled with. I was born in the English equivalent of public housing. It used to be rents ontime everytime. There are ways such as income sequestering that will ensure this but there is always 20+ million owed that could buy more housing. Yearly inspections of properties, no inspection, eviction! If they did this it would go a long way to greatrly assist this situation. Furthermore if the tenants do not like arduous conditions as suggested they can alweay just move aside and let a more deserving case get in.
Also single pensioners living in a large house is nonsense they have to live in suitible circumstances and help others. A simple assets test where if a tenant buys a property they pay a commercial rent would also be a good idea.
All hopeless as the public service would only sabotage the right way.

The problem is not enough housing - buy up more properties or build is the solution. The social and economic costs of government housing shortages surely demand an initial outlay.

Many of those on the waiting lists have a disability either physical or mental illness or are on very low incomes. The impact on inflation to cost of living bought about by higher wages at the middle and top end make it impossible for some to be able to afford private rents.

Perhaps in the interim more could be done to subsidise the private rents but in the long term it simply has to be more housing. There is some merit in the idea above of income sequestering for repeat offenders.

Many of these online comments suggest a growing downward envy in Australia but no-one is willing to reduce their standards of living (ie. no more bargaining for pay rises by the middle/top end while lamenting those seeking to increase the minimum wage), to ensure we don't exacerbate the situation and create a greater number of working poor.

And of course the fundamental problem underlying this is population growth that creates the requirement for more housing and, when that cannot be built fast enough, there is a housing crisis and a housing affordability crisis. Also, since population growth reduces per capita wealth for people already in the area (creates pressure on public services etc. without commensurate infrastructure growth) it is putting people who already have housing under more pressure (higher rents/mortgage repayments with degrading services) leading to the negative attitudes referred to. The population growth of Victoria is especially sad in this case because, as Birrel points out, Victoria's booming economy is literally based on housing construction - they import far more than they export so Victoria has become a parasite on the rest of the nation. This is a story that can only end very badly (unless the Victorians miraculously develop an export industry that is competitive with China's or they discover rich mineral deposits within their borders (or maybe they can make more police dramas and become the Hollywood of the southern hemisphere).

There is apparently an international standard of measurement of need for social housing. Australia in its best areas provides just one third of the recommended number, in its worst one fifth of the recommended world standard. No wonder there is a twenty year wait! This situation has been allowed to develop because on the "shallow understanding" and the discriminatory attitude of our community, and therefore of our governments, to people who need this form of housing. It is yet another area of social service provision in which our country falls so far behind other comparable countries.

You just can't win in public housing- either you are the low-class type that people accuse as being hives for criminality- or you are the high-quality water-view middle-class type such as those overlooking Sydney's Iron Cove Bridge, that everyone gets jealous and sour grapes over.

Of course, private property developers despise them too.

Personally, I'd support MORE public houses- at least, that any future developments are public housing, especially with urban-redevelopment and building over railways on the cards, we'd want to do it properly and ensure rents are low enough for people to actually move out and LIVE in them.

Especially if it means putting a stop to greedy land developers adding to our urban-sprawl woes by mowing down our top farmland to stick their sardine cans.

Remember folks, low-rent non-profit housing is good for the economy- every dollar less someone spends on their rent is money that they will likely give to you in transactions!

I am very familiar with someone who lives in a block of about 18 one bedroom commission units. Unfortunately most of the responsible tenants have been forced to move out due to the behaviour of the gradual replacement by ex recidivist jail internees and psychiatric cases. The former continue to deal in drugs and steal. The latter obviously don't take their medication and create screaming noises and have no consideration of others by their behaviour of playing music and making noise all night. There is a constant flow of people feeding their habit of drugs and prostitution. The police are in constant attendance from complaints from neighbours and even the armed response group have broken down doors in their raids. My friend finds he is intimidated by his fellow tenants and any approach to the housing commission is greeted with "If you don't like it, move out" The housing commission has its hands tied by having to be an emergency shelter, so there is a constant demand for accommodation by unsuitable people. Unfortunately this impacts on those who do the right thing and are responsible tenants who have to put up with their immediate neighbours. Do the right thing and you are penalised. No one in the units appears to do any legitimate work and the majority are parasites on society. Mostly, but perhaps not all, self inflicted it seems.

