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
The LNP and their voter base are just so ignorant and stupid.
Thanks to the education system in Australia (more specifically that tertiary education is more widely available and not only available to the rich thanks to Gough Whitlam who was a leader of the ALP) people in lower socioeconomic areas can climb out of poverty through hard work.
This… person’s stupid comment about how kids who don’t have the latest iPhone or new sneakers can’t fit in is just so basic to the nth degree like most LNP and their supporters. They live in this bubble of rich people that are just so ignorant and stupid, completely coddled their entire lives.
ignorant and stupid, completely coddled their entire lives.
nice self reflection there 👌
a person whose biggest worry is their inability to find parking, get off your soapboxAny luck with your karen level complaining to the LGA's?
So I'm wondering, is anyone else who lives in the area extremely annoyed and frustrated by this? I mean, this is just not normal nor should it be normal that people have to spend 30 minutes finding a car park and then nearly the same amount of time just to get out of the car park. Not only that but because of how busy it is, it's extremely crowded inside the centre and you will often find things are low in stock or sold out. And they want to build some idiotic thing called Midtown Mac Park — further cramming more bodies into this highly congested and terribly busy area.
looooooooool
Must have stepped on a nerve lmfao. Thanks for proving my point.
lol cornered. GG
@payton: If you don’t live in the area, don’t act like you know anything about anyone’s concern of the area.
You’ve proven my point, LNP voters really are stupid and ignorant.
I'm not interested in the argument but I did neg you because I thought your reply was unnecessary and was just bullish behaviour. Can we stop hating everyone for their opinions when they don't match ours?
Lovell, who pointed to low-income families’ inability to afford “the latest in sneakers and iPhones” as a reason children would struggle to fit in
I would actually argue the opposite. A lot of low income households make poor financial decisions and are more inclined to spend their money on pointless consumer goods as opposed to basic needs. Most wealthy people I know are very frugal with their spending, have a lot of self restraint and do do not buy the latest and greatest compulsively, they also instill this behaviour in their kids. That's why whenever there is an economic down turn the government gives cash hand outs to poor people because they know it will be blown on retail goods and keep businesses afloat. I'm not saying this is blanket across the board but you do find a lot of quietly wealthy people that do not show their wealth.
You're right.
The majority of the rich and wealthy are better at managing their finances and assets or they hire people to do it for them.
The people on the other end of the spectrum lack the skills, conviction and/or resources to escape the wheel that they spin 5 times a week.
Spreading social housing around has benefits. Putting all social housing together creates ghettos.
As for NIMBYs, when there’s only a couple of social housing places in an area most of the time you’d hardly know it.
^this. I grew up a few doors up from a halfway house in a reasonably affluent area, you’d have no idea it’s there if you weren’t a local. Apart from some weirdness like our apartment complex’s clothesline getting borrowed, no issues with crime or belligerent behaviour.
I bought a house in mainly public housing area as I failed to do my homework. They should never mix private and public housing. There are reasons why they devalue the entire area. Rubbish everywhere, regular police raids and old household junk stacked in front. My neighbour is public housing, every second word is the expletive and she lets her dog bark non-stop and it keeps jumping and damaging the fence every time we go out the back. They think the world owes them and just can't be bothered with reasoning and civility/consideration towards others.
There's something to be said, IMO, of the people (or at least, electorates) arguing for more housing commission, to take a greater proportion of said housing.
Shouldn't be telling the world they should accept a likely delinquent neighbour but not being willing to accept one themselves, first.
That's the failure though - too much public housing in one spot and absolutely why it needs to be spread right out. Put it all together and there is no one to model off.
have you considered that extremely poor people might have problems in their life which led them to swear often or deprives them of the time or energy to clean and train their pets?
Animal abuse is OK if you're poor?
Since when do Wendy's opinions matter?
Who's Wendy?
"Wendy" is the first word of the title of the article you're commenting on
Why don’t they build them in any area where there is a shortage workers, some country towns are screaming for workers. They need to start treating them like any other type of rental house and do inspection (regular inspections) and make them look after the houses.
Cue. Social disconnect,etc etc.
There will be some excuse as to why putting people in areas of need is unacceptable.
What's worse, them having to make new social friends and adapt in that regard a little?
Or putting them in cities where they won't get a job and increase crime rates etc?
What's actually better for them, even? … If Aussie taxpayers can live out in country towns then people looking for a handout can certainly be given that option vs. nothing.
Blasphemy!
You are heartless!
