A Conflict of Choice !

Many will  remember the rowdy demonstrations over a year ago when it was proposed to sell derelict public housing in Sydney's Millers Point and use the money to build a vastly greater number of new public housing homes to shorten the queue.

It quickly became an argument between those with a pragmatic outlook and left wingers demanding that those at the bottom of the social pyramid should not have to lose their magnificent views of Sydney Harbour.   It was argued that the poor were being displaced - to make way for the rich.

From a practical point of view, there was no contest. The dilapidated housing at Millers Point was over a hundred years old.  The plumbing and wiring was shot - and as any builder will know it is cheaper to demolish and rebuild than to renovate. That is why demolish and rebuild is legion in the private sector.

The Socialist left demanded that this public housing remain at Millers Point simply because the poor were entitled to live in suburbs with high social prestige and million dollar views.  The pragmatists cited straight mathematics.   Turning each of these Millers Point sites into cash would have the capacity to finance five new public housing homes elsewhere in Sydney - and help shorten the sixty thousand families waiting for public housing accommodation.

The mathematical argument won out and these old homes have been selectively offered on the market.  One recently sold for $ 7.7 million and so far sales have generated $ 215 million, resulting in a rash of new contracts to build new public housing stock.  We no longer cluster public housing in a large group and today public and private housing is interspersed to create a more convivial social mix.

This argument over Millers Point highlights one of the problems faced with getting the best out of the existing public housing stock.   The tenants at Millers Point and their supporters cited their " entitlement " to remain at Millers Point and demanded that the old housing stock be renovated. This belief in " entitlement "  runs contrary to public housing practice.

The needs of people change dramatically over the period of their lifetime - and consequently their housing needs also follow a changing pattern.   What suits a young couple is obviously inappropriate when the family extends with children, and then in older age this need again contracts sharply.  To get the best use out of housing stock, that family would need to change several times.  Unfortunately, many resist change and we often have an aged couple clinging desperately to possession of a three or four bedroom house.

This resistance to change is understandable.   People put down roots.  They have friends nearby and they are known in the local shopping centre.   Unfortunately, it is often impossible to provide the type of accommodation they need nearby - and change means a break with the past - with all the dislocation that brings.

Unfortunately, governments have to be pragmatic.  Public housing depends on the availability of public funds to create a bigger housing pool and to do that requires a constant churn to take advantage of the popularity of established suburbs and upward price movement.   Older housing stock needs renewal to keep renovation costs under control and generate the money to widen the housing pool.

The Millers Point outcome illustrates this practical renewal policy !