Money, money, money

Resourced: http://landlordwatch.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/money-money-money.html

In my last post, I explored the relationship between the media and government. I analysed an online article about public housing tenants that trash houses. Little did I know NSW Community Services Minister Pru Goward was softening up the public for a sale of public housing on Sydney's harbour front. The article by the Daily Telegraph is an obvious example of forward-thinking strategy.

The NSW Liberal Government is planning on selling almost 300 historic properties at Millers Point, The Rocks and Gloucester Street. The sale includes the landmark Sirius building at The Rocks, a concrete brutalist high-rise apartment complex close to the Harbour Bridge, containing 79 units.

The sale is expected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s a blatant cash grab. Professor Phibbs from the University of Sydney says the policy seems ‘driven by people trying to get their hands on some quick cash rather than thinking about things from a policy perspective’. If you watch the video of the announcement, Minister Goward provides three reasons for the historic sale. They are as follows:

1. the cost of maintaining heritage-listed buildings is exorbitant
2. the distribution of housing subsidies is inequitable
3. public housing needs to be sustainable in the long-term

Minster Goward made the announcement while her henchmen delivered the news to devastated tenants. There was no consultation. There was no procedural fairness. I have seen this tactic before. Holdfast Bay Council held a confidential meeting to evict permanent residents when it approved a redevelopment of a caravan park.

 

Minister Goward tries to frame the sale as a matter of fairness and equity. I am not convinced. And plus she looks like Cruella Deville from 101 Dalmatians. The resemblance is quie remarkable. But I suppose she can’t help that. The Barry O’Farrell government is selling off houses when the waiting list is miles long and New South Wales has a huge homelessness problem. It’s classic political strategy at its best. They are saying they are helping tenants, when really, they are hurting them.

 

Minister Goward said proceeds from the sale of the historic properties would be reinvested into the social housing system. Somehow I doubt this very much. Shelter NSW's executive officer Mary Perkins says,

We've had a long-time issue with the transparency around the promises that have been made about the sale of stock. They say 'we'll sell this to gain this', but there's never been any evidence produced about the gains...At the end of the day, we've got a really big concern about the geographic divide happening in the city, between these areas [that] are for rich people and these areas [that] are for poor people.

Diversity usually results in better outcomes for the community as a whole. We know that housing estates simply do not work because they localise entrenched disadvantage.

Despite overseeing similar sell-offs, the NSW Opposition has condemned the Liberal Government’s decision. Shadow Minister Linda Burney said Minister Pru Goward could not be trusted to reinvest any proceeds. The Liberal Government has overseen an increase in the public housing waiting list, and a decrease in the number of houses it is building. It has cut $42 million from the budget for maintenance, and $22 million from the budget for building. A report by the NSW Land and Housing Corporation shows that the O’Farrell Government has cut more than 1300 properties from its books.

I am not convinced by the argument older properties are more expensive to maintain. A diverse stock of housing will always involve a range of costs. I seriously doubt NSW Housing will be selling off old government houses in less well-to-do areas of Sydney. The government should not be able to get away with manufacturing excuses by failing to comply with its legal obligation to repair. We know that public housing is ageing and increasingly unfit for purpose. If state and territory governments keep selling off public properties, there is going to be none left. The NSW Government is clearly trying to push a core government responsibility off onto private providers. It is privatisation by stealth.

 

I am also concerned that the human rights of the tenants are not being respected. They are being evicted from their HOMES. It is not humane or compassionate to move elderly residents away from their communities and social ties. Many residents at Millers Point have connections to the area going back generations. The O’Farrell Government has even ignored the advice of its own consultants on evicting vulnerable tenants with minimal damage to their health and well-being. If things get that far, I would suggest pickets to stop police evicting residents from their homes. I don’t think the police would be too keen on physically ejecting the elderly and disabled.

 

I really hope I see media outrage. So far there has been significant coverage. On the whole, it has been fairly sympathetic to the plight of residents. I only hope that it continues. A community action group has already sprung up. You can like the FB page here. We have two years to turn this thing around. So let's do it.

They can't turf us like rubbish, say angry Millers Point residents

 March 23, 2014  Georgina Mitchell

In for the fight: Wendy Ford. Photo: Ella Rubeli

The tiny hall in Millers Point held hundreds of residents, all angry at the state government's decision to sell the area's public housing.

