Thoughts?
Wendy Lovell Comments on Social Housing?
Trying2SaveABuck on 24/03/2022 - 19:57
Last edited 24/03/2022 - 20:04 by 1 other user
Last edited 24/03/2022 - 20:04 by 1 other user
Poll Options
- 265social housing should be in affluent areas
- 138social housing shouldn't be in affluent areas
Comments
- 1
- 2
Isn't there already a tonne in nice areas? Richmond, prahran, Fitzroy, Malvern etc etc
They can have more!
Have you been to Richmond?
Yeah, maybe wealthy was a better word than nice.
They need to build more public housing in Toorak, Armadale, Caulfield, Elwood, Camberwell, Canterbury, Box Hill, Glen Waverly, and all along the Mornington Peninsula.
There's not enough public transport on the peninsula for it.
those rich areas will quickly become unsafe areas and the rich will move on and gentrify other areas
in my state, all the housing commission suburbs tend to have a lot of crime and anti social behaviour. one area in particular is well known for its drug selling, use and related violence, as well as robbery.
public housing should be spread out across the entire state, so that they aren't all in the same areas.
public housing should be spread out across the entire state, so that they aren't all in the same areas.
So you can send all areas around Sydney to shit ? No thanks.
so that there are only a couple of houses in each area that are housing commission, it won't become a problem area unless you allow a lot of them to congregate in the same place. they will have to assimilate, or at least not commit any crimes, because it will be pretty obvious who is shitting where they eat, in housing commission suburbs, you can't tell who is committing all the crimes because it is a lot of them, just don't let them congregate.
@[Deactivated]: I have some late sporting matches on in Shalvey and was driving through that area. I was shocked that driving home, the amount of young kids in groups cycling on the main roads with no lights or helmets and not even following road rules and jumping across lanes, going up and down the roads instead of with traffic. And cars had to swerve to not hit them. As well as the level of cop cars i seemed to notice whenever i had to drive through that area. It was like i was in another country…
one area in particular is well known for its drug selling
Isn't most of Sydney's very wealthy Eastern suburbs the highest in cocaine users of all?
Shhhh, we only care about dirty drugs like meth. Can't get those bankers in trouble for their coke use, then who would run the economy!
@Intoxicoligist: Oops !
Reminds me of getting drunk with cheap cask wine or with expensive spirits !! ;-)@Intoxicoligist: You joke, but it's not the eastern suburbs weekend coke enthusiasts that go assault people or break into houses like meth heads.
Both drugs can be dirty without both having the same impact on violent crime, duh.
@Grazz989: Your generalisation is sweeping. I'd suggest we focus on the crime rather than the drug use, but given the "WAR ON DRUGS" we seem to be more concerned with use rather than impact.
@Intoxicoligist: We care about what impacts other people.
Cocaine using bankers aren't wandering the streets acting like crazy meth-heads, attacking people etc
white collar criminals don't usually break into their neighbours homes
@[Deactivated]: Who would bother breaking into one chumps house when you can use their pension funds like a slush fund?
became that way in 60s unitblock were put in as all socal house and then in 80s they did whole area of public house. why know like that.
Concentration of public housing is one of the greatest failures of our time. Social housing should absolutely be spread through every damn suburb, including the richest.
I support having social housing in all areas. But I’m amazed by your rich hating, what did they do to you?
Since these rich greedy bastards pay for the social housing, I don't mind if it is not in their area
Given land prices in affluent areas will be higher, you should be able to build more public housing in less affluent areas for the same overall cost and isn't more housing better given there's a shortage?
I agree but that isnt the question….im asking. Mainly because the City of Melbourne is a Green seat they push for more social social housings more injecting rooms more welfare etc my reponse is simply no problem you build it in your electorate and you deal with any social issues thay may or may not arise?
I would then also say if cost was to be considered all social housing should be built in the middle of the outback were land prices like $1
To directly answer the poll I'd have to say no, shouldn't be built in affluent areas simply because as I stated above, more can be built for the same spend in lower cost areas and do more to address the immediate issues. You could build probably 7 houses in Penrith for the cost of one in Vaucluse and therefore house 7 families rather than 1.
the 'land' is expensive not the building you would be surprised how much land is owned that can be developed in 'rich areas'
imho either build social housing everywhere otherwise build it in the middle of no where
imho either build social housing everywhere otherwise build it in the middle of no where
Why does it need to be those two options only? What's wrong with building in lower cost areas that are still within the capital cities? We both know building in the middle of nowhere is a ridiculous option.
