Thirteen councils in the East and South-East of Melbourne (representing over 2 million people) have signed a Charter advocating that a massive amount of public land be made available for Public Private Partnerships, which will have a component of 'Social' or 'Affordable Housing'. The rationale is that this will address homelessness.
Here is Friends of Public Housing Victoria's position statement regarding this housing strategy,which was sent to councillors and candidates before the Council elections.
Our position statement was the result of numerous drafts formulated within FOPHV( public tenants, activists and supporters),as well as members of Defend and Extend Public Housing and Hands Off Public Housing. We thank everyone for their collaborative efforts.
Of course the arguments and principles contained in our position statement apply not only to the thirteen councils but are widely relevant.
Thankyou for all the responses we received from councillors and candidates who were unaware of aspects of the Charter, and thanked us for explaining some of the nuances of the arguments. It was a successful political action on our part.
--------------------------------------------------
Re ‘The Regional Local Government Homelessness and Social Housing Charter 2020’
Friends of Public Housing Victoria (FOPHV) write to support and welcome 13 Councils' intention to tackle homelessness and housing stress, but have grave reservations about the current plans to sacrifice public land to support an endeavour which is unlikely to meet its objectives.
In particular, we urge the Councils to concentrate their support on Public Housing rather than on promoting so-called “Social Housing ” (read Community Housing) in Public Private Partnerships. Please note- the major Community Housing Associations are also property developers.
As you may be aware, the term Social Housing is being used as an umbrella term and misleadingly conflates two very different housing models - basically public and private.It is Public Housing which is the best solution to ending homelessness. The other options are expensive ways of not meeting that objective.
In our view, the issue of homelessness is being used here as an emotional hook to ensure the public’s blind support for this dubious change in housing policy direction.
In fact Community Housing does not have a good record in housing the homeless or in sustaining tenancies. It prefers working tenants and often shamelessly overlooks the homeless and is quick to evict, relative to Public Housing. This is a consequence of the Community Housing model itself, which requires it to make a surplus.
As we have already seen with the Public Housing Renewal Program ( PHRP ), which also involves Public Private Partnerships and the loss of public land, only a small proportion of the land ends up being used even for Community Housing and none for Public Housing. Private interests appropriate the rest.
Lack of transparency
The language used to discuss these issues lacks transparency.
‘Social Housing’ in practice nearly always means Community Housing, although its definition extends in theory to Public Housing. ‘Community’ and ‘Social’ housing are warm fuzzy terms that disguise the cold hard reality of privatisation. Community Housing is a misleading term referring to corporate structures less answerable to tenants or to the general public than Public Housing. Commercial-in-confidence protects Community Housing from scrutiny. The public is unable to find out how public funds and assets are utilised. Even the term Public Housing is now being misused. eg Community Housing is being called by the Victorian Government the 'new Public Housing'. ‘Affordable Housing’ is another slippery term. Properties charging up to 80% of market rents (usually set at 75% to ensure charitable status and tax breaks) can call themselves ‘Affordable Housing’. This is hardly affordable for many people on low incomes.
In particular the term ‘Social Housing’ conceals the practice of ‘stock transfers’ - the gifting of Public Housing property titles, and the transfer of management which is often a precursor to title transfer. This bipartisan policy of privatisation has been going on for the last 10 years with little to no public discussion.
More background
The Victorian Labor Government is on record as planning to transfer the management of more Public Housing stock to Community Housing, with a view to title transfer at a later date. Labor has refused to divulge how many properties it intends to hand over. In 2017 Victorian State budget submission, the Community/ Social Housing Industry called for the titles of an additional 12,000 publicly owned properties to be given to them.
Unlike Public Housing, Community Housing requires a constant stream of Commonwealth Rent Assistance ( CRA ) in order for it to function. This makes Community Housing and their tenants vulnerable to changes in Federal policy. Rather than propping up Community Housing with CRA, this public money would be better spent in building public housing.
Should a tenant experience an adverse change in circumstances ( sickness, unemployment etc ) Community Housing businesses are bound only by a vague ‘hardship provision’ clause, unlike the Public Housing system which adjusts rents to 25% of the reduced income. It is this protection that literally keeps people off the streets!
