ANOTHER POLITICAL CLANGER

When the Liberal Coalition party were in power in Victoria, it was alleged that at a meeting between a senior Liberal politician and community housing representatives somebody asked the question

'What about the public tenants?'

Maybe the reason for the question was unease about entering into massive paradigm -shifting changes in housing policy, without the knowledge and consent of the public tenants themselves.

Maybe the questioner was disturbed to be entering into arrangements ( involving the prospect of big, serious money and masses of properties ) which include the very real possibility of mass displacement of public tenants from their homes - the end result being homelessness?

Who knows ?

However, it was alleged that 'community housing' members present at the meeting were told that they needn't be overly concerned because

'PUBLIC TENANTS DON'T FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT THEIR HOMES AS THE REST OF US DO.'

On discussing the fuel exise - ' the poor don't drive'

and the solution for first home owners is 'to get a good job'.

And furthermore, we can rip the homes away from public tenants with impunity because public tenants are somehow different to the rest of society – we don't feel the same way about our homes as other people do …

A dangerous prejudice that attempts to justify policies of mass displacement. 

Take Queensland for example. A decision was made by the Liberals in 2013 to 'move on' - displace - 250,000 !! public tenants from their homes to make way for 'community housing'.  QCOSS supported the government regarding this policy decision. Barely a mention in the news ...

The lack of any outcry or vigorous criticism by other political parties  - who also have a vested interest in the desired outcome -  is just as disturbing.

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/qld-govt-to-shake-up-social-housing-system/story-e6frfku9-1226684848152

More about this in a future post ..

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

DESMOND TUTU

HOMES UNDER THREAT

Friends of Public Housing Victoria is made up of public tenants, supporters and academics who oppose the privatisation of public housing. We oppose the largely secretive practice of transferring public housing properties to community / social housing businesses.

Ms Alma Ryrie-Jones – editor and policy writer has researched and written a 15 page document entitled 'Homes Under Threat'. Alma spoke eloquently at our Film Night in conjunction with Architects For Peace. She suggested a letter writing campaign and is happy to organise this. If you want to get in contact with Alma please drop a line to my email address housing.humanrights@gmail.com and I will forward your details on.

Here are some excerpts from the document Homes Under Threat.

Public housing homes – homes that provide genuine affordability and security for people in need.
53,000 tenants in Victoria call public housing home.

                                                                   ********

' Everyone agrees that the shortage of affordable housing is a serious problem, and that there must be an expansion of the stock of available affordable housing to deal with it. There is less agreement about what action should be taken. Instead of reinvesting in upgraded public housing and expanding the stock of public housing, state and territory governments have turned to models of funding and development that involve divesting themselves of the existing assets, responsibilities and structures. This means turning public assets over to private landlords, and with it the power over tenancies. It means giving up any responsibility for the well-being of tenants.' P4.

'Nor does anyone have a vision for a permanent balance that would include retaining public assets. If anything, there is the suggestion that all public housing will eventually disappear into the hands of housing associations and community housing providers – alliances between property developers and not for profit organisations, or not for profit organisations turned developers.'  P6

Spin, secrecy and stock transfers.

'It is difficult to understand why there has been such a limited public debate about these issues and how such major action could be taken on so limited an evidence base.'

Positive labels like ‘social’ and ‘community’ make it difficult for many people to see anything to worry about in these developments, and public tenants themselves are often the last to know or understand what is happening. P7

'A good deal of information goes missing from public sites at the slightest suggestion of criticism or open debate. This lack of open discussion and suppression of information is unhealthy. The arguments for governments getting out of direct provision of public housing have been widely promoted, but the arguments against, or arguments for alternative government approaches, have not been part of the conversation.' P7

'In fact the arrangements appear to have successfully compromised the independence of the very people who have the best record not only of serving and supporting the poor and disadvantaged but in speaking out when governments get involved with unscrupulous developers and try to evade their responsibilities by handing over service delivery and the assets that go with it. We wonder how people would view these changes if they were called ‘privatising’ or, more accurately, ‘giving away’ public housing to the private sector and if advocates of social justice were leading the charge against it, instead of becoming part of it.' P7

The problem was not created overnight and cannot be solved overnight. Long-term thinking and planning is needed, not a focus on short-term gains. Instead, the ‘plan’ is to pass the responsibility to others and relinquish ownership and control to organisations which are at least partly, and sometimes wholly, driven by profit motives.P9

These properties are an asset that cannot be replaced,ever,once lost'  P12

GIVING AWAY PUBLIC HOUSING - CUTTING THROUGH THE HYPE.

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

'ARCHITECTS FOR PEACE' PARTNER WITH FOPHV TO HOLD A FILM NIGHT

  

                                              

On Thursday 21^st May 2015 we held a very successful Film and Information session on the future of public housing, homelessness and public tenants' rights.