@apsilon: the argument is about cost 'low cost' areas and the fact is, that is not better then 'lowest cost areas'
@Trying2SaveABuck: So living in the middle of nowhere with little to no job prospects, medical care, schools, shops, public transport etc is better than living in a lower cost area of a capital city for those that need access to public housing?
@apsilon: Right? Put them in the middle of nowhere they scream, not realising that would mean we're basically building a brand new city, and have to get the raw materials there, then build the support services, infrastructure, and the rest. Land values in that equation are barely a consideration in this sort of infrastructure project.
But in that 'lower cost' is built in things like access to jobs, education, social and community infrastructure etc. There's a reason places are cheap. Plonking a whole bunch of public housing in cheap (read: shit) places because 'you can put more' is a pretty average reason to do it.
I would then also say if cost was to be considered all social housing should be built in the middle of the outback were land prices like $1
100% Agree. Why have welfare recipients live in the middle of the city. Let the priviledge to the one able to pay. Put the social housing further out, but still with good connection to city ( Close to train line )
/eyeroll.
If you just dump them heaps far from the city, an hour and a half away from all the jobs in the city … How many of these people already resistant to getting a job, do you think will decide they can be f@cked traveling every day for a job?
At the end of the day I agree with putting them out further so as to save on land prices and thus provide more housing … But then you've got to have the government figure out how to generate profitable (or at least profit neutral) blue collar jobs for the low IQ delinquents and super easy white collar jobs for people who won't, or physically can't, do labour.
Maybe we've all been conditioned to not expect much out of government but that would seem to be a tall order and one I don't think they can pull off.
blue collar jobs for the low IQ delinquents and super easy white collar jobs for people who won't, or physically can't, do labour.
Because all people who need social housing are either dumb, lazy or disabled…/s
@Chandler: I mean … Yes? You could maybe add 'aged with no savings/Super' …
If you are smart, motivated, and able, then you're very unlikely to be in housing - or at least not for long.
Why wouldn't you choose your social housing location and plan for providing jobs to people who say they can't find any … If the vast majority of people who're going to be living in housing, especially if you specifically pick them for such locations, are indeed people on jobseeker dole?
It's not like having such job opportunities nearby if you're seeking social housing could ever be a bad thing no matter how much of a paragon citizen you are.
@trapper: Yeah duh but it's the proving that they're resistant that's the problem isn't it?
And providing them with at least some sort of guaranteed job nearby, even if it costs the government money like the current broken systems do, will quickly serve as that proof.
… How many of these people already resistant to getting a job, do you think will decide they can be f@cked traveling every day for a job?
I would say the difference between them being in the city or on outskirt does not change in any way them trying to get a job. Actually, maybe it does, it might incentivise them to get a job to get out of the S—-T hole they have been moved out to.
the government figure out how to generate profitable (or at least profit neutral) blue collar jobs for the low IQ delinquents
Government has realized long time ago, that the ( money investment ) to get those people working again is higher that paying them housing and subsidies.
Real solution: EVERYONE gets $1000 fortnight. The "Rich" or "lucky" who have work, will pay it back in taxes. With the savings from CentreLink and issues like robo-debt the increase in expenditure should be covered.
"I would say the difference between them being in the city or on outskirt does not change in any way them trying to get a job. Actually, maybe it does, it might incentivise them to get a job to get out of the S—-T hole they have been moved out to."
Lol, oh man. If not living in a shithole was any incentive to them getting a job, then the entire problem would be self-correcting mate. The best avenue is to reduce the effort of getting a real job, and maximise the effort of staying on the dole. At the end of the day, that's all dole bludgers care about: Getting money for the least effort.
"Government has realized long time ago, that the ( money investment ) to get those people working again is higher that paying them housing and subsidies."
It certainly does when you try and do it through private enterprise and the government is just trying to pay to palm the problem off to the private sector. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about setting up basic jobs even if they're not profitable, just to make them do something and waste their time. If they refuse to do anything at all, then they can sit quietly in a room with no phone and only a jobsearch computer for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
Real solution: EVERYONE gets $1000 fortnight. The "Rich" or "lucky" who have work, will pay it back in taxes. With the savings from CentreLink and issues like robo-debt the increase in expenditure should be covered."
Lmao, imagine thinking this is a solution. The fact that this is available no questions asked will utterly ruin so many people, from kids that never enter the workforce to funding alcoholics and drug addicts etc. It will never be cheaper, because not only are you expending a huge sum more money per person already on social welfare (you would still need an organisation to dispense it and deal with complaints about it not showing up etc), but now you're over pentupling the amount of people who'd receive it. What an insane, out of touch, pipedream idea. I have lean slightly left when it comes to economics, but man that's the exact kind of nonsense that make people laugh at lefties.
