NSW government boots nuggety battlers in the guts!

http://www.news.com.au/finance/real...ey-harbour-views/story-fndbatbk-1227522992708


Miller's Point public housing residents holding the government to ransom it would seem.

54 years on subsidised rental with some of the best views in the world ( not just Australia).

My sympathy levels are nil . They've had a good ride but won't get off now that their time is up.

Might just be me getting disgruntled in my old age.

 

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.

 

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

 

The last terrace house I purchased for a client at Millers Point, I paid $2.56M for. The public housing tenant last in there was paying $77.29 per week rent. Not a good use of public money in my view.

 

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.

 

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??

 

This sounds like Council Housing in the UK.. Set up to house people after world war 2 and it still exists as a dinosaur..... 60 years later...