The crowd gathered at lunchtime on Saturday, furious at the prospect of having to leave the houses some were born in. And they didn't hold back.

''These people cannot come in and walk all over us and turf us out like we're rubbish,'' an elderly resident said to cheers. ''We're not going down without a fight,'' another declared.

The heat of the Abraham Mott hall radiated from the packed crowd, who filled all the seats, leaving only standing room. MP Alex Greenwich urged the able-bodied to vacate seats for the elderly as speakers took turns at the podium, offering legal help, solidarity and support from unions.

Among the protesters was Glenda Cox, whose family has lived in the Millers Point area since the 1860s, working on the docks.

''I've been here in the one house for 61 years,'' Ms Cox said. ''I'm 63 now, and my daughter's done the family tree right back to 1860 in The Rocks and Millers Point area. We've worked and lived here all that time.''

I've been in the one house for 61 years": Glenda Cox with her daughter Natalie outside their home. Photo: Ella Rubeli

Permanent housing in The Rocks was offered to dock workers and their families as an incentive for the long hours and dangerous work they undertook.

But with the properties run by the Housing Commission, the tenants now face the prospect of being evicted. Many say they helped to make Sydney the city it is today -

''Where will they go,'' asked Chad Ford, whose mother Wendy lives down the road from Ms Cox.
''They've lived here all their lives - it's all they know.''

Ms Cox said people once looked down on The Rocks as a lower-class area of Sydney, but it has become more appealing because of its history and harbour views.

''In my time, they didn't want to know you,'' she said. ''My father used to walk the Hungry Mile on the docks looking for work.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/they-cant-turf-us-like-rubbish-say-angry-millers-point-residents-20140322-35a6l.html 

Letter from the editor: Public housing sell-off a painful debate

Jennifer Duke | 27 March 2014

Change is underway in Millers Point as 293 properties, currently public housing supply stock for 400 residents, are being sold off to make way for private investors and buyers to snap up the offerings. While this makes sense, when looking at the blunt numbers provided by the government, it has pulled at the heartstrings of many causing a debate that's painful to read.
I've been known to use the phrase "investing is about the numbers" multiple times, and stand by it. However, property is unique as a financial choice in that it affects culture and the living conditions of those around the country.
Underestimating the role of a home in continuing family heritage and providing values is far too easy. Regularly, I see listings and stories of homes that have been in a family for decades that, upon a relative's death, are up for auction. They're regularly presented as a "once in a lifetime opportunity" and are often some of the most stunning homes. My heart aches for those that have to sell their history and memories with them. But at least this is, largely, a choice.
For those in public housing in Millers Point there is no choice, and they certainly do not appear to be going without a fight - there was a rally today at 11am, for instance. Sadly, with little of their own assets to boast of and clearly no written-down formalised rights to stay in these properties - what more can they do?
Minister for Family and Community Services, Pru Goward, publicly put out a statement regarding the high value property assets on Sydney Harbour's foreshore, that is those at Millers Point, and the subsequent reinvestment of the proceeds into social housing across the state. This logic truly cannot be argued with. The values in Millers Point have terrifyingly increased over the past years, as you can see in the suburb data here, and so it makes economical sense that 293 properties across Millers Point, Gloucester Street and the Sirius building in The Rocks were focused on for a sale.
Goward pointed to the high cost of maintenance and investment required to improve them to an 'acceptable standard' as part of the reasoning.

"Maintenance on properties in Millers Point costs more than four times the average for public housing dwellings in NSW.  In the last two years alone, nearly $7 million has been spent maintaining this small number of properties.  That money could have been better spent on building more social housing, or investing in the maintenance of public housing properties across the state,” Goward was cited as saying in the release.

"When the previous Government began selling off public housing in Millers Point in 2008 it let other properties here fall into disrepair. That has now left us with repair bills as high as $800,000 to restore some of these terrace houses to heritage standard."
Having jumped on to the New South Wales waiting list to have a look at what public housing contestants, because really that's what it feels like, have to deal with - I was stunned. Many areas have little remaining for certain housing stock with less than a five year waiting period. Some are waiting for even longer.
Goward points to 57,000 families on the waiting list across the state - a terrifying proposition for anyone looking to get housing soon. It must also be nerve wracking to read of the state of public housing, with the ABC reporting last year that the list of those waiting could grow by 30,000 people in three years unless changes are made to a number of aspects of the system.
Goward continued with citing the numbers of the costs of holding these properties. However, this is where the picture becomes more interesting.