Social housing is a hard one
You dont want it in too nicer areas otherwise it incentivises the lowest 20% to work less and fall into the income test bracket with the hope of winning the social housing lotto.But you also don't want to create ghettos by grouping them all together it would be a nightmare to police
Maybe if the government treated the cause and not the symptoms then we'd get somewhere. Like if they addressed the population wide housing affordability issue. But then how would they trap you in a 30 year mortgage,making you work until you die I guess.
But no
Very insightful
Please remember that many of the "lowest 20%"…
- are disabled through no fault of their own and can't physically work more
- have themselves grown up in environments of unimaginably extreme neglect and abuse and can likely barely or never work as a result
- suffer from severe mental health issues that barely leave them able to write their own name
I could go on. You absolutely want people who are suffering to be in nice areas FFS. A lot of of people live with trauma and injury due to society turning a blind eye, so perhaps instead of a blind eye we offer a community that accepts you no matter what walk of life you're from.
Don't get me wrong
The disabled in the lowest 20% are the ones who don't get a choice and yes they should be prioritised to nicer areas. Thankfully ndis also goes a long way.I'm talking about those that would rather sit back and not get a job or work a tiny number of hours to fall under the threshold then apply to state housing. Or maybe they're heavy on the anti social behaviour and into drugs.
It's a tough one, too much support and people won't work, too little and you end up with slums.
You dont want it in too nicer areas otherwise it incentivises the lowest 20% to work less
Why should anyone be concerned about the poorest 20% of people working less when the richest 20% of people don't work at all?
Socal housing is complex as noone wants to live near the damaged people who dont have any social support. I dont think there is an issue of not fitting in but more of an issue of abuse and neglect. I had a naughbour's 4 year old die in a "safe home" for women ran by a charity where the little boy swallowed a clients drugs. The charity organisation harrased me before the death because i would keep ringing the police as there was protsitution and drugs getting dealt out of the unit. Another social housing unit a kid about 8 would be sitting on cars eating food people in the surrounding units would give her — If there were preditors she would have been easy pray and due to safety reasons no one with kids would allow their kids to go into the unit of the parents to play with this girl. The parents of this kid were (profanity) and tried to rob surrounding units of people that tried to include them multiple times. People who work dont have the time to deal with the fallout of broken people but they should also be in rich areas so funding and policies are provided to address the issues.
Why would placing them in rich areas provide funding and policies?
At best it would provide more police enforcement as the wealthy people nearby scream at the police to arrest the drug addled prostitute next door.
Actually I think the ones that have no or less social supports are actually the ones that don't get public housing or other government assistance but are unwell but just not screwed enough.
I can't stand Matthew Guy and hate most of the LNP policies, but gotta say he worded it well in that snippet when a journo asked him about it, around stereotypes and stigmatisation. The way she originally put it was just dumb.
It's completely wrong, but it happens. Especially if you're talking kids and immature brats who will tease and bully on such matters. And depending on how "disadvantaged" or densely populated you are talking you get the existing ghetto vibe spot even if it's surrounded by a supposedly affluent area.So much existing social housing is already surrounded by now "expensive" suburbs. The inner suburb ones, the Williamstown coast. The practical consequences are already there to see.
People may have more faith in social housing anywhere, if law enforcement keeps up. But everyone knows it won't. My area has the same usual SPS sufferers most nights, which is on the mild end compared to other crimes or druggies.
Good point re law enforcement. Agreed.
Tall poppy much
If you work hard and are successful in life, of course you want to move to a nice safe area for your family
Why tf would you want to have random druggos mixed in-between all that?
Im sure not one ozmoron hero from this thread would actually want to live next to a bummed out houso
Social housing sucks for everyone except for the people that needs them. It probably still sucks for them too but a roof over your head is better than being homeless.
Crime rates are higher in the surrounding area, so nobody wants them in their suburb, rich or poor. Houses in suburbs with a lot of social housing would probably get broken into regardless of being an affluent area or not. Also would definitely affect the value of your home too.
From a completely selfish point of view, I'm all for it as long as its NIMBY.
"so it is ok for people who have less money then you to live with said 'druggies"
Pretty much yes, this is why i busted my balls at educating myself and in life, so i can earn enough to live in a nice suburb and not have to slum it up with housos
Once again, tall poppy. Just blaming wealthy people for being wealthy without looking at how they actually become so. If your stupid enough to be poor in this country which can give you everything you need to do well in life, then you deserve to be poor.
If your stupid enough to be poor in this country which can give you everything you need to do well in life, then you deserve to be poor.
If you’re naive enough to think people who need public housing are all “stupid” after all your supposed education the joke is on you for highlighting your lack of empathy.
