Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. jaybean

    jaybean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,174
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The money they've saved in that period could have been used to build wealth and now buy the bloody place. Instead they've presumably used that surplus money to enjoy life. Why should we as tax payers now foot the bill for that? I agree, little sympathy from me.
     
  2. vtt

    vtt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    262
    Location:
    Inner West, Sydney
    I literally walked past these houses about 15 minutes ago. They really are beautiful. I'm sort of surprised the government didn't get onto this earlier.

    The thing we need to remember is that public housing has been placed (traditionally) in lower socio economic areas. Hence the stock in places like Glebe and Millers Point which, back in the day, were the slummier neighborhoods. Gentrification and a change in these areas has resulted in them becoming desirable yet the HC residents remain.

    I don't begrudge the original tenants of these homes, they now just happen to live in a million dollar neighbourhood but they lived through the time where it was certainly not as desirable as it is now. They have formed friendships and become part of the local community, to many people this is all they have ever known. Disrupting them may have a massive impact on them.

    The ones that bug me are the people who have had these million dollar properties passed onto them by the original HC tenant. IMHO they are the ones that need to get booted out. ASAP.

    vtt
     
  3. Propertunity

    Propertunity Exclusive Real Estate Buyers Agent Business Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,625
    Location:
    NSW
  4. AndrewTDP

    AndrewTDP Urban Planning Consultant Business Member

    Joined:
    1st Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    765
    Location:
    Newcastle
    They are re-investing all the money back in to social housing in other areas.

    I'd prefer to see an extra 64million a year for providing additional social housing than holding on to a small number of old properties for the benefit of a very small number of people.

    If it is retained as social housing then it should be reserved for key service workers who need accommodation close to their place of work due to hours or task undertaken. Not people who see it as a god given right. You want security in your property? Then buy it.
     
    vtt and wylie like this.
  5. wylie

    wylie Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,892
    Location:
    Brisbane
    They are claiming they are being booted out. They are being given alternative housing. I say sell these places up and house these people in more affordable digs. They've taken and taken for so long they know when they are on a good thing.
     
    Brian84 likes this.
  6. Waldo

    Waldo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    225
    Location:
    South Australia
    Disappointing to see if the ones who refused to move get an exemption. If any of them were to be retained, my preference would be for them to go to the people who moved when they were told to - not the people who chose to become illegal squatters - why would the government encourage that type of behaviour??
     
  7. SeafordSunshine

    SeafordSunshine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    453
    Location:
    Sydney
    This sounds like Council Housing in the UK.. Set up to house people after world war 2 and it still exists as a dinosaur...:confused:.. 60 years later...