According to ‘The Regional Local Government Homelessness and Social Housing Charter 2020’ the 13 Councils that are signatories are not bound to any specific actions. Friends of Public Housing Victoria therefore asks, in regard to such an important issue as homelessness, that Councillors will serve their communities rather than the policies of any particular party and will look at this issue with an independent eye.
In reality, it is unlikely that this ‘Regional Local Government Homelessness and Social Housing Charter 2020’ direction will have any significant impact on homelessness.
To make matters worse, irreplaceable public land will be gifted to private developers including Housing Associations, and the opportunity to solve the problem of homelessness by building public housing on public land will be lost.
WHERE THE CHARTER AND ITS BACKGROUND BRIEFING GET IT WRONG.
The Charter which has been signed by 13 Councils contains some serious errors and omissions.
In its definition it claims that ‘Social Housing is rented to ‘low income households’. In fact, middle income renters are also eligible for 'Social Housing' as defined in the Government Gazette. A single person without dependents can earn up to $62,600 per annum and still be eligible for ‘Social’ and ‘Affordable’ Housing.
Community Housing leases might begin at 30% of income, but there are no guarantees that this won’t change, especially as Community Housing Organisations are separate businesses with their own policies and procedures, and there are a great deal of variations across the board.
In the background briefing, the point is made that "experts agree that Social Housing is the best solution to preventing homelessness". In fact homelessness expert Professor Guy Johnson and AHURI have both conceded that Public Housing is superior to all other models,including Community Housing, in combating homelessness.
Friends of Public Housing Victoria would like to offer a platform to Councillors wishing to support Public Housing.
We are compiling a Report Card before the Council Elections and publishing the results widely on our social media platforms. Please answer the following questions for the benefit of your constituents.
REPORT CARD
Flag - please read carefully.
In the interest of clarity there has been a slight change in wording from the previous version of our Report Card.
1. Do you support Public Housing as an integral part of the housing mix?
2. In Victoria, Public Housing as distinct from Community Housing, makes up 2.7% of all housing. Is this too high? Is this too low?
3. Is Public Housing the best model for preventing and addressing homelessness?
4. Have you or anyone in your family or friendship circle ever been homeless?
5. Do you think the language regarding the various housing models should be more transparent?
6. Do you think the issue of Public Housing versus Community Housing has been sufficiently discussed in the public domain?
7. Should public tenants and those eligible for public housing be sufficiently informed of the differences between Community and Public Housing and of their rights and protections?
8. Do you oppose the transferring of Public Housing stock to Community Housing corporations?
9. Do you support a significant build of Public Housing in your area to address homelessness?
10. Would public land that is being earmarked for private and 'Social Housing’ be better utilised for Public Housing?
Any further comments you wish to make are welcome,and will be published.
Please respond via our campaign email address housinghumanrights@gmail.com
FRIENDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING VICTORIA
DEFEND AND EXTEND PUBLIC HOUSING and HANDS OFF PUBLIC HOUSING
https://www.facebook.com/FOPHVIC http://savepublichousing.blogspot.com.au/
SOURCES
http://baysidenews.com.au/2020/09/14/councils-unite-for-social-housing/
The Regional Local Government Homelessness & Social Housing Charter 2020 (pdf, 1MB)
https://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Advocacy/Tackling_homelessness_in_Frankston_City/Regional_Local_Government_Homelessness_and_Social_Housing_Group_Charter
Great work, as usual Fiona
ReplyDeleteThat 13 Bayside Melbourne Councils support using unused public land for social housing is welcome but misguided if the new housing is not public or government housing. History has proven that social housing through the community housing model only pays lip service to addressing homelessness. Very few of most disadvantaged tenants end up in community housing. In addition Commonwealth Rental Assistance is required for disadvantaged tenants unlike those in public housing. Plus don't lose more of our public owned land for private profit.
ReplyDeleteLocal govts with this campaign 'Homelessness and Social Housing" seem to me to be going through the motions about doing nothing because we all know what they mean by 'Social Housing' They focus on wealthier tenants who can pay higher rents. This will not help homelessness at all.
ReplyDelete