Hope Street - 15 & 21 
<<Go Back To Forum

Transfer of Housing to Wentworth

Posted by chrisbaulman on 29/10/13
As a "social housing tenant who has recent experience residing in both the public and community housing sectors", I have been invited to go to a meeting for an "AHURI funded research project on cost effectiveness of social landlords and tenant outcomes.

About a year or more ago I was one of several tenants who gave feedback to some of the same researchers. One particular point I made forcefully was that at a meeting at the neighbourhood centre, we tenants were lied to that if we didn't sign the new leases we would have to move out of Hope St.

I have since come across their report which I attach. I am also attaching a document with my comments on the executive summary of the report. I will be making my points at the upcoming meeting with researchers in November. If you have points to make, please make them here in Village & I will print them off & table them at the meeting.


To develop this idea further ...make it an 'Activity' by pressing here.

Recent Comments:

AlexBaumann      05/11/13
In short they are saying that all this is an attempt to
[1] secure Commonwealth rent subsidies
[2] allow private organisations to leverage their stock against loans

...two things its apparently impossible for state housing authorities to do.

...as Chris says this is clearly bullshit. For the enormous cost and upheaval involved in these transfers surely they could secure such arrangements in a less structural way.

Beyond this there are unsubstantiated ideas about...
[3] better community engagement
[4] less stigma
[5] more efficiency

...but as you say these are all totally unsubstantiated and clearly bullshit. ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ hearsay.

There is good evidence that what this is really about is that it’s all just part of broader neo-liberalisation movement which is trying to dismantle (privitise) the welfare state. Since Blair’s new Labour movement there is a political consensus that the welfare state is a defunct concept ...and breeds entitlement. In philosophical terms it is a move from the notion of ‘substantive social rights’ (which sits at the heart of T.S. Marshal’s welfare state) to the new mantra of social policy - ‘Active Citizenship’, which sees responsibilities to the market (and not substantive social rights) as central. These conservative forces see a direct connection between state provided welfare and a culture of welfare dependency. Dismantling the welfare state is their way of extracting the state from being at the nucleus of welfare policy. By doing this they are attacking the problem they see at the core of dependency - the sense of 'entitlement' that the paternal welfare state has created. If private charities offer welfare instead ...it is clearly ‘charity’ and not the offerings of the paternal state. This is no more than a divorce between the state and welfare policy. The policy implications of all this is that Government (as it did in times before the welfare state) should only really support private charitable organisations who should have punitive and strict conditions for supporting anyone.

There is no doubt that dependency has become a problem, however the question that might be asked is ‘are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?’ Is there something ‘substantive’ about social rights that the state and not private charity should remain responsible for? Rights of access to land is a right (like air and water) that the state should guarantee. If there was a way for subjects to then fulfil their responsibility of building and supporting themselves with that land we could overcome the dependency which the welfare state created.

Might be very difficult to stop these transfers and hold back the tide of the broad wave of incremental neo-liberalism. However if we could demonstrate and active form of rights ...there might be hope for keeping the baby.