The vast majority of people in public housing have some barrier to just getting and education and working hard to acquire wealth, be it disability, mental illness, being old or experiencing intergenerational social disadvantage/trauma. Many will use public housing for a period of time then move to private housing once back on their feet. Are you seriously suggesting old mate in his 70s who was put in an institution as a kid, beaten and raped, went on to develop alcoholism to cope with the trauma and now has cognitive and physical disabilities should just ‘get an education’? Or that a young person with schizophrenia should just work harder and all of a sudden they won’t have barriers to employment? These are very typical situations for people in public housing.
This is not a ‘tall poppy’ situation, no one is trying to cut you down, just lift others up. And if you really are such a tall poppy, maybe have a bit of gratitude that you landed where you did in life, so you had the opportunity to get an education and earn money.
@morse: Good comment
I guess at the end of day its something that is required, however no one would willingly want it to be near them.
@morse: "Many will use public housing for a period of time then move to private housing once back on their feet" - I'd love to know those stats.
@cookie2: I don’t believe comprehensive social housing exit data is reported - which is a shame really as it would be easy enough to capture. If you spent long enough you might be able to get it for some states. There has been some research though.
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2019/march/half-tenant…
https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-0…Unfortunately it seems that many aren’t back on their feet when leaving. But when you consider the circumstances under which most people enter social housing it’s hardly surprising. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/housing-assistance/housing-a…
Many of the things that cause a person to need social housing are life long.
For gods sake do you know how many rich people are gifted homes by their families? Hard work has nothing to do with it, that's a lie the peasants are told to keep them working hard.
I'm genuinely interested.
How many rich people are gifted homes?
Unfortunately many of us are ‘gifted’ houses when our parents pass away. I don’t think it’s super common before they pass away. But it’s actually pretty relevant as intergenerational wealth or the lack of does have an impact on the economy and society. Those without any intergenerational wealth to fall back on are at a distinct disadvantage.
Unfortunately many of us are ‘gifted’ houses when our parents pass away.
lol, yes. I can't wait for my 'gift' of half a house to kick in… when I'm ~55.
That will really set me up for life!
@trapper: As someone who has lost both parents by 40, yes, inheritance is not a ‘gift’ anyone wants. It is a reality though, and some people are struggling to make ends meet in their latter years let alone leave an inheritance behind. I wish my parents spent more of their money on themselves, not that they didn’t spend, but I wish they always flew business class and got more tradespeople instead of DIY.
Unfortunately many of us are ‘gifted’ houses when our parents pass away.
Why is this unfortunate?
@morse: Oh.. thought you were saying that being 'gifted' was unfortunate. My bad.
Yeah, unfortunate indeed.
Why have you assumed that rich people have worked hard for their money?
Why have you assumed they haven't?
This guy mentioned above that 20% of the richest doesn't work at all. Save you some time trying to get a rational discussion going.
@victorheaven: i'm actually a deeply rational person and my conclusions re: wealth have been reached after years of concentrated study of rational, evidence-based literature and thought
because the vast majority of wealth owned by the most wealthy is taken from workers and the poor via bourgeois mechanisms (none of which require productive labour, i.e. "hard work"): employment profit, rent-seeking, usury, and speculation. are you bourgeois?
@3rdStageOfGrief: It's not taken from workers. Workers contribute to work and they are compensated for it.
Management make the bigger decisions, and owners, take the risk and responsibility from the capital they invest, thus taking much more of the rewards.I am not. But I am an immigrant that made themselves a comfortable life here.
There are no excuses for most other people.
Aaaaand we have found the token ozbargain tall poppy!
"tall poppy" implies jealousy. i'm not jealous of the rich; i want to abolish the unethical means by which most people get rich.
Actually we have the token socialist.
Not sure if the OP is asking a social equity question… if the government has a finite amount of money to spend on social services, it would make sense to try to get maximum bang for buck - so the cost to acquire, build and maintain public housing in economically more expensive locations won't make sense.
2020/2021 has shown that the feds in every country in the world that have a fiat currency have an infinite amount of 💵.
It might be infinite but the more of it that's printed the less valuable it becomes and the less people want to work for it and the more prices go up AKA inflation and then hardly anyone is doing anything except arguing about it on ozbargain.
Unlimited cash: i too want to pay for my groceries with a wheel barrow full of notes!
Just stop being poor - the liberal mantra
Yeah something that requires hard work is unacceptable
Most people work hard. Most will never afford a home in Brighton. But they just want you to keep aspiring and working till you're all used up and worthless. And you'll still never get that joint by the sea.