We seem to live in a society now where excuses are made for so many intractable and dissolute people while the majority suffer.

Good article.

I am staggered by the lack of urgency about housing. I see it as a national disgrace given that such costs will be the main financial burden most face.

to myself, it appears obvious that more public housing is needed, yet anything to do with that term 'public' now appears a dirty word.

It appears that govts, probably not wishing to do anything that affect housing prices which may affect stamp duty collection, would rather offer bandaid solutions.

Such an issue can only be resolved by a coordinated approach across a number of policy domains, and an acceptance that someone else may lose out rather than the minority of battlers at the bottom, less important to winnig elections.

Snake:

Exactly. I have silenced such as you describe by brute force. I now have a 150m silence zone around my accommodation. Actually, the drug dealers are moving out.. progressively. One must “Target and Team tag “ to win this one! (and avoid Police of course, or I’ll be locked up)!

Chris Lewis:
I have a thread buried back a bit on the “Forum” with generally good comment

All that happened is that many people expressed opinions on public housing that the author disliked. He could have articulately explained why they are wrong. Instead, he simply dismissed their concerns as shallow understanding. Name-calling in the place of reasoned debate is the problem and this article does nothing to help.

Public housing is totally immoral.

Even this bloke, who makes his living touting for it, admits that many, in private rental, or purchase, are struggling to keep their head's above water. Regardless of this strain on many people, he wants to hit them with extra costs to house those who won't make the effort.

I really don't care if they have given up, or never made the effort in the first place, public housing "want to bee's" are perfectly happy to put more strain on everyone else, to get a free ride. They even think they have a "right" to be housed by others effort.

Every public housing unit should be sold, to reduce the ongoing drain on those struggling to do for themselves. The tenants should be told to get off their backsides, grown far too soft, sitting on the backs of others.

Hasbeen

I don't think public housing provides a free ride. such housing will normally be less than desirable than the rest; less room and so on.

Maybe you can tell me why such a consideration was important to both sides of politics in the past and not today.

Do we really want to society where the have nots are neglected as a burden on the rest, and because they may long be a minority.

If we are to look at making private housing, we also need more debate rather than simply allowing more of the current madness to rule the day where investors rule the day.

clearly, housing is a difficult issue and the answer may be a further blurring of the public and private realms, but I will never accept the argument that those at the bottom should not get a free ride.

If we think about it, many get a free ride. My mate ( a liberal voter) inherited over a million dollars (only child), he bought a mansion (its value has gove up $300,000 in less than 2 years), and he works part time and gets the full FTB A and B.

Come on hasbeen, we need ideas that can make a difference without blaming the less fortunate who will always need a helping hand.

Totally disagree Chris.

Even if you could, [& you didn't] make a case for housing assistance for any body, rent assistance, diminishing yearly over a few years, to promote self reliance, should be the only choice. Such assistance should have a sunset clause, so we only help those who are prepared to help themselves sooner or later.

I used to supply stuff to the public housing organisations in 3 states. I found it disgusting that they all could organise to pay over $600,000 for the same house than any private dill could buy for $350,000. This alone is reason enough to disband all such bureaucracies.

I also became involved in supplying their maintenance departments, or contractors with parts, & replacement components for often willfully damaged gear.

I was amazed to learn that almost half of the tenants in Qld for example, call for the department to replace any blown light bulb. With the traveling time involved, it could cost us, the taxpayer up to $130 [15 years ago] to change just one bulb. We should not be helping people with this cavalier attitude to other peoples money.

If you think this is a reasonable expenditure of our taxes, I have to say, you have more money than sense.

I'm with King Hazza here - I'd support more public houses - and not built 30 kilometres out in the boon docks either.

With all of its attendant problems, public housing was a crucial initiative for helping the poor and settling new migrants.

Indeed, if you hated greedy land developers, the thing to do would be to build MORE public housing.

Much of the tabloid anger directed public housing tenants fails to pass the 'walk a mile in my shoes test'. The media don't trade in empathy - it's not televisual.

hasbeen,

no i would not support what you mention if that is the case.