@Grazz989: Think about childcare subsidy, low income subsidy, rego subsidy, low income, single parent subsidy, rental subsidy, toll subsidy, and so on and on and on. All gone. Just cash into account and done with it. Close centrelink, sell properties.
kids that never enter the workforce
the 1000 fortnightly is only an added bonus, the more they work, the more they can do.
Actually, it might even incentivise kids to do something more creative, than sitting in a cubicle and doing stupid workto funding alcoholics and drug addicts etc.
probably decreasing crime, since the druggies do not need to steal. Imagine them always on a high with the occasional OD reducing their numbers
you would still need an organisation to dispense it and deal with complaints about it not showing up etc
Minimal compared with the number of people ( not ) doing that job now.
I have lean slightly left when it comes to economics
I am tending right, but see a huge waste of money being spent on organizations "helping" low income people.
Think about childcare subsidy, low income subsidy, rego subsidy, low income, single parent subsidy, rental subsidy, toll subsidy, and so on and on and on. All gone. Just cash into account and done with it. Close centrelink, sell properties
the 1000 fortnightly is only an added bonus, the more they work, the more they can do.
Actually, it might even incentivise kids to do something more creative, than sitting in a cubicle and doing stupid workI AM thinking about those things.
I'm thinking that for some people that sum may not even be enough, especially with the insane inflation that would ensue, and for everyone else, we're handing them giant wads of cash comparable to the type of full time job they're qualified to get. Sure, they could get a job in top, but why would they when so many people seem happy to bludge off the dole for less money and more effort right now?
And ha, yeah sure. Kids given fistfuls of cash are going to become Picassos and Tchaikovskys … No, the extreme majority will send the money overseas buying gaming consoles, and spend the rest on booze and weed. These are kids we're talking about FFS. At least in these 'stupid' jobs they're learning the exact same office job skills applicable to just about any white collar job.
probably decreasing crime, since the druggies do not need to steal. Imagine them always on a high with the occasional OD reducing their numbers
Lol how stupid. Drugs are expensive. The figure you've named would quickly become insufficient for virtually any drug. Not to mention the burden on the hospital system. Or the ethics of funding addictions!
I am tending right, but see a huge waste of money being spent on organizations "helping" low income people.
This is the definition of wasting money without helping low income people. Wouldn't you rather pay decent, semi-intelligent people a decent wage to grapple with the dole problem, rather than throw cash into, and compound the problem?
The more public housing you build in affluent areas, the cheaper the land becomes.
Also good idea about the injecting room. Gov could build a few in rich areas, crash the local property market, then buy up the cheap land for public housing.
Rinse and repeatGovernments can acquire directly and don't have to necessarily pay regular prices. Social housing helps PERSPECTIVE in most areas.
What on earth is 'acquire directly' ?
You mean steal land by force?
The only perspective it helps is 'oh those degenerates are going to be a problem and will crash my property value. I'd better move.' Followed by 'this is a crap neighbourhood. I'm going to move.' until all we've done is cause everyone involved hassles and rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic a bit.
they can be anywhere! just not in my backyard
everyone reckons we should have more government housing, just not in my suburb…
We have a fair bit in mine, and our kids go to the same daycare. It is absolutely fine.
You wait till those kids are no longer kids ( access to car keys, smokes, knifes, alcohol ) and eager to get some money, in some ways.
Yeah. It's fine in my area except for the guy that would leave before 6am on a super loud motorbike.
I worked at a Council before and the amount that is spent repairing vandalism and removing graffiti is astounding.
Public housing should be in all areas. Including wealthy areas. Just being in a wealthy area and attending schools in wealthier districts will improve people's chances of one day affording sneakers and iPhones. And living in a poor area and attending poor area schools decreases those chances. If Wendy Lovell grew up in a poor area maybe she wouldn't be able to afford sneakers and iPhones for her kids either.
problem is government is like government house where I get 50 bucks a week or flogging it for 3m and getting the $$$
Ike privatisation money now is all they thinkinglike those government house in the Rocks
they sold those porpoerties for a killing
They can't afford the private schools wealthy people send their children too 🤣
So, what?
Housing commission people should have a lottery of where they get put, and if you win you get Vaucluse, and if you lose you get some dirt poor suburb?
I don't relish the idea of the taxpayer forking out for extremely expensive areas to develop housing commission buildings, so that the lucky ones that go in there get a better life experience, schools etc than the large majority of actual hardworking Australian taxpayers themselves!
That's not very eagletarian.
?
