tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4662768362955610923.post6173611065978136087..comments2024-03-24T19:22:54.772-07:00Comments on SAVE PUBLIC HOUSING - Human Need not Corporate Greed : HOUSING - PUTTING YOU IN THE PICTUREUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4662768362955610923.post-81819325687708591722015-11-09T21:46:23.143-08:002015-11-09T21:46:23.143-08:00John Pilger is correct, unfortunately the pool is ...John Pilger is correct, unfortunately the pool is constantly being muddied by the various references relating to housing people outside the private rental market. The numbers of public housing tenants are being reduced by stealth by ongoing transfers to the housing associations, with less rights than what they had before the transfers. Slick spin doctoring by previous Labour and current coalition State governments to paper over the immense problem of insufficient public housing places is not the way to go Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4662768362955610923.post-15929461049573534712015-08-06T23:55:12.574-07:002015-08-06T23:55:12.574-07:00The 12000 public housing units (taxpayer owned man...The 12000 public housing units (taxpayer owned managed by government units) are still on the books to be given over to 'social housing'. This is taking taxpayer owned property without any form of permission by the taxpayers (referendum or whatever) and handed over to non- taxpayer (ie corporate entity in some form) ownership. The crux is it no longer is government managed taxpayer owned, it is effectively private ownership and under a different set of rules as well. <br />Then there is the question of who benefits in the long run, favoured mates, watch and see.<br />Imagine your favourite large supermarket. If the manager there was to put all the profitable goods in three aisles, then sell off those three aisles to some buyer, how long would that manager be before getting tossed into the clink? <br />Privatisation is the same principle. Taxpayer paid for and owned (morally at least if not technically since law changes a while ago) assets have been sold off willy nilly by successive governments, Kennett in Vic and Bligh in Qld are 'prime suspects'.Both were tarred with the same brush as history shows.<br /><br />Getting rid of public housing in much the same way by renaming all housing aimed at the lower income market as "social housing" and handing over government housing to some interim stage of operator under different rules, having no guarantees for secure long term affordable tenancy is just privatisation in disguise.<br /><br />We should all be screaming for MORE GOVERNMENT HOUSING. We should be demanding to know what the earlier idea of palming off 12000 public housing units is at. Will the ALP government guarantee us these are not going to be palmed off in any way? Will Daniel Andrews come out and tell us, prove to us, that the talk of selling the 12000 is gone, finished, done for ever.<br /><br />Further still, will Daniel Andrews start the process in words and in deed to replace the many thousands of government housing units we have lost over the past two decades, say, (and build them to the good standard of the comparitively new units in Elizabeth St North Richmond for example).<br /><br />Ideally, we should aim to have enough government housing so that anyone who wants to rent a government home is able to do so, regardless of income. (I doubt there would be too many billionaires applying).<br /><br />Before housing tenants and concerned taxpayers vote at the election next year (2016) these questions need answers. We need to see action, not just hollow promises, we need allocated land, planning and finance being processed so we know its real. Yes one is state the other federal, but on the "touch one touch all" principle to punish the federal lot because of the state action or failed action holds good (both ways) so far as I am concerned.Jack Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647137735891699145noreply@blogger.com