I am talking more about public subsidies to allow people to purchase cheaper homes. I should have made that clearer. I forgot abut the rent versus ownership issue, although they are both important.

When looking to the past, i was thinking of how coalition govts even considered importing houses to meet people's needs.

What ever is done in terms of the use of public money, it has to be cost effective and comparable to private sector costs.

I will not deny that solutions are hard, but we cannot simply go on the way we are if we are to make housing more affordable (to purchase).

Chris Lewis

I agree that we need more housing, but I doubt public housing alone is the answer. Here in Western Australia alone we have 25,000 families awaiting public housing. Assuming about $400,000 per home, that equates to $10 billion to meet current demand. Even a resource-rich state like WA just can’t afford that.

Private rental subsidies may help, but the risk of subsidies is that they simply inflate demand, resulting in higher prices and making the problem worse. This is what first home owner grants may have done.

I believe support and incentives for community housing will be a much more important part of the mix in future. Community groups are better able to match supply with need and seem to manage a relationships with tenants better than state government agencies.

Fundamentally, we need more housing – higher supply would lead to lower prices and better affordability. Some people would still need community housing of some sort, but more would be able to look after themselves if affordability improved

rhian,

good points.

a thorough debate will give us all food for thought.

It may well be that supply is the biggest impediment, so immigration and foreign ownership of housing must also be considered.

This is why I strongly believe data should be collected on just who is buying housing (foreign sources).

Whatever is decided, someone may lose out, whether it be foreigners, govts (tax revenue) or spending, or investors, but more must be done to make housing more affordable at the bottom end. This may include measures to encourage smaller houses rather than building McMansions.

Dear Hasbeen
I have lived in public housing, and despite its shortfalls, believe strongly that we need it, and we need more of it urgently.

I rented following a marital breakdown. I moved into public housing because I was living in the country - which was more amenable to a single parent renting and working - and my child was having chemotherapy at the Royal Children's Hospital. My car died and what I could afford to replace it with would not last the kms between us and the hospital on a regular basis.

I moved out of public housing. As soon as I earned above $40k pa, private rent was cheaper, and some of the difficulties sharing space with people with serious problems alluded to above became too much.

I have been forced to move four times since then. Twice due to the properties falling into such disrepair they were unsafe, twice because owners had rented the place out to make some money and now wanted to move in. The last time I was left homeless with my children. My suburb is on a hill. All the properties have stairs. A child with a disability needs to remain in reasonable proximity to doctors, schools, chemist, and all the places where we have managed to make things work for her.

For the most part only public housing is wheelchair accessible, and without access my daughter can not live there. The waiting list means this is not an option at all.

I have worked my entire life, studied raised children, volunteer with community groups. And we ended up on the street for 5 months because, as Tony Abbott said, s&*t happens.

While I understand you frustration about wastage and inefficiency, this is management, not public housing itself.

I think organisations like Homeground are to be applauded for looking at alternatives to the current arrangement, but lets not simply dismiss public housing out of hand.

S&*t happens to all of us Hasbeen.

Now you've got me Chris. I don't mind at all, helping those who want to get into their own homes.

However it does have some problems.

Tom Burns got himself into trouble with a scheme here in Queensland. It was one of those low start increasing repayment schemes, that worked well, with high inflation, giving rapid wage growth. When inflation dropped many were hurt, despite the good intentions. It was really bad to see a bloke who tried to help, & people who tried to help themselves in trouble, because of an economic change none of them could have forecast.

I'd love to see something similar with aboriginal housing.

There would have to be one go only policy though. Once someone had been set up, there could be no return to further rental support.

My only requirement would be that it must not hurt those doing it on their own. Those who have not cost the taxpayer anything, but are struggling, must not be required to suffer further to pay for others.

When tenants start thinking its their 'right' for Government to provide everything from nappies to housing you have a decline in standards and stinking attitudes. Having grown up in Government housing I am thankful to the Aussie Government for their kindness. The moment that thankfulness changes to demands you can be sure you will get a lesser standard of care for those houses. Dare I say look at much of indigenous housing and see how quickly it is trashed.

