With public housing being in short supply for as long as I can remember, is it ti e we rethink how it is delivered.

No doubt we all know a single mother, living in a house fit for a family.

Perhaps public housing needs to be more like public rooms, so we can at least have more than just a single person living in a house, even if they have a kid or two.

Perhaps public housing need to be more lime. Parts of the US where they are apartments.

After all, our population is too small for us to end up with ghettos.

At least something like this could address some of the concerns about housing shortages.

rechtub,

What a strange suggestion, in that you seem to think a "single parent" is some sort of lone entity...."even if she has a kid or two"....?

What you appear to be saying is that a "family" consisting of one parent isn't really a family at all, and that maybe we should pack em into high-rise ghettos like they do in the U.S. because for some strange reason you believe that our population is too small to fashion itself into ghettos.

Your type of lower middle-class pseudo supremacy turns my stomach.

I go further than rehctub. I have always felt public housing is immoral.

We get people who have won the lottery of access to public housing, & get to bludge on the rest of the population to the tune of 2 or 3 hundred dollars every week, for the rest of their lives. This is immoral.

All too many better people, who have tried to do the right thing by the community, & themselves, by providing their own housing, are loosing the fight to support them selves & buy their own homes, due to the increasingly ridiculous tax burden being placed on them. Placed on them in part to keep the bludger element in comfortable housing.

If we are to provide this windfall to the no hopers, let's at least do it as cheaply as possible.

There is no reason to do it in large cities with high costs. For those who don't have jobs, it should be in diminishing country towns, where half a dozen houses can be bought for the price of one city house.

The lease should have a definite sunset clause, & any tenant who causes any damage should be made to pay for that damage. Repeat offenders should be black listed.

As with all bludgers, the more you give them, the more of them you get.

I always get a chuckle out of butcher, hasbeen then comes and turns it to a belly laugh.
I missed the point, seeing the title thought at last!
See we once had much more public housing, I agree with the principle.
Not the some times results, slums occupied by those content to do nothing about it.
But it is not all like that,a rural township, very nice country town, had public housing in the 1950,s and 60,s till the 1980s.
COUNCIL sold at almost no deposit housing at affordable prices.
That community today owes much the the Bravery and forethought of its once leader.
Housing the poor or unfortunate makes us community, human, a nation.

I've never lived in public housing, but I think if we expect to live in a reasonably balanced society then it helps if most of the poor people aren't reduced to eating dung after paying their rent and/or living in a ditch.

I do get a laugh from petite bourgeois whingers like butcher and Hasbeen who, having attained a little latitude due to their "incredible virtues", love to toot their own trumpets while laying the boot into people residing a few rungs down the pecking order.

Carry on boys, you're a hoot!

To our lefties, I recall a few years ago much gnashing of teeth among the welfare lobby, when it was found that a Labor lady member of the NSW parliament was refusing to give up her housing commission unit in Glebe, because it was convenient. She had got her subsidy for life & wasn't giving it up for anyone.

Typical lefty, wanting the public to pay their way. They make me sick.

Poirot, I doubt anyone can deny that our services are streached to the max and, unless we fine tune where we can, we may well all be living in ghettos, as the public purse only stretches so far.

Why on earth a single mum requires a three bedroom house is beyond me especially at less than a third of market rent at times.

One room for her, one for her child. Now if she has two kids, they can share a room.

If she has more, tough titties, as she is lucky enough to have he first mistake paid for.

Of cause there are exceptions, so each case must be dealt with on a case by case situation.

There is also the scam whereby one partner has kids from another relationship, plus the one or two kids they now have, so, due to the visitation rights, they are often entitled to a four bedded, just for the nights they have their other kids, if ever.

Meanwhile we have thousands sleeping on the streets, while public housing rooms lay emplty.

If one single public housing room is vacant, that's one too many in my view.

After all, it's a hand out, so they should be great full with any assistance thst they receive.

It is great that our nation provides reasonable accomodation for those who can't afford the private market. It is pathetic when people misuse this privilege and destroy the places they are given. I know of families given up to 3 houses after being total anti social and destroying places given to them. When people feel that something is an entitlement rather than a privelege it will be used and abused. The non discrimitive approach discrimates against many who would glady look after a place well.

butcher,

Your "concern" is reminiscent of the middle-class entrepreneurs who began the Industrial Revolution. These kindhearted souls who lured all the country folk to the towns were happy to see them accommodated in hovels - many families to one dwelling in most cases...warms the cockles of your heart, it does.

Perhaps all the fellas that assist in producing the "mistakes" should contribute to a "building fund" to accommodate their children?

It's strange how you guys seem to assume that all these children appear by immaculate conception.

The housing shortage has arisen because various governments sought the old neo-liberal solution of letting the private market take up the slack, which unfortunately it didn't get around to. It did, however, manage to ramp up the cost of housing in general - which is why you get your homeless people. Homelessness is a societal problem, therefore, I expect good old rechtub to open his big heart and take someone in.

(fat chance)

Hasbeen,

Just noted your post..."Typical lefty, wanting the public to pay their way. They make me sick."

That's where your wrong, Hasbeen. They make you "better".

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall that you often spruik on this forum how great it was that your three heart attacks were attended to on the public purse....or did you pay for everything yourself?

Poirot, Rehctub here.

I really seam to have hit a nerve, if I didn't know, I would picture you as a single mother, or at least a mother of one.