Sounds harsh but honest and I agree. For some, there needs to be some motivation to improve. Also the better it is, the more scammers will clogg up the housing opportunities for people that genuinely need it.
agreed. the feelgood statement you were replying to fails to acknowledge that there will still be people essentially winning a lottery with where they live. in the same way they see kids of rich people as lucky, one kid in housing commission would see another kid who the government allocated to another affluent suburb as lucky
it also brushes over the point that there is limited funding available for public housing and to get the most vulnerable people housed means limiting purchases of lands in expensive suburbs
1st thing I look at when house hunting is I want govt rentals .5% or lower .
Who wants the absolute Scumbags in their area .If you want to avoid absolute scumbags then you probably shouldn't be looking at affluent areas in the first place.
one set of scumbags is more likely to break into your house than the other set of scumbags, who will probably just whinge to the council about you if they have any problems
One set of scumbags may break in to your house and steal a couple of hundred dollars worth of stuff. The other set of scumbags will fleece you, your family and friends for hundreds of thousands of dollars through some investment scam.
@bmxr: yes, but living near those people has nothing to do with their ability to fleece you, you could live anywhere and that could happen. living in a bad neighbourhood, your chances of being robbed go up a lot.
@bmxr: It's actually the poor ( and ignorant ) people who think they finally have an opportunity to make a quick buck, that fall for the scammers.
Yeah it's only poor people who lose millions to dodgy investments.
Millions?
TRILLIONS!
Poor people have access to so much money … unlimited really … drowning in money …
Not.
Poor people have access to so much money … unlimited really … drowning in money …
How did you think the 2008 GFC happened?
I rather be the poorest in a very rich area, so I dont have to worry about being robbed. All the Mercedes, Audis and High Yield cars in the front of the other properties are doing a wonderful job, no one is thinking to rob the house where a Toyota Corolla 2002 is parked.
I don't want you in mine that's for sure. So many people wind up in social housing because of catastrophic accidents resulting in terrible disability so hop down off your high house.
And others get there through scam and decite. (Speaking from personal knowledge over a long period). Put other supports in place instead, that only genuine people were able to gain from. (Like free public transport or childcare if start working, max 6 months). introducing stronger rights for people to wfh or inducements for workplaces to want wfh. Just an idea to display what I mean by supports.
Can she get any more classist?
Oh, fancy word.
Won't someone think of my investments!
Wie Kinder am besten spielen.
Am liebsten spiele ich mit mir selbst. :-P
Wendy Ann Lovell is an Australian politician. Born in Sydney, New South Wales, she was a newsagent before becoming involved in politics.
Where our best pollies come from, retail and fish n chips
at least she has had a job in the real world, unlike many
Yeah but for how long? A year after finishing school?
I'm sure you can take an educated guess by looking at her age and when she started politics. if your really that interested
Where's the option for: Silly cow spouting BS, just to get her name in the paper?
Because I had never heard of her before.
There needs to be a mix of social housing spread everywhere so that nowhere becomes a slum
Too late check out Carlton and Flemington with like 20-30% Govt rentals .
Great location but because of the housing towers a rotten area to live .I lived in Flemington for a decade (left about 5 years ago). Thought it was a great place to live, never had any problems myself though I know some neighbors that had their bikes stolen a couple times.
Worst part about it is cup week with the crack of dawn helicopter noise, main street becoming gridlocked and the supermarket full of drunk people.
Its a pretty ideal place for public housing. Close to a train station and trams and enough nearby amenities that a poor family doesn't need to own a car.
I’m aok for it, as long as it’s NIMBY.
Build social housing where services and jobs are handy. Eg childcare to that parents can actually get jobs, and not doomed to running a car or spending most of their life on public transport.
If this intersects with affluent areas, so be it!
The affluent areas are mostly just poor areas from a century ago that have been ‘gentrified’ anyway.I'm Ron Burgandy?
I would ask a non partisan expert for their view. Politicians are ill informed. I am ill informed.
Reminds me of the "Karen" from Brighton complaining about walking in lockdown. If a social housing situation somehow existed in an "affluent" area then it's all good. There should not be a cabal that dictates who can live where. I think there is a word for that already. Discrimination.
No, it's not.
Brighton resident here.
Best street in Brighton probably has houses at $7m to $10m plus.Doesn’t make sense to put a welfare family in a $7m home.
There is already social housing in Brighton.
Oh please, they haven't always been that price. They're not actually worth $7 million. It makes perfect sense unless all you see is dollar signs.
Think of it as servant quarters that you won’t have to build and pay for.
I think they should make one in each suburb and get some docile residents from Phillipines and the like.
I don’t think anyone’s advocating placing a”welfare family” in a $7mil home in Brighton.
- 1
- 2
mine are simple you can build as much social housing in wealthy areas stuff the rich pricks in Brighton, Toorak etc