Sydney's public housing sell off

[ok180]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-wa...properties-to-be-sold-off-20140319-351fs.html

What are your thoughts on this? I think people living in these properties should be moved on. They are paying $60 or so a week to live in multi million dollar properties in some cases.

It's not like they are going to be bundled up and thrown out to Claymore or Mount Druitt. Most will be going to the massive new development in Lindfield from what I understand. It's hard for the oldies who have been there a long time I guess.

 

[EN710]

I see that (ugly, in my opinion) building from train everyday. From a glance, the inside is not that nice as it's old, and probably quite dirty. Yes it's waterfront, but also next to train line and likely to be noisy.

So if it's multimillion dollar, then sell it for profit and move the tenants to cheaper (probably newer and nicer) building in a different area.

 

[ok180]

So if it's multimillion dollar, then sell it for profit and move the tenants to cheaper (probably newer and nicer) building in a different area.

That is the idea behind it but is is a hard thing to swallow, especially for the elderly who have been there a long time. To them it is more about being in the community they know than the postcode so to speak.

 

[Aaron_C]

That is the idea behind it but is is a hard thing to swallow, especially for the elderly who have been there a long time. To them it is more about being in the community they know than the postcode so to speak.

I heard on the radio last night that some people have been living in those things for 6 generations. Hearing that sort of thing dampens my sympathy for getting them to go move out - I'm not paying my taxes to subsidise their lifestyle.

 

[EN710]

That is the idea behind it but is is a hard thing to swallow, especially for the elderly who have been there a long time. To them it is more about being in the community they know than the postcode so to speak.

Too much emotional reasoning and not logical one. Or probably I'm just skeptical

"As we speak, there are people going from door-to-door, in Millers Point, telling people that they're going to have to leave their homes," Cr Moore said.

...

"All public housing tenants in inner city properties are now put on notice that if the value of your home goes up, the government is going to put you out of your home."

It's not their home as they don't own it. And going from door to door is costing others health and mental costs.

Like renting in any other place, if the owner said you're out, then you're going to be out sooner or later.

 

[ok180]

I heard on the radio last night that some people have been living in those things for 6 generations. Hearing that sort of thing dampens my sympathy for getting them to go move out - I'm not paying my taxes to subsidise their lifestyle.

Oh they certainly have the pedigree don't worry about that lol. I just feel at this point though they have been there that long they may as well be left there until they die. Then the government can go in and sell off what they have to.

Too much emotional reasoning and not logical one. Or probably I'm just skeptical


It's not their home as they don't own it. And going from door to door is costing others health and mental costs.

Like renting in any other place, if the owner said you're out, then you're going to be out sooner or later.

True, but like I said, I think succsesive government have let them become like that. Sure they have had it too good for too long but you could say that about any nice area with housing commision. I don't think it is a good idea to just go in and steam roll a building full of housos just because it is worth a mint. Somewhere along the line you have to consider there is a community and relationships built up in there.

As I said, I think a better solution would be to move anyone on who has been there for less than 10 year or are under the age of 60, the others you may as well just leave there until the croak.

 

[Aaron_C]

Oh they certainly have the pedigree don't worry about that lol. I just feel at this point though they have been there that long they may as well be left there until they die. Then the government can go in and sell off what they have to.

If you say that you might as well not even bother selling it. What if the person who is 61 lives until 100? The NSW Government has to wait 39 years to sell land THEY own? Makes no sense.

Plus they expect to get about $400m from the sale - that can provide housing for thousands upon thousands of people elsewhere.

 

[EN710]

Somewhere along the line you have to consider there is a community and relationships built up in there.

Well, it's not like they're moving outside the country and can't meet anymore.

As I said, I think a better solution would be to move anyone on who has been there for less than 10 year or are under the age of 60, the others you may as well just leave there until the croak.

Then it'll be "unfair" because those "old people" can stay and they don't.

Plus they expect to get about $400m from the sale - that can provide housing for thousands upon thousands of people elsewhere.

Actually, if they sell them, I'm hoping for some sort of government gift or tax break....

 

[ok180]

I just feel there needs to be a bit of compassion for the elderly. Yeah, they should have done something more with themselves than rely on public housing, yes it isn't "their" house but somewhere along the line you have to look at the governments hand in this and ask why did they let it become the situation it has?