Hosted by an enlightened group of urban professionals called Architects for Peace, and in partnership with Friends of Public Housing Vic the evening attracted a good crowd - in fact it was standing room only.

I spoke on the privatisation of public housing and we watched a film about how the poor are being shunted out of their homes in Berlin by endless rent rises, and are organising to stop this.

A vibrant group attended, including fellow public housing activists, Eileen Artmann, Kate Borland, and Yani Kirkinis. Apologies from Jeremy Dixon and Howard Marosi. We had Alma Ryrie-Jones - editor and policy writer supporting us. Also members of a local church. Public tenants came along and lots of interested members of the public. And of course the Architects for Peace. Afterwards the room was buzzing with great practical suggestions on where to go from here.  Wonderful energy!

  Here's a little about this organisation of architects, taken from their website.

Archite     Architects for Peace is an independent multidisciplinary group of architects, urban designers, engineers, planners, landscape architects, environmentalists and artists working in the public domain, seeking sustainable urban development and environmental justice based on social justice, solidarity, respect and peace.

A4P are a humanitarian, not for profit incorporated professional association.

A4P denounce the involvement of urban professionals in the creation of structures of repression, conflict and silence.

A4P expose and promote the discussion of political agendas which impinge on people's rights to their countries, cities, public spaces, land and their environment.

As a professional group Architects for Peace contribute and add to peace efforts, exercising the social responsibility of our professional roles.

https://www.facebook.com/architectsforpeace/info?tab=page_info

http://twitter.com/archpeace

Below is a link to another good news story, again featuring architects reaching out to local communities.

This is how things CAN be done when creativity, social inclusion and enlightened solutions for human problems come before the PROFIT FACTOR …

 

http:/www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/may/12/assemble-turner-prize-2015-wildcard-how-the-young-architecture-crew-assemble-rocked-the-art-world?CMP=share_btn_fb

 

Right click and 'Open Hyperlink'

 

 

Cheers, Fiona

I will endeavour to post at least twice a week. Please support our campaign. 

IDEAS FOR A FAIRER HOUSING SYSTEM FOR ALL

POST by HOWARD MAROSI  - Friends of Public Housing Victoria

Howard is a Union delegate and skilled negotiator with a broad interest in politics. With the late Doug Jordan, Howard arranged a meeting with Trades Hall Council which subsequently passed a resolution to oppose any further transfers of public housing stock to 'social' and 'community' housing companies.

WAYS TO MAKE HOUSING ECONOMIC FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT THE INVESTORS.

DEFEND AND EXTEND PUBLIC HOUSING

1. Public housing can be for everyone that wants it. Just like public education and public health. Opening up public housing to all will stop the ghettos, and will raise more funds, as wealthier people will also rent.

2. Not for profit rents in Public Housing. (Public tenants pay a fixed rate of 25% of their income).
As wealthier people enter public housing, rents can be lowered for the poorer tenants. An absolute maximum amount of rent for public housing can be introduced, to make it worthwhile for those on higher incomes- for example, $200 per week per wage earner.

3. Stop and reverse the gift of public housing from Government to the 'Affordable Housing' Sector, known as “Housing Associations” or “Community Housing”- against the wishes of public tenants. In reality, these are private organizations, which do not have to obey public housing rental limits, or provide security of tenure.

4. It is not necessary to have “mixed developments”, like that in Carlton, where some public housing units were demolished, then replaced by mainly private homes and some public housing units.

5. Existing housing can be acquired for the Public Housing sector

6. Public land should be reserved for public housing needs, and only sold privately when those needs are met.


GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF PRIVATE RENTAL PROPERTY

7. Rent control- limit rent rises to rate of rises in wages/pension.

8. Security of tenure for private tenants. Landlords must have a legitimate reason to evict tenants. That does not include renovating a property to get a higher rent.

REGULATION OF HOME OWNERSHIP

9. Home ownership for all who want it. To be achieved by Government regulation of financing and ownership.

10. Government to limit the number of homes one person can own. Exemptions if necessary for the purpose and period of construction of new homes.

11. The total number of rental properties to be limited to the number of people who would rather rent than own.   (People who own rental properties are depriving other people who want to own their own home. And bidding up the price ).

12. Government to encourage lifetime ownership of housing over freehold ownership, with the ownership to revert back to Government upon death of owner. (for example, by cheaper loans for this than for outright ownership).

13. Government then to sell or rent the properties it regains, as per needs and preferences of the population.

GOVERNMENT FINANCE AND TAXATION OF HOME OWNERSHIP

14. Abolish negative gearing for investors.

15. Establish a Government bank to finance home ownership, with deposits fully guaranteed.

16. Government Bank to attract funds from public by Government ceasing to guarantee deposits, or reducing the level of guarantee of deposits, in private banks.