To the intractable racists amongst us:

...You imply all Aboriginals trash houses. Well, no they don’t! It is a credit to Governments of all colours that over the years they have persisted in providing special accommodation for Aboriginal settlements: and all against the howls of “unfair” from pompous and racist Australians. Fortunately, on this point, Government show remarkable foresight and compassion in their persistence to continue with supply and oversight of this social service, against the detractors.

...I can vividly remember in country towns I grew up in, Aboriginals allowed to enter the town on pay day only. That unspoken rule was presided over by the gleeful local racist walloper (exposing the alive and well current Police culture of Racism again): Until the arrival of Charlie Perkins of course, in the late 60’s.

...Until the changes gallantly fought for by Aboriginal activists such as Charley Perkins, Aboriginal housing was non-existent. Camp life was an abomination and a horror, the most elaborate building visible, a red phone box; a white token installed to improve the wealth of the local taxi industry only.

...With no hope of escape or chance of betterment possible, because of the persistence of racist culture in the white communities throughout Australia; (and very definitely not dead yet) Aboriginals have made a gallant and successful attempt to improve their lot by progressively accepting conventional community housing as a way of life; with still some way to go.

I think I should point out that particularly in Sydney, where even the flimsiest more easterly properties average at well of half a million, and with the cost of living inflating due to reduced potential purchases from people struggling to keep up with their rents, we are going to NEED more public housing available, and we are going to NEED to make it cater for Middle Class tenants, if we are going to stop the rapid expansion outwards (and possibly nurture a reduction in urban coverage among the suburbs).

Certainly, it could be nothing more than a matter of houses that run at a one-point loss to taxpayers of initial construction, with the tenants paying only necessary maintenance costs in their rents.

I'm more than happy to pay for that (and most certainly wouldn't be jealous of people that preferred to live urban than suburban, myself), especially to fill up vacant space in the inner city with houses that people can actually afford- as every high-rise filled with people easily prevents another satellite suburb from needing to be built and more cars to clog our roads.

Further construction of these properties would allow existing houses to empty out, allowing the suburbs to shrink in size to more comfortable levels.

And as far as I'm concerned, that is a good investment return!

diver dan,

Maybe you are overcooking the 'pompous and racist Australians' bit too. Just to make a short list of a few places where visitors are unlikely to stop through gaining a reputation for abuse, theft and violence,

Wiluna
Dubbo
Wilcannia
Roebourne
Halls Creek
Bourke (Crystal City)
Brewarrina
Walgett
Arakun
Wiluna

There is no question that Aboriginals have been the subject of discrimination, but like the remainder of society there are those who do choose to trash their environment and live in squalor. To the list I gave earlier could be added the 'known' to police (and property managers) 'burbs of cities. All cultural groups are represented and in some areas, some more than others.

The reason government backed out of welfare housing to shove its responsibility onto the private sector was that it simply could manage housing, it was a constant running sore with complaints and it cost a bomb. That was regardless of whether it was welfare housing or (say) defence service housing. Unfortunately, government is beavering away on lumbering the private sector with the very conditions and expectations that made the bureaucratic management of housing hopelessly inefficient and costly.

The first sentence of my last para above should be,

"The reason government backed out of welfare housing to shove its responsibility onto the private sector was that it simply could NOT manage housing"

'NOT' was omitted previously.

1/ CRISIS IN PUBLIC HOUSING.. "we need more houses"

2/ SOLUTION.. spend heaps of money and build them!

3/ PROBLEM.. We don't HAVE that amount of money.

4/ SOLUTION.. "Redistribute wealth..TAX the rich to house the poor"

5/ PROBLEM.. The Rich move away.. you can't touch them.

6/ RESULT.. loop to point 1!

New Jersey tried it... had a great plan.. a WONDerful.. WELL researched plan...

http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/userimages/downloads/mayor_FINAL-SIGNED-EssexNewarkTenYearPlan.pdf

PROBLEM .... find it in the deeeeeetail.

Page 22 "Financing"

//Without the support, commitment, and accountability of jurisdictional (City and County) and community leaders, a Ten Year Plan is simply a piece of paper.//

errr..Yup.. they got that bit right!

THE *CRUNCH*

//Our success in achieving our goals will be largely dependent on ongoing access to state, federal, and
private philanthropic funding.//

STATE http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/new-jerseys-state-budget-deficit-could-reach-11-billion hmmmmmm....nope.. can't see anything there.