The Cabrini Green project in Chicago is something that may interest you
To think that we leave it to these pollies to uphold the democratic values fundamental to society. So what happened to equal opportunities and having a fair go? Maybe it only applies to the wealthy and affluent?
There must be a ratio for number of social housing in an area of affluent area. The purpose is for low income family / drug alcohol addicts to learn civilised habits and behaviour from wealthy people and their kids is influenced by good education system. If too much is put in a close area, they will stick together with their own community and dragged the neighbourhood down.
lve next to private/Public housing for mental and alcohol problem people. Yes they affect my/our lifestyle, they dont integrate into normal society, problems is they need constant care and medicating to keep them from being a nuisance, nobody listens when you report goings on at the units…drugs, noise and prostitutes…. uphill battle. Meanwhile land values are falling near this complex once the word gets out. They dont appreciate what is given to them,they have cleaners, gardners and transport to shops etc. Move them away from me in just a normal suburb not that classy….well not now
I worked my arse off to buy a house in the outer suburbs.
Lower socioeconomic people that have made the wrong choices are gifted housings in well to do inner city suburbs.
Is that fair?I think it depends on the intended use. Teachers, police, medics that look after the area should be given priority access rather than just some random meth head / junkie / thief.
Jesus. Poverty isn't a moral failing. People get in car accidents and lose their entire families and can't walk or work. They end up in social housing. Children whose parents were victims of neglect and extreme abuse deserve a safe environment to live instead of under a bridge. People suffering severe mental health conditions who can't fill in a form let alone work deserve a nice life too. And drug addicts deserve a place to try and recover from the lifetime of trauma from others that led to that addiction. As a community, we have a responsibility to lift people up with us.
"Lower socioeconomic people"…jfc.
I also worked my arse off to get a house in the outer suburbs and unlike you, I am happy for people who are hard up to catch a break, and I count myself lucky that I was able to work hard.
it is bullshit that housing is seen as a gift to lazy or people made the wrong choices. In one big unit complex i lived in that had quite a few intergrated public housing there was an array of people.
The typical drug addict due to abuse as a kid that is getting passed on
The big scary guy without education punching holes in common area walls as noone would listen to him and he was lonely and depressed in the cycle he couldnt escape.
The mums with kids they had to get welfare - some were great mums with great kids others were abused.
The guy that lost everything (home work, family) as became a quadriplegic stuck in a one bedroom house unfurnished- it was (profanity) depressing.
We need better funding and services so these people have the oppotunity to improve their circumstances, even if that means just being able to intergrate into the community and socialise rather than hidden and repressed.
you are an evil human being
Agree.
I don't see how this poll is of any value.
I know of people that milk the system, I know of a house that's been empty for 8+ years and the government does nothing to fill it. Sadly there are the people that really need it but don't have access or have to live among crap.
Politicians should be moved into public housing as part of their political career.
Once they have skin in the game I'm sure they would improve the situation.
Social housing should be condensed around ammenities that assist people to get out of their situation: transport, major employers, education institutions, etc.
Not mushed in with rich people just to serve as a middle finger to the upper classes and maroon them in areas with higher cost of living and no services, entrenching them for longer.
Yeah, social housing isn’t glamorous. It’s not supposed to be.
Communists like to inconvenience those who's done the right thing and are ahead in life.
If you put a poor family in a rich suburb, where will the kids study? If private school is the only option, there's some merit to what was said regaeding iPhones and Jordans.
If a person is handicapped, do you think they will mind which postcode they live? Is having a system that really works and looks after them more important?
I think another issue is the justice system. Crims do crim stuff because they know they'll get suspended sentences, light penalties, zero jail time. No deterrent. No incentive to change.
Look at what's happening in New York and other progressive states in the US where the justice system is soft in crime. Domestic violence here in Australia where AVOs are useless piece of paper.
I watched a doco on seattle recently, it is genuinely scary what is happening there. Worse still, i can slowly see melbourne going down the same path.
I actually agree with what @downero is saying but expensive or in expensive areas if you own a house in Melbourne you have done the right thing if you worked hard and saved well enough.
Id argue people that own a propery in Caroline Springs are prob just as deserving as the people in Toorak as id argue most of the top top areas is generational wealth and not hard work.
Realistically no matter how much 'hard' work u do you can't buy a 20m house unless you are in a very narrow club of .1% top earners or in most cases have been handed the money.
Social housing either goes everywhere or it goes in the middle of no where I dont mind either option.
@downero As this idea doesn't have anything to do with the government taking over the means of production or eradication of private ownership, this is not communism.
But to test your thinking, why do you think there are suburbs where kids are "forced" into private schools?