As for the situation, I would suggest runner has pretty much summed it up.

Now as for the fathers contributing, well, decent fathers, who for some reason can't remain in the relationship, do assist with the upbringing of their child.

So perhaps a large portion of the blame lay in the choice of the father, as it takes two to tango.

The baby bonus is as much to blame as anything, as it simply encourages losers to breed with other losers, all in the name of what they perceive as a free lunch.

The thing that amuses me is when these single moms gets screwed over, more than once.

But of cause, it's not their fault as they are simply the victim. It's just a pity these victims can't keep their legs closed, hey!

I'm not sure, but I would assume that the health care card would allow for the likes of the pill.

The whole point of the thread is welfare waste.

It is a huge problem and one that will come back to bite us, as there are simply not enough resources to allow any waste.

Speaking of waste, I see yet again we have millions of dollars, targeted at funding education, flushed down the toilet in the form of pokies.

But hey, some of us already knew that would happen, it's just that the powers to be are too scared to do anything, as welfare recipients are almost half the voting population, and the government knows this.

Poirot, I forgot,to mention that my wife and I do open our homes And hearts to others in need.

We took in one of our wayward nieces for some time, enrolled her in a decent school, provided a stable family environment for her and she did quite well.

She is now in a relationship with a good young fellow and they both have jobs in a mining town.

We also gave up our unit in the city, during peaks holiday season, as another nephew this time was in a serious accident.

We canceled the booking so the family, who lived 90km away could be close to the hospital during Xmas.

We put a wayward inlaw up on our farm. Nothing much but it does have hot and cold running water, heaters and full AUSTAR package.

My wife sponsors a little girl over seas, had done for ten years.

We have donated in excess of a quarter of a million dollars to our local community.

So, what have you done!

rehctub,

A person doesn't have to be a single mother, or be the mother of one (my daughter is married, no children yet) to recognise a puritan on a moral crusade to segregate those he considers the detritus of society.

Now let's see...

You say runner has summed it up perfectly...so that means that single parents (and by "parents: you actually mean "women") go about en masse destroying their accommodation.

Oh and another thing is that it's obviously women's fault because "they" chose the wrong bloke. It couldn't be the blokes fault at all - because that's what they do - right?

"....losers to breed with other losers...." - as a lower middle puritan, you're a stunner. As for keeping legs closed, well yes they have the same problem as men who can't keep their tackle tucked away.

.....and condoms are even cheaper than the pill - and safer if you're a "loser" of the male variety screwing around.

Deary me, whadaya reckon, pokies are expressly approved of by the government because they get some of their money back.....they don't give a stuff if these evil machines lure in those who can least afford it.

I find you a stunning example of all those characters I've read about in English literature. Penny pinching, self-exemplifying, judgmental...wasn't it you who lamented recently that you got out of business because although you used to "shovel" money into the bank, you couldn't do it anymore?

My disgust comes from the way that you refer to these "people" and the way you target women because they are usually the ones who are left with the "responsibility" to care for the child. Why are they different from the wayward in-laws you assist? It's because you are setting yourself and your rellies up a a superior class.

As for your wife sponsoring overseas, it's a nice thing to do. I'll take her one little girl and raise her one - I'm also a sponsor (Ethiopia and Chile)

Poirot, like many threads, this one is getting out of co troll.

The focus of my thread is on why should a person, parent, or even parents, be entitled to a three bedder when they only have one or two children.

I say again, public housing should be public rooms, not houses.

Even one and two bed units would be a better value for money option for the tax payer.

Okay, rehctub, as you say it's probably time to pull back a bit.

Can't you see what you're suggesting? Have you no idea what happens when you segregate members of the community who are downtrodden in the first place? All those so called "estates" in Britain and America are hell-holes. They are no-go areas for most of the public. They breed crime and disadvantage....and you want to make them pseudo hostels so that even the normal advantages of running a house are denied?

And I'm still gobsmacked that you seem to think that a household headed by a single women is "not" a "family". If you'd have been run over by a refrigerated meat truck when your kids were small and your wife had been left alone - would you still comsider that she was the head of a family?

In WA the housing commission builds its houses in all sorts of suburbs. They are dotted here and there amongst ordinary private housing these days. And guess what? The tenants take more pride in them because they feel part of the community, they are not segregated and resentful, they are part of an ordinary community and they blend in by respecting their environment and their neighbours (in most cases)

Poirot, to you as you seem to be the main protagonist, it all comes
down to the fact that you & us do not have the money to solve this
problem the way you want to see it solved.

So, that being so, adapt to the funds available, even if it only turns
out to be tents.
Make no mistake, no matter how much it is now it will decrease from now on.
The mining boom is already ending and our GDP will be going down with it.

A big contributing factor to the problem is thousands of refugees have been released into communities ( capt Emad and family had 3 houses in Canberra) - All refugees are given preferential housing - where did it come from. Every house refugees get is one less for Australians and the waiting list gets longer. Australia has no homeless refugees but thousand of homeless Australians.

Phillip....Australia has no homeless refugees but thousand of homeless Australians.

Now that's a worry, but what do expect when a government try's to fix something that isn't broken.

They should never be forgiven for that.

rehctub
What else is a future disaster, is so far this month more than 1200 potential welfare for lifers have arrived ( the Government only budgeted for 450 ) A vast number were even picked up in Indonesian waters, should have been taken back. This Government will have to go down as the worst Government in Australian history.