Vacant bedroom charge: those who won't move told they will pay

[chilliblue]

From The SMH

Single people and pensioners who refuse to move out of public housing to make way for families will be charged higher rent to stay.

The Minister for Family and Community Services, Pru Goward, said the new vacant bedroom charge was necessary to provide housing access to more needy families.

Ms Goward said there are more than 17,000 houses with three or more bedrooms occupied by single people or couples, which has left 35,000 bedrooms vacant.

Singles will pay an extra $20 each week and couples $30 per week if they refuse to find "more suitable" accommodation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought public housing above and beyond your requirements was not a right.

If people refuse to move, then they should lose their right to any public housing.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Aaron Sice]

is this new for Australia or the UK's current scheme?

context, please.

 

[Ausprop]

singles should be in dorm style housing

 

[Ideo]

is this new for Australia or the UK's current scheme?

context, please.

New for Australia (NSW to be specific).

Makes sense.

 

[spludgey]

That would be an additional income of $36.4M, if everyone refused to move. That's something that's worthwhile!

 

[luckyone]

I think that's a wonderful idea. Such waste in public housing at the moment. I think that if they refuse to move, that other singles should move in with them. That would save even more.

 

[Macca]

It is amazing that home owners will downsize when they live alone yet people in public housing choose to live in a large house by themselves.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they don't have to pay the maintenance costs

Selfish people really aren't they, people with kids desperate for a house and we have some single pensioner living in a 3 bedder alone.

 

[Ideo]

It is amazing that home owners will downsize when they live alone yet people in public housing choose to live in a large house by themselves.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they don't have to pay the maintenance costs

Selfish people really aren't they, people with kids desperate for a house and we have some single pensioner living in a 3 bedder alone.

Some of it has to do with community connections though.

If work, family, friends etc are in an area, and they are told to move 30kms away you can understand why they would complain from a personal perspective (leaving aside economic perspectives and arguments).

 

[westminster]

What I find ridiculous is some of the Dept policies which dictate that a 6 person family on a waiting list must wait until a 5 bedroom house becomes available.
Generally if they are in a Dept housing and their family grows then the Dept don't care and they happily all shared bedrooms etc.
But for those on the list the Dept is only supposed to provide 'suitable' housing when these people who are desperate would be happy in a 3 bedder if offered.

 

[Aaron Sice]

that's the policy makers that have their heads so far up their own backsides they can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[skater]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought public housing above and beyond your requirements was not a right.

If people refuse to move, then they should lose their right to any public housing.

What are your thoughts?

I think it is wrong that they are given ANY right to stay in a home. They don't own it! They should be treated like any other tenant. Actually, no, it should be harder for them because they are NOT any other tenant. If their situation changes, & they don't require the extra space, they should be given another, smaller rental to move into, leaving the old home for a larger family.

If they choose not to vacate, then, they lose the right to have discounted rents, via the Housing Department, and go through the eviction process like any other tenant.

 

[chrispy]

Many years ago when I lived in the UK the Policy at that time in the area I lived, was that when the family moved out and the Occupier became elderly they were moved into a 1 bedroom "Seniors" house in the same area. One level completely self contained with a small garden.

As time went by they became prized dwellings, same area, less to take care of and much lower rent.

Chris

 

[wylie]

I say "bring it on". I have a personal interest in this with someone I know living for $70 a fortnight (I think) in a two bedroom place that was got via some strings being pulled.

I'd love to see him forced to move to a more suitable place (preferably the gutter).

 

[chrispy]

That is the funniest post of a serious subject ...thankyou Wylie for making me roar!!!! Why don't you say what you think

Chris

 

[shopgirl]

Lady I work with lives in a 4 bedroom DOH property at Carlingford, kids have grown up and left home. She works full time but is somewhat a low income earner.
In my mind, with all the families out there on the DOH waiting list, this lady should be forced into either a smaller DOH place or private rental..

Shes been there for 16 years.

Says the only way she will leave HER house is "over my dead body"

doesnt seem right to me. Or lots of other people at work

 

[Macca]

Some of it has to do with community connections though.

If work, family, friends etc are in an area, and they are told to move 30kms away you can understand why they would complain from a personal perspective (leaving aside economic perspectives and arguments).

Perhaps we need to have smaller units available in strategic places, the govt claim they have offered smaller places in nearby suburbs to allow for this.

But in reality many of these people work and should no longer even be in a DOH place. I find it rather selfish for a healthy working 50 year old to living in a subsidised 3 bed room house alone.

There are some seriously disadvantaged people out there who are desperate with chronic illnesses or disabled children etc etc and I feel they have a far greater need.

 

[topcropper]

singles should be in dorm style housing

Yeah, I'd go with that.





Why do we need public housing at all?

OK, it's needed in the outback for aboriginal housing, as a lot of those towns would not get investors wanting to spend money on building houses no matter what the demand or profits.

But what about everywhere else? The huge amount of money it costs could be used to increase welfare payments. So they'd all get more welfare money. Then leave the housing market to the usual financial supply and demand.

I've always wondered how public housing works. Who decides who gets the nice new house, who gets the old buggered house? When people commit crime, do they get booted out? When they get a high paying job do they get booted out?

As I said, besides outback housing for aboriginals, I reckon it could be done away with.


See ya's.

 

[spludgey]

Why do we need public housing at all?

I think you're saying "Why do we need publicly owned public housing at all?", it that's the case, then I might agree with it.

 

[geoffw]

I don't mind the policy on principal. However perhaps some help should be given to those downsizing.

When my parents moved to a smaller house, it was a major exercise. Many things had to be sold or thrown out- including stuff from our own childhood. That sort of disposing of things to which you have an emotional attachment can be very difficult. They are not hoarders- they just used their space. More recently when they went into care, a lot more stuff had to be stored and thrown out. There were very many memories which went out with that trash.

It perhaps takes more than just an order to move to a smaller house.

 

[marg4000]

Some of it has to do with community connections though.

If work, family, friends etc are in an area, and they are told to move 30kms away you can understand why they would complain from a personal perspective (leaving aside economic perspectives and arguments).

In many suburbs in Brisbane the Housing Dept are demolishing older 3bed houses on big blocks and building 4 1 bed apartments on the block. Tenants can be re-housed in the same area and free up bigger homes for families.
Marg