“Subsidies to tenants in the last year alone reached $8.89 million, with individual tenants receiving subsidies as high as $44,000 per annum.  This compares to subsidies of $8,000 per year in Campbelltown, $7,000 in Gosford, and $11,000 in Wollongong.  For every subsidised tenancy in Millers Point, the Government could assist five tenants in Warrawong, or 3.5 tenants in Newcastle or Minto," she noted.
A blog post from Brown Couch, the voice of the Tenants Union of New South Wales, sheds light on another aspect to these numbers. They explain that these figures should be looked at as an accounting entry, rather than actual money spent.
The figure is created as the difference between market rent for the property, as assessed by the NSW Land and Housing Corporation, and the rent paid by the tenant, rebated according to the usual rules.

"The market rent for a property does not reflect the cost to the NSW State Government of providing housing or related services at the property. The market rent for a property can go up – and hence the 'subsidy' go up – without any change in the housing being provided at the property, or in Housing NSW's costs," the blog post explains.
"It is important to note too how much tenants have paid towards that real cost of housing. There are 409 social housing tenancies in the properties at Millers Point and The Rocks. We understand the average income-related rent paid is about $100 per week, so, over the past two years, tenants have paid about $4.25 million in rent – in other words, not quite two-thirds of the repair bill."
How this then works out on the books looking further is, as such, uncertain.
As an editor with a budget to manage, and as an everyday resident who has my own personal budgets and targets to maintain, it's logical to find the supposed drain, put a stop to it and move funds into an avenue where they will be more effective. That this makes financial sense is clear to me, despite the welcomed debate of the finer points - and the TUNSW does raise some important points. The simple situation, however, is that these are now lucrative financial assets that can be sold to funnel money back into creating more properties for those on the seemingly endless waiting list.
Goward expressed her acknowledgement that many tenants have lived in this housing for a long period of time, and the difficulties they may face moving elsewhere, but expressed her belief that this was the right decision and that a relocations team would assist the current tenants, including covering costs of moving and reconnection fees.
The fact remains that without ownership of these assets, the tenants do not have rights to them. That is how the property world works at present. Just as a tenant in a privately owned rental in the mainstream market does not have the ability to force a landlord to allow them to retain their tenancy and not to sell the home or let a different tenant live there, a public housing tenant also does not have these rights.
A letter written to the Sydney Morning Herald, shared by the TUNSW's Brown Couch blog, discussed the culture of the area.
"I grew up in a terrace in Lower fort street and my mum still lives there as she has done so for 40 years, laboriously maintaining and restoring her home (largely herself). Even if she is forced to move away, that house will always be our family home and the fact that she doesn't own it does not make that connection or the emotional distress any less valid," the letter is quoted as saying.
It notes that the letter received by her mother said that attempts would be made to relocate her close to her family and friends.
It is likely that this isn't the end. The Herald also recently reported that Glebe, Redfern and Kirribilli are the next sites that could face similar treatment.
Just yesterday, State MP Alex Greenwich slammed the decision as a form of 'social cleansing', and I have read references from a number of different individuals who declare she's ruining the culture on purpose for the property bigwigs in Millers Point and other city locations. These claims are currently unfounded, and when looking at the pure mathematics it makes sense to direct funds where they can have the biggest benefit for the greatest number of people. Of course this isn't just about maths. However, sadly, providing roofs over the heads of the needy at some point needs to trump the heart-wrenching, and they are truly hard to read, discussions of individuals' connections to an area.

It's a situation that is tearing many in two as the best decision is argued out - progress and the situation of the masses versus culture and the individual stories of those residents, and it's certain that someone was always going to leave the debate unhappy. But we need to remember that there are the stories of 57,000 or so others on the waiting list that are likely to be just as awful to read.

RESOURCED: http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/location/nsw/29662-march-27-letter-from-the-editor-millers-point-public-housing-sales-under-scrutiny.html