Further, if they were "forced" into a private school, why would the kids need iPhones and Jordans? Those seem like some pretty screwed up kids if those things were mandatory to function.
As someone who lives in a "affluent" area in a decent house my parents bought due to their hard work, this question is a double edged sword.
If I didn't have a godawful "invisible disabled" body I have, I would realistically afford something similar to what my parents have. But, with the economy and wages geared away from what happened with my parents and their luck, I can't afford a house and a mortgage now, never mind when I have children god knows when. Also, I did many years of volunteering to help those living in council housing (even did a food van stint at the Gatwick) so, I have had conversation and interactions with those people directly that has made me feel much more sympathetic. More often than not, one major event in their life spiraled, coupled with not getting the best starts in life, and it led most of them on the path they have now.
Also, my SO had to buy a place in Melton due to the economy and we both despair at the antics in the suburb and the direct neighbors (case in point yesterday was them using their subwoofer loudly in their open garage and invited their friends who clearly have no concept of parking normally). So, even those who aren't fully on government benefits and handouts aren't the best of neighbors.
So, it's hard for me to definitively say if this is a bad idea or not.
The problem with social housing in wealthy areas is you must have a system to prevent wealthy people buying up those properties. That means keeping the properties government owned and preventing any sales. Wealthy people have numerous ways to buy up these properties, usually by using children with no income as the proxies.
Related to the class divides in Australia, when my family moved to Australia a very long time ago it felt refreshing that Australia seemed to have a 'fair go' kind of attitude without an entrenched class system. But as I grew up I realized we have a very strong class system here based on real estate. I was told by a girlfriend in no uncertain terms that all the 'good' properties in Adelaide are within 10km of the CBD. Somehow there's a barrier beyond that where the poor and crime ridden people live. She craved living within that 10km barrier, regardless of the costs (which I would have to bear, as she didn't want to work anymore), that it soured and ended the relationship.
I think you should change the poll to:
do you want to have social housing in your suburb?We all know the answer to that.
my answer is yes. i also want all housing to be public.
Fat chance.
Singapore is the closest to what you want but even then people pay a hefty sum for HDB flats.
She should switch parties.
Liberals believe in free markets and personal responsibility / hard work. Let the social housing people look at what the rich can achieve to get motivated. In fact they should rotate the worst of the lot into affluent areas.
Everyone here saying "f—k the poor" is ignoring the core fundamentals of being Australian - Mateship & having a fair go
Let's bring in some hard evidence:
In America, there was a study called "Move to Opportunities" where government provided rent coupons to poor families and split them into two groups: (1) families stayed in poor neighbourhoods, (2) families moved to affluent neighbourhood.
Initial studies showed that families are reporting better mental & physical health, but not much changes in education and children's test scores. The program as deemed a failure and got axed after 4 years.
Many year later, analysts started looking at the IRS data (America's ATO) and found something significant:
- Poor children who were in affluent neighbhour earned more than 30% than poor children in poor neighbhour
- poor children are 4% more likely to go to college
- teen pregnancy droppedThe reason why it only showed up many years later was the poor children hasn't entered the labour market yet, hence the initial study was incomplete and theorised wrongly.
why can't you just be a good human being without nationalism?
Thoughts?
It's the Guardian. Roll your eyes, yawn (or laugh), and move on.
You could also go the extra step to ensuring your mental well-being by looking up how to block their IP range in your hosts file.
I think Victorian Liberal MP says it all really.
There's no more inept and out of touch a bunch than the good old VIC LNP
People on social housing need more support than just housing. Building social housing in affluent areas just does not make economical sense as all the services to support them are also more expensive, not just the cost of land and house. It also encourage people not to give back the (social) housing when they don't need it anymore.
Australia has very generous social security.
The problem with social housing in affluent areas is usually the affluent areas have a higher cost of living.
How exactly is that helping them?
Also it should be limited to 1-2 generations. There are multi generational families still in social housing. If poor immigrants can lift themselves out, so can you.
do you think inheritance should be abolished?
No.
the utilitarian in me leans towards buying up cheap land and building cheap and functional dwellings to house as many people as possible. Why waste money on buying land in wealthy areas? and if houso already holds land in rich areas, they ought to sell up and buy some hectares outward so they can house more people. I don't buy into the benefits of mixing housos with wealthy people - you waste resources (reason above) where you could've housed more people and that outweighs any purported benefits. Not to mention what the nonhouso neighbours think.
All housing should be public (meaning decommodified entirely). No single human being should have two houses while a single human being has none.
HAHAHAHH no.
- 1
- 2
I don’t know the answer, but I do know I can’t afford harbour views.