 

[Aaron_C]

I just feel there needs to be a bit of compassion for the elderly. Yeah, they should have done something more with themselves than rely on public housing, yes it isn't "their" house but somewhere along the line you have to look at the governments hand in this and ask why did they let it become the situation it has?

So the rest of the other 5m people who live in Sydney should just keep subsidising someone's lifestyle because they are old? How is that fair?

 

[TMNT]

Just another example of the entitlement mentality for the majority of people within this lucky country

 

[EN710]

"In the last two years alone, nearly $7 million has been spent maintaining this small number of properties," she said.

If that compassion worth $3.5M per year maintenance fees paid by tax payers, I think it can be used to support them to move on for a (lot) better live.

 

[ok180]

So the rest of the other 5m people who live in Sydney should just keep subsidising someone's lifestyle because they are old? How is that fair?

We're subsidising anybody on pension as it is. Long term I don't agree with public housing on prime real estate but surely just uprooting people who have been there for generations is a bit hard? What about the 78 year old widow who has been living there since she was in her 20's? "You'll be right love!!!"

Sure they have worked the system to their advantage for too long but you have to take it a bit easier on the old folk. I am not arguing for the vast majority of the people in these properties, just the handful of oldies I think they should be a little easier on.

 

[chilliblue]

Whilst I do feel sorry for them, they should be moved on. Unfortunately these are not just their homes but they are our homes and it is time that better use is made of them.

There are children living in cars and adults who live on the streets waiting for a roof over their heads.


My other feeling is I hope the money is not squandered and does go to assist additional people.

 

[Beau Lyon]

True, but like I said, I think succsesive government have let them become like that. .

... And this will continue until something changes, as they are trying to do now it seems. Change is a difficult thing.

 

[beachgurl]

There are so many people on the Housing wait lists that if selling that block provides the funds to house many families then I think it is fair to move them on.

I lived in the Eastern Suburbs prior to having my first child and once we went down to one income we could no longer afford to stay there. Having to pay your own way you have to make choices and downgrade your location so why is it any different for these people? I understand they have been there for the majority of their lives but surely they have known this day would come.

When I worked in top tier law a few of my colleagues were doing pro bono work for Housing tenants. One "client" was living in a mould-infested house and was being represented so that Housing would either fix the property or re-house her in the area. Housing said they would re-house her somewhere west (she was in the inner west) and she said she can't move as it's the only area she knows and she didn't want to move to the western suburbs. Tough bikkies I reckon. Apparently she won her case.

 

[Ideo]

The older properties along Millers Point are too old to be economically viable anymore. The selfishness of wanting to continue to overfund them so inner city types can wax lyrically about how diverse their city is is insane. The money comes out of the maintenance pot for all DoH properties and that means others must suffer.

Personally I support public housing. But residents also need to be realistic about it. It's a rental. Not ownership - and even ownership can see compulsory acquisition.

 

[Macca]

Public housing is there to help the needy. We should be trying to help as many people as possible within the budget.

IMO we should sell it all off englobo to maximise the return and as long as the proceeds are used to build more accommodation for those who need it, no one should be complaining.

The people who have scrimped and saved to buy their own place quite often down size when the kids leave home simply to save money.

The people in public housing should be placed in the same situation, no more kids means a smaller place within 1 year or extra rent to be paid. There are lots of people with kids desperate for more rooms and it is grossly unfair for a single person, whatever their age, to be taking up a 3 bedroom house for one person.

 

[lizzie]

While you're at it ... sell off the dozen of so large multiunit blocks at Dixon Park Beach, Merewether - prime prime prime real estate right across the carpark of one the best beaches on the east coast

http://collections.ncc.nsw.gov.au/k...rn=61286&QueryPage=/keemu/pages/nrm/Query.php

 

[Corey Batt]

Speaking from the experiences of seeing the SA Housing trust (and buying them from the govt) I'm quite happy for them to remove public housing in it's entirety. The current system creates stagnation as tenants have difficulty moving between properties unlike normal renters ("job too far away, don't bother changing houses because I don't want to lose my Trust house" mentality), lack of responsibility with many (trashing the houses, as they won't be kicked out) and general slumminess from the concentration of old Trust houses in certain areas. With the current welfare subsidies available and robust property sector available to provide supply, maintaining public housing seems to be antiquated and based on old socialist values, than practicality and individual responsibility.

The only section of society which I can see this not being sufficient is those with disability, as there is a very limited supply of properties which can fulfill the requirements for those with special needs. I'm sure there could be a PPP scheme designed to address this however.