17. Government to limit private banks` home mortgage interest rates to the rate of wage/pension rise.

18. Big taxes on inheritances of investment property. Some tax on inherited owner-occupied property, too.

19. Taxation of income from rental property to be at a higher rate than tax on wages.

20. Moratorium on mortgage repayment for those who become unable to pay through loss of job, illness etc.

21. Eliminate stamp duty for owner-occupiers.

22. The first-home owners grants would be unnecessary if these other measures are adopted, and can thus be removed, saving Government funds.

1000 PUBLIC TENANTS DISPLACED

ONE THOUSAND TENANTS PERMANENTLY DISPLACED FOLLOWING PUBLIC HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT

The book 'Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth?' includes a discussion of the redevelopment of the Kensington public housing estate in Victoria as part of its global analysis on the subject.

At the time of the redevelopments, there was a strong working class community in Kensington (early 2000's). Public housing communities then made up 30% of Kensington's population and contributed greatly to the cultural diversity of the area, including residents from Italy, Malta, South America, China, Vietnam, Horn of Africa, former Yugoslavia, Turkey and Greece. A large proportion of children in Kensington were from the public housing estate. By all accounts the community in Kensington was thriving with plenty of positive interaction between public tenants and their neighbours. ( Hulse et al 2004 )

The government decided to redevelop the estate which commenced in 2002 and was completed in 2012. It became known as the 'Kensington model' and was a Private/Public Partnership ( PPP ). It was touted as 'a test bed for future inner city housing management' (DHS, 2002).

The project involved a mass relocation of public tenants while the public housing properties were being demolished and new properties built - but what is not widely known is that around one thousand of the relocated public tenants from the Kensington estate never returned. They were permanently displaced. This information is 'not available through relevant government departments'. Eventually however the Office of Housing disclosed that only 20% of relocated tenants 'chose to return after settling in their new area'. As the book states - how much choice the tenants really had is contestable. 

'Mixed Communities : Gentrification by Stealth?' p138

Other public housing estates to follow ... ? 

The redevelopment of the Carlton estate in 2008 had the following projected outcome. 'In evidence to a planning panel hearing for the redevelopment of the Carlton estate, DHS estimated that only 20 percent of the original residents would return on completion (Government of Victoria, 2007)'

The master plans for Fitzroy, Richmond and Prahran are also being informed by the 'Kensington model'. ( Shaw )

'Consultation' with public tenants.

Carlton Residents' Association, one of the stakeholders for the Carlton redevelopment, described the Community Liaison Committee as 'farcical' and a 'sham'.

Did any consultations with public tenants, prior to their mass relocation, include informing them of the government's estimated outcome for their eventual return? Were any planned changes in the number of units, and the number of bedrooms available in the new units, explained to the tenants and their families before their relocation? How many of the original tenants in Carlton returned, following the redevelopment of their estate?

Have entire public housing communities, acting in good faith with their governments, relocated with the reasonable expectation that they would be returning to their homes and neighbourhoods?

In reality, has the outcome of these redevelopments been the destruction of well-established communities and for many, if not most, of the original public tenants, their permanent displacement? ....

Fiona Ross

Spokesperson

Friends of Public Housing Victoria     https://www.facebook.com/FOPHVIC

Sources  

Bridge, G., Butler, T., & Lees, L. (Eds.). (2012). Mixed Communities : gentrification by stealth? Policy Press.

http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Mixed_Communities.html?id=SPJywR489q0C&redir_esc=

If you type in 'Trojan Horse' in the 'search inside' window, you can start reading from p135 

http://www.soacconference.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Shaw-Governance.pdf

http://carltonresidents.org.au/referencegroups/documents/MicrosoftWord-Sell-offofPublicHousingLandontheCarltonHousingEstates.pdf

THE LESSONS OF HISTORY - PICTURES OF SLUMS

SAVE PUBLIC HOUSING



HOW QUICKLY WE FORGET THE LESSONS OF
HISTORY.

 

 

Pictures of the slums from 'I remember'  by  Oswald Barnett  ( 1883–1972)

 

          
                                   ******************************************


A friend of Brian Howe AO advised us to make contact with him, to share with him our concerns regarding the loss of public housing via stock transfers and its ramifications, as well as the issue of public tenants' human rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Howe_(politician)

'Having met Oswald Barnett, the founder of public housing in Victoria, when I was in my teens I was an early convert on the importance of public housing as an important tool to combat poverty and inequality in Australia.'   Brian Howe.

'It is only the Commonwealth government that can reverse the long term trend away from public housing although State governments are important in managing the stock. The reality is that given the inadequate supply of public housing State governments must try to target their limited and ageing stock towards those most in need. Often people without public housing would be homeless. All those who are friends of public housing must campaign for a new deal coming out of the review by the Abbott government of federal state relations. Australia’s national effort on behalf of low income housing has been shameful and cannot be reversed without a commitment to fundamental reform.'

Brian Howe.