Joe,

I am skeptical of the Murdoch press and the way they manipulate the reporting of issues. Often the article is not done to enlighten the reader to what is a very serious issue in society, in this case homelessness, but rather to promote a secondary agenda, possibly here the issue of the Adelaide City Council and who runs it.

Nasthan,

Is it the responsibility of charities to come up with solutions to social problems. Other than dealing with the day to day problems confronting those they serve, what can they do? Charities do provide important practical advise to government, to help it formulate policy, but outside of that what can they do?

"Charities are not simply there to get bucket loads of government and public money." I do not believe charities in the main get bucket loads of money, certainly the ones I know don't, and generally the bonafide charities use their limited resources wisely in the context that they operate in.

However there are a number of groups masquerading as a charity, including church run ones, who are there for no other reason than to add some kind of legitimacy to the parent organisation. With only a small amount of money raised going to the charitable arm.

One of Rudds biggest mistakes was to spend billions on "school halls".
Yes it provided employment and helped keep the economy afloat but the money could have been spent so much more sensibly elsewhere.
Imagine this amount of money being spent on affordable rental housing. There would have been a huge take up now by people unable to buy and unable to afford rents.
There would have been an outcry from developers and affluent investors using negative gearing to dodge tax but that would have been good for the economy.
It would also have made the economy safe from the housing bubble that is going to tear apart Australia in the near future.
Of course it would take a different mindset to the governments concerned to actually do something concrete instead of the circus of sleeping "out" for one night under carefully controlled conditions.

The homeless have always been a pretty big issue. But I think they should be given a place to stay in.

Dear Luca,

Indeed most of them should, but not by the state or its government.

Then what would you do with those who wreck every home they enter or scare the neighbours away? The government, since it is bound by rigid and formal criteria, cannot make the differentiation, but private people can.

Yuyutsu, how can private property owners prevent their tenants from destroying their rental property any better than the government owned housing? If private owners refuse to rent to a party with a bad reputation they will likely get sued for discrimination and loose. Yet the ratbags who regularly move from one wrecked property to another continue to receive handouts, are not held accountable for their destructive actions and essentially are rewarded for their bad behaviour.

Perhaps we need a tent village in the far north to send those who have been evicted for destroying another's property. These people should also lose the right to receive their benefits directly, other than pocket money with the rest going toward food vouchers and directly toward paying their bills.

Has anyone been watching Struggle Street on SBS. If you want to see how the lowest denominator in society lives and behaves, this program is a real eye opener. I'm sorry to say I've never seen such a bunch of losers in my life; I have almost no sympathy for any of them as their plight is 99% self created.

Dear Hippie,

<<If private owners refuse to rent to a party with a bad reputation they will likely get sued for discrimination and loose.>>

Obviously all anti-discrimination laws should be abolished when it comes to private people (but may remain when dealing with public bodies or bodies that receive public funds or benefits). We should have the freedom to deal in every matter only with those we choose, for whatever reason or even for no reason at all.