Conditions attached to the gifting of public housing.
Since
the transfer of titles is sometimes preceded by a period of
management outsourcing anyway - lets look at the extraordinary loose
conditions placed by the government in Victoria upon the Community
Housing Providers who are given the titles of public housing.
You
might think that, in exchange for being given the properties and
receiving all the rents, they would be taking over the role of public
housing? Think again.
The
Government guideline states that 'up to 50%' of the vacancies need to
be from the public housing waiting list – or eligible to be on the
waiting list. The 'UP TO' loophole renders the whole thing rather
meaningless.
A
recent Public Private Partnership in Victoria resulted in only 10-15%
of its newly built properties being made available to people on low
incomes. Obviously the developers and the ALP government think that
this is a fair and reasonable exchange.
Maybe
this gives us a clue as to what percentage can result under the 'up
to 50%' Government guideline.
So
- the titles of desperately needed and publicly
owned
properties are handed over to
Community Housing businesses. In return Community Housing allocates
up to 50% of vacancies to those on the waiting list or eligible to be
on it.
The
rest of the vacancies - we predict
well over half –
can be rented out to prospective tenants with an income of up to
$905 gross per week – well
above the income threshold of people on low incomes.
Compare this with the maximum weekly rates for a person on Disability
Pension -$388
Sole Parent - $360 Newstart -$258
In
other words former public housing properties are being given away and
end up being offered to a different clientele altogether.
Predictably
those at the bottom end of the economic scale, the most disadvantaged
people, will fall through the cracks, having had their housing (
public housing ) privatised without them being aware of it. They will
end up displaced, living in housing stress, squeezed out to make way
for gentrification, living in boarding houses, experiencing food
insecurity, or made destitute or homeless. This is why the
privatisation by stealth of public housing is such a class
issue.
The
misuse of Commonwealth Rent Assistance – CRA
What's
more, regarding the percentage of tenancies which are
taken from the public housing waiting list, or eligible to be on
the waiting list ( a later amendment ) – for these the Community
Housing Provider can charge 30% of a renter's income in addition
to the maximum amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance it can,
which
goes directly to the Community Housing Provider.
As stated by the peak body CHFA - Commonwealth Rent
Assistance was never intended as an operating subsidy for Community
Housing companies, but has effectively become one over time.
In
fact, Commonwealth Rent Assistance adds around 50% to rental income
across a provider's whole operation over and above what would be
received if rents were not optimised for CRA. The
peak body for Community Housing also makes it clear that ongoing
access to CRA is 'crucial'
to maintaining their businesses.
That's
a hell of a lot of ongoing
taxpayer-funded money
needed
to prop up community housing associations
and providers, who now own the properties,
in order for them to provide even a percentage of vacancies to those
on low incomes and pensions.
The
public has a right to know just what community housing - sometimes
referred to as social housing - is really costing.
Compare
this to Public Housing where tenants receive no Commonwealth Rent
Assistance whatsoever,
because the rents are genuinely within their means, (
and go back into the public purse ) and you have to ask
'Which is the real subsidised
housing here?'
Like
the National Rental
Affordability Scheme- NRAS
- these schemes do not make good financial sense. They are financial
black holes which the taxpayer has to pay for.
Sources
http://chfa.com.au/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/docs/eligibility_allocation_and_rent_setting_in_ch_final_april_2014.pdf
pp
22. 41. 43. 44. 45.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/inclusionary-zoning-policies-can-exclude-poorer-residents-from-highend-apartments-20150312-1421a7.html
FRIENDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING VIC
KEEP PUBLIC HOUSING IN PUBLIC HANDS
Good blog - a clear exposure of the privatisation of public housing and also the practices of rent relief which benefit the rich and other schemes. Not familiar with NRAS but will look into it. There's a huge outcry about the govt trying to privatise Medicare but the privatisation of public housing is just rolling along unhindered. It sucks because it is the only housing that remains where a quarter of income is taken out as rent. People don't realise that this used to be the standard for all housing. That was what people expected to pay as rent. Now people pay 50-60 % or more of their income in rent. There are so many people in housing stress.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that 25% of income is a livable rental goes way back. It was determined before it was common that women were in the workforce. So, you think, what has women working to do with rent? Study the development of the market and you'll see in the 60's or so they statred selling houses based on two incomes. The capitalist wants to maximise their grab, so landlords started pushing rents up based on the two income family. Over time this priced lots of people out of the market if they were a one income family or single or a pensioner. Government rent remains at the 25% of income as a fair rent that should not put a person in rent-related poverty.
ReplyDeleteOnce the housing is no longer government, rent goes up bit by bit and many other possible added charges may be applied, this applies to much of the so called "social housing" but not all.
To overcome these problems we need to force governments to build more housing, government housing. Hammer your local pollies and spread the word that government housing is a right, it should be in ample supply and it shold be available to all who want to live in government housing regardless of income.