FEDERAL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt errrrr... 14 TRILLION federal debt? ummm nope..nothing spare there either!

PHILANTHROPIC ? woopeee.. you GO girl! SURE.. do what you like if you can coax George Soros and Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to shift some of their billions into public housing.. But methinks George Soros is more interested in destroying regimes, creating his 'Open Society' movements, and liberating the 'disproportionately represented latino population' from jail.

Australia isn't much better ..and is unlikely to become so.

*game over* for 'sufficient public housing'.

Cornflower:

...To your list of country towns, add the entirety of Australia: Crime is desperation. Desperation wrought from social abandonment. People (conveniently branded as criminals once abandoned), demonstrate exclusion in many ways, and crime becomes one of the signals of racism and exclusion.

...Ready yourselves for the next “Nueva” crime wave from social abandonment of the homeless. Build the walls of your “gated” suburbs higher. Ready yourselves for expanding private prisons, and costs associated, added to your taxes.

...Governments are increasingly abandoning the marginalised (Homeless, Aboriginals, Boatpeople, mentally ill, disabled, and added to the list on the lesser end of the scale, families with children and pets. et-al) to flounder in a sea of private enterprise (NGO’s( including real estate “Agents”)) discrimination.

...With an insidious stealth, successive Governments deliberately distance themselves from the pain of its citizenry, with all ears rotated forward to those that really matter in society, like themselves, the comfortable (but ever decreasing) middle class and well housed: Who bleat their bigotry through venues such as OLO (thankfully, where they may be challenged), and fall in line with media bias; not even with displays of originality of thought, but lazily following historic racist mantras, rhetoric from a long dead past of a disgraceful thread of Australian history, where all not “white” was scum. I say nothing has changed

diver dan,

There are thousands of migrants who came from the most wretched of circumstances. Yet they do not choose to walk past the soap, destroy their shelter, or discourage their children from going to school.

There is a noticeable split in indigenous Australia, where some choose victimhood and act accordingly, refusing to take any responsibility for their choices, while others are getting on with their education and the opportunities they are given. However the same can be said of the remainder of the population where lateral thinking and support are necessary to break the welfare dependence tradition in some families. Talk with police and they will tell you that it is the same street addresses that occupy most of their time and are the source of 'domestics' (family violence) calls.

The social degradation of country towns is a shame and it is not because of low incomes, that was always the case with the seasonal farm work available. It is also why there used to be home veggie gardens, house cows/goats for milk for growing children and underground mutton simmering on the stove.

And of course we are both guilty of overlooking the evils of Alcohol in society “generally”. Grog does not carry on the label, “blackfella” anymore than “whitefella”.

[Deleted for abuse.]

I get the impression that the "shallow understanding" might lie more with some of the advocates at least as much as with the "deeply angry" commentators.

Those who've got into the industry because of their views on society and who are unable to take a different look at the issue.

Most of us will only have annecdotal evidence to go on, the small number of people we know personally who live in public housing, media reports and the experiences of other friends. For many the picture is not uniform but it's quite different to the one that many of the public housing advocates present.

We need way's of helping the genuinely needy and at the same time of bring change in those along for the ride and of breaking cycles of intergenational welfare depence in some families.

A more honest approach to the issue and less dismisal of the concerns of those who pay for all this by the industry might be a start.

R0bert

Hmm, it's strange that a topic about online commentators carrying prejudices about public housing would erupt into a conversation that proves the author right.

Cornflower
"
There are thousands of migrants who came from the most wretched of circumstances. Yet they do not choose to walk past the soap, destroy their shelter, or discourage their children from going to school."

Difference is these people come from an environment where these things didn't exist, all the way to Australia specifically because they wanted TO experience these things.

For Aboriginal Australians, up until very recently most parents were forced to attend schools where they were treated very poorly and only remember being offered zero opportunities afterwards;
This they carried with them, and regardless of the state of today, is what they tell their kids and grandkids- preventing the cycle from breaking.

Let's face it, when you grow up in a family wallowing in externally-applied social stigma for most of its life, and you ask them about their life and they tell you about their school life, you're not exactly going to be motivated to experience those things next.