Spreading the Joy !

Miller's Point is an inner Sydney suburb with some magnificent harbour views. It is also the site of ancient public housing and these include a nineteenth century terrace and an assortment of houses  that are in dire need of major repair.  The building industry knows that the cost of trying to bring them up to scratch would be prohibitive and it would be far cheaper to think demolition - and a rebuild !

That is exactly what the state government thought and so far 23 have been sold, with the sites bringing between $1.6 and $ 2.5 million each, delivering over $50 million - which has been used to create 1500 new social housing dwellings in Sydney and rural New South Wales.

Any reasonable person would see the logic in this plan. If a building is old and decrepit and situated on a valuable land site a wise owner would realise on the asset and use the money to create a bigger number of dwellings where property values are lower.   There is a huge waiting list for public housing and this building plan is adding to housing stock and easing the pressure to put a roof over the head of more people.

A further six old homes at Miller's Point are slated for auction, and once again the tenants are fighting a last stand to try and prevent the sale.   They claim a " right " to remain in public housing at this site and simply want these last remaining old homes restored at a great cost rather than spreading the joy for a lot more public housing people.

These people are public housing tenants - and they are not facing homelessness.  What they are objecting to is the loss of magnificent harbour views - and that is not something guaranteed to anyone in either the private or public housing sector.   It would be quite feasible for land between Miller's Point and the harbour to become the site of a towering unit block that obliterated those harbour views - and that could happen with no regard to the ownership of the homes involved.

This standoff involves a clash of thinking on the whole public housing issue.  Many people seem to think that when they finally acquire the rental of a Housing Commission home it is " theirs " for life - and that is plainly not so.  Public housing is allocated with need in mind and tenants should expect several changes of venue as they move from single status, to living with a partner and children, to old age.  The Housing Commission builds it's housing stock accordingly to achieve the logical mix to suit it's tenants needs.

There is another aspect of public housing policy that seems to be forgotten. Rents are geared to the financial status of the tenant and consequently the ability to pay becomes the criteria - but it works both ways.   There is no hard and fast rule, but there is an expectation that when a tenant's financial situation improves they will either rent in the private sector or take up home ownership.  Public housing is not on offer to the wealthy - and certainly not to millionaires !

The rules in place and to which tenants agree on being allocated public housing is the promise that they will regularly keep the Housing Commission informed of their income level - and the income earned by any other person residing in  the home.   The rent is geared to the level of income being generated within the tenancy - not to the individual whose name appears on the tenancy agreement, and this relates to both overtime and any business activity being carried out by a tenant.

That magic word "entitlement " seems to often appear when housing disputes arise.  There seems to be an assumption that a Housing Commission tenancy is for "life " - and this is not so.  It is totally unreasonable that a government agency should waste money trying to bring to standard old property long past it's commercial lifetime just to satisfy the tenant who happens to like the view.

Housing stock is just like any other commercial asset.   If it can be sold to increase the wealth necessary to broaden the provision of public housing for the masses, then that is the course of action required by the Commission.   To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty !