Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Public housing waiting lists a 'real concern'
Tue May 18, 2010
The Victorian Opposition is again highlighting an increase in the waiting lists for public housing across the state.
Gippsland is the only region to record a slight fall in the housing waiting list over the last quarter, interrupting the long-term trend.
The Opposition's housing spokeswoman, Wendy Lovell, says the Government has mismanaged all levels of housing, public and private.
She says the people worst affected are renters looking for accommodation for the first time who have to wait more than eight months for accommodation.
"So that's a long time if you're suffering homelessness or if you have a disability or are inappropriately housed or if you have a medical need and need to be close to services, the average waiting time for the wait for early housing is a real concern," she said.
Victorian Housing Minister Richard Wynne concedes that public housing is under pressure from the private rental market.
Mr Wynn says more public housing is coming online and low cost rental units are being built in Bass Coast.
He says the state and federal governments are building 3,500 more accommodation units across Victoria.
But he says the booming property market is putting pressure on housing availability.
"We've not seen vacancy rates as low as this for more than a decade and that has a direct impact on the public housing waiting list, so where the public housing waiting list is obviously up, that is reflective of the low vacancies in the private rental market," he said.
The Victorian Opposition is again highlighting an increase in the waiting lists for public housing across the state.
Gippsland is the only region to record a slight fall in the housing waiting list over the last quarter, interrupting the long-term trend.
The Opposition's housing spokeswoman, Wendy Lovell, says the Government has mismanaged all levels of housing, public and private.
She says the people worst affected are renters looking for accommodation for the first time who have to wait more than eight months for accommodation.
"So that's a long time if you're suffering homelessness or if you have a disability or are inappropriately housed or if you have a medical need and need to be close to services, the average waiting time for the wait for early housing is a real concern," she said.
Victorian Housing Minister Richard Wynne concedes that public housing is under pressure from the private rental market.
Mr Wynn says more public housing is coming online and low cost rental units are being built in Bass Coast.
He says the state and federal governments are building 3,500 more accommodation units across Victoria.
But he says the booming property market is putting pressure on housing availability.
"We've not seen vacancy rates as low as this for more than a decade and that has a direct impact on the public housing waiting list, so where the public housing waiting list is obviously up, that is reflective of the low vacancies in the private rental market," he said.
Salvos highlight growing public housing demand
Thu May 31, 2007
The Salvation Army says low housing affordability, high demand for rental properties and high unemployment have contributed to a rise in demand for public housing in Gippsland.
A Government report shows waiting lists have fallen by 3 per cent in most areas regional areas, but not in Gippsland.
The manager of Gippscare, Ken Parkin, says the competition for housing has become fierce as the number of Centrelink dependents and rental prices continue to climb.
"For this year alone, in the regions of Baw Baw Shire, South Gippsland Shire and Bass Coast Shire, from the beginning of the year until now, which is five months, we've got more than 900 contacts come through our service alone and all of those are housing-related - that's an increase from the previous six months, many because they're in housing crisis," he said.
The Salvation Army says low housing affordability, high demand for rental properties and high unemployment have contributed to a rise in demand for public housing in Gippsland.
A Government report shows waiting lists have fallen by 3 per cent in most areas regional areas, but not in Gippsland.
The manager of Gippscare, Ken Parkin, says the competition for housing has become fierce as the number of Centrelink dependents and rental prices continue to climb.
"For this year alone, in the regions of Baw Baw Shire, South Gippsland Shire and Bass Coast Shire, from the beginning of the year until now, which is five months, we've got more than 900 contacts come through our service alone and all of those are housing-related - that's an increase from the previous six months, many because they're in housing crisis," he said.
Screened Out: Housing Exclusion in Gippsland
By Wendy Gilbert,
Gippsland Housing and Support Services Network
In 2003 a study (1) was undertaken in Gippsland, which in part examined the role of caravan parks as a provider of crisis accommodation. Telephone interviews were conducted with 95 of the 108 parks listed in Gippsland. Information was collected about park trade, (tourist, permanent or both), off peak and peak rates, proximity to service infrastructure (shops, transport etc) and past and present availability of accommodation for people in housing crisis.
Many marginalised people in Gippsland fail to access private rental or Office of Housing (OoH) funded accommodation. As a result, they are forced to seek homelessness assistance to pay for caravan park or motel accommodation. For just over half of these people (2) no ongoing support will be provided, often leaving them at risk of imminent or ongoing housing failure.
In the study, caravan park managers were asked if they had ever provided emergency short term accommodation for people referred from local community agencies [if not, why not] and [if so] would they continue to provide accommodation. These questions quite frequently produced outspoken responses as the respondents used the opportunity to 'debrief'. Many managers commented that they had previously made accommodation available but had either ceased accepting housing referrals or had imposed strict selection criteria. Frequently stories were told of people who were assisted into caravan parks with no ongoing support or needing intensive support, which was not available. Other park owners spoke of losing money, often thousands of dollars in damage and rent arrears. One owner thought that agencies should have a police check undertaken on clients prior to referral. Respondents outlined a range of undesirable behaviours, which they perceived had been frequently demonstrated by people referred for crisis accommodation. These behaviours included: drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, self-harm, criminal, violent or antisocial behaviour by residents or their visitors and excessive noise. Some park managers stated that often an agency would pay the first two weeks rent in advance but the resident would stay on and fail to maintain regular rent payments themselves.
"Most people referred by…..had a range of needs and were not socially adept. Caravan park living is difficult for people with issues, as the very nature of parks requires confined living and socially responsive interaction. Most people are unable to manage their money and some exhibited violent behaviour which is a problem for other park residents and for my own family." (Caravan park manager – East Gippsland)
"I’m not a social worker; they need constant support not just a food parcel and a rent cheque." (Caravan park manager, Bass Coast)
Of the 95 caravan park managers interviewed, only 25 managers stated that they were willing to accept people in housing crisis who were referred by community agencies. Of these, unfortunately eight were managers of parks that are situated in very isolated areas making referrals impractical. In addition, a further 18 park managers (seven of these were in isolated areas) stated that under certain conditions, they might be willing to accept people in housing crisis. Generally, this would mean that the park manager would expect to "screen" the applicant fairly rigorously in order to assess suitability for accommodation. In summary only 17 (17.8%) caravan parks in Gippsland are both suitable and willing to 'unconditionally' take people in housing crisis.
For housing and support providers, the declining access to caravan parks presents significant challengers, with agencies unable to purchase park accommodation in many rural towns. The homeless service system is strongly focused at the crisis intervention end of service delivery with increasing demand being placed on agencies to find overnight or short term accommodation for people in crisis. Agencies reported that a significant amount of time is taken up trying to find crisis accommodation for people and frequently this may only occur if people are willing to relocate to another town or area.
"Most people have not been referred to us but seem to find us and still have a need for crisis accommodation. Element of the revolving door – clients repeatedly in housing crisis…." East Gippsland agency
Homeless people are not able to access motel or caravan park accommodation in Orbost, nor can they access caravan park accommodation in Sale, Warragul, Moe or Morwell. Boarding house and supported residential service closures in recent years have exacerbated housing options, with closures of facilities in Bairnsdale, Warragul, Sale, Morwell and Moe. In addition, many caravan parks have upgraded their facilities to cater for tourist trade, consequently pricing low income households out of the market.
The project also undertook an analysis of Housing Establishment Fund (HEF) (3) expenditure for crisis accommodation during two collection periods (4). A total of $48,032.48 was expended in purchasing crisis accommodation (5) across Gippsland during January to June 2003. Participating agencies purchased 1,382 days of crisis accommodation for 437 households and 188 accompanying children during this six month period. In comparing data from each local government area, it is clear short term housing outcomes are substantially driven by the type of accommodation agencies can purchase. In regions where agencies can still access caravan park accommodation, the daily rate for accommodation is more affordable. As a result, agencies are more likely to purchase longer periods of accommodation per household. In East Gippsland, where caravan park accommodation is still available, the average number of days purchased per household was five at a cost of $129.05. In the Latrobe Valley, where access to caravan parks is rare, households are more frequently accommodated in motels or hotels. Higher accommodation costs result in less assistance, with the average number of days purchased per household reducing to 2.4
The three month snapshot data collection requested different information from agencies. This collection revealed that across the region, accommodation was purchased most frequently from motels on 93 occasions, followed by caravan parks (41), hotel/motel (30) and other (4). The data indicated that on the night before seeking crisis accommodation, 54% of people had been in a state of primary or secondary homelessness (6).
In conclusion, the project found three findings which are of significant concern.
First, for many people, agency use of HEF for the purchase of crisis accommodation merely extended their current episode of homelessness and further contributed to the transient nature of their lives.
Second, the tenuous relationship between caravan park providers and funded agencies requires further discussion. Caravan park managers are indicating that if tenancies are to succeed, people need more assistance that a rent cheque. In circumstances where people had received agency assistance to find and pay for caravan park accommodation, caravan park managers assume the referring agency should also take responsibility for providing tenancy support. When this does not happen, and the tenancy breaks down quickly, park managers feel aggrieved and will blame the agency for setting them up with problem residents. It is critical that government and funded agencies recognise the value in supporting people to maintain caravan park tenancies. As a matter of urgency, housing and support providers must endeavour to strengthen relationships with existing caravan park providers. In addition, current and future funding should be directed towards projects that work extensively with caravan park communities in order to improve people’s access to health, housing, income and family support services.
Third, and directly related to the previous discussion, are the implications for homeless people if the current levels of housing and crisis accommodation disparity continue to exist. Housing services, and in particular SAAP transitional support services, are frequently constrained by the level of access people have to local housing options. In towns where people have poor access to housing, SAAP support is mostly limited to case managing clients in transitional accommodation or providing 'one off' assistance. Most people will move on if they are unable to secure housing quickly. When people move frequently, support agencies lose the opportunity to provide the necessary support and intervention required to break the cycle of homelessness.
Footnotes
1. Gippsland Housing and Support Services Network (2003), Gippsland Crisis Accommodation Review
2. Gippsland Housing and Support Services Network (2003), Gippsland Crisis Accommodation Review
3. HEF is funded in Victoria by the Department of Human Services, Office of Housing
4. Retrospective analysis of HEF January to June 2003 and a snapshot collection from September to November 2003
5. Project definition of crisis accommodation was from 1 night up to 14 days.
6. Project adaptation from Chamberlain and MacKenzie 1992 Model of Homelessness
Gippsland Housing and Support Services Network
In 2003 a study (1) was undertaken in Gippsland, which in part examined the role of caravan parks as a provider of crisis accommodation. Telephone interviews were conducted with 95 of the 108 parks listed in Gippsland. Information was collected about park trade, (tourist, permanent or both), off peak and peak rates, proximity to service infrastructure (shops, transport etc) and past and present availability of accommodation for people in housing crisis.
Many marginalised people in Gippsland fail to access private rental or Office of Housing (OoH) funded accommodation. As a result, they are forced to seek homelessness assistance to pay for caravan park or motel accommodation. For just over half of these people (2) no ongoing support will be provided, often leaving them at risk of imminent or ongoing housing failure.
In the study, caravan park managers were asked if they had ever provided emergency short term accommodation for people referred from local community agencies [if not, why not] and [if so] would they continue to provide accommodation. These questions quite frequently produced outspoken responses as the respondents used the opportunity to 'debrief'. Many managers commented that they had previously made accommodation available but had either ceased accepting housing referrals or had imposed strict selection criteria. Frequently stories were told of people who were assisted into caravan parks with no ongoing support or needing intensive support, which was not available. Other park owners spoke of losing money, often thousands of dollars in damage and rent arrears. One owner thought that agencies should have a police check undertaken on clients prior to referral. Respondents outlined a range of undesirable behaviours, which they perceived had been frequently demonstrated by people referred for crisis accommodation. These behaviours included: drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, self-harm, criminal, violent or antisocial behaviour by residents or their visitors and excessive noise. Some park managers stated that often an agency would pay the first two weeks rent in advance but the resident would stay on and fail to maintain regular rent payments themselves.
"Most people referred by…..had a range of needs and were not socially adept. Caravan park living is difficult for people with issues, as the very nature of parks requires confined living and socially responsive interaction. Most people are unable to manage their money and some exhibited violent behaviour which is a problem for other park residents and for my own family." (Caravan park manager – East Gippsland)
"I’m not a social worker; they need constant support not just a food parcel and a rent cheque." (Caravan park manager, Bass Coast)
Of the 95 caravan park managers interviewed, only 25 managers stated that they were willing to accept people in housing crisis who were referred by community agencies. Of these, unfortunately eight were managers of parks that are situated in very isolated areas making referrals impractical. In addition, a further 18 park managers (seven of these were in isolated areas) stated that under certain conditions, they might be willing to accept people in housing crisis. Generally, this would mean that the park manager would expect to "screen" the applicant fairly rigorously in order to assess suitability for accommodation. In summary only 17 (17.8%) caravan parks in Gippsland are both suitable and willing to 'unconditionally' take people in housing crisis.
For housing and support providers, the declining access to caravan parks presents significant challengers, with agencies unable to purchase park accommodation in many rural towns. The homeless service system is strongly focused at the crisis intervention end of service delivery with increasing demand being placed on agencies to find overnight or short term accommodation for people in crisis. Agencies reported that a significant amount of time is taken up trying to find crisis accommodation for people and frequently this may only occur if people are willing to relocate to another town or area.
"Most people have not been referred to us but seem to find us and still have a need for crisis accommodation. Element of the revolving door – clients repeatedly in housing crisis…." East Gippsland agency
Homeless people are not able to access motel or caravan park accommodation in Orbost, nor can they access caravan park accommodation in Sale, Warragul, Moe or Morwell. Boarding house and supported residential service closures in recent years have exacerbated housing options, with closures of facilities in Bairnsdale, Warragul, Sale, Morwell and Moe. In addition, many caravan parks have upgraded their facilities to cater for tourist trade, consequently pricing low income households out of the market.
The project also undertook an analysis of Housing Establishment Fund (HEF) (3) expenditure for crisis accommodation during two collection periods (4). A total of $48,032.48 was expended in purchasing crisis accommodation (5) across Gippsland during January to June 2003. Participating agencies purchased 1,382 days of crisis accommodation for 437 households and 188 accompanying children during this six month period. In comparing data from each local government area, it is clear short term housing outcomes are substantially driven by the type of accommodation agencies can purchase. In regions where agencies can still access caravan park accommodation, the daily rate for accommodation is more affordable. As a result, agencies are more likely to purchase longer periods of accommodation per household. In East Gippsland, where caravan park accommodation is still available, the average number of days purchased per household was five at a cost of $129.05. In the Latrobe Valley, where access to caravan parks is rare, households are more frequently accommodated in motels or hotels. Higher accommodation costs result in less assistance, with the average number of days purchased per household reducing to 2.4
The three month snapshot data collection requested different information from agencies. This collection revealed that across the region, accommodation was purchased most frequently from motels on 93 occasions, followed by caravan parks (41), hotel/motel (30) and other (4). The data indicated that on the night before seeking crisis accommodation, 54% of people had been in a state of primary or secondary homelessness (6).
In conclusion, the project found three findings which are of significant concern.
First, for many people, agency use of HEF for the purchase of crisis accommodation merely extended their current episode of homelessness and further contributed to the transient nature of their lives.
Second, the tenuous relationship between caravan park providers and funded agencies requires further discussion. Caravan park managers are indicating that if tenancies are to succeed, people need more assistance that a rent cheque. In circumstances where people had received agency assistance to find and pay for caravan park accommodation, caravan park managers assume the referring agency should also take responsibility for providing tenancy support. When this does not happen, and the tenancy breaks down quickly, park managers feel aggrieved and will blame the agency for setting them up with problem residents. It is critical that government and funded agencies recognise the value in supporting people to maintain caravan park tenancies. As a matter of urgency, housing and support providers must endeavour to strengthen relationships with existing caravan park providers. In addition, current and future funding should be directed towards projects that work extensively with caravan park communities in order to improve people’s access to health, housing, income and family support services.
Third, and directly related to the previous discussion, are the implications for homeless people if the current levels of housing and crisis accommodation disparity continue to exist. Housing services, and in particular SAAP transitional support services, are frequently constrained by the level of access people have to local housing options. In towns where people have poor access to housing, SAAP support is mostly limited to case managing clients in transitional accommodation or providing 'one off' assistance. Most people will move on if they are unable to secure housing quickly. When people move frequently, support agencies lose the opportunity to provide the necessary support and intervention required to break the cycle of homelessness.
Footnotes
1. Gippsland Housing and Support Services Network (2003), Gippsland Crisis Accommodation Review
2. Gippsland Housing and Support Services Network (2003), Gippsland Crisis Accommodation Review
3. HEF is funded in Victoria by the Department of Human Services, Office of Housing
4. Retrospective analysis of HEF January to June 2003 and a snapshot collection from September to November 2003
5. Project definition of crisis accommodation was from 1 night up to 14 days.
6. Project adaptation from Chamberlain and MacKenzie 1992 Model of Homelessness
Inverloch Residents Say Desal Worker Demand is Pushing Rents up by Stealth
Written by Marc Pallisco Wednesday, 17 February 2010 00:40
RESIDENTS in a township near Victoria’s new Desalination Plant say they are being evicted so that landlords can re-let properties at a significantly higher price, to people working on the controversial project.
Bass Coast mayor Peter Paul is said to be investigating the issue whereby agents tell tenants the owner wants to sell the property, only to then re-let the property, at a substantially higher rent.
One resident is being evicted from an Inverlcoh house she has been paying $250 per week for. The home would fetch $500 per week, if it were put on the open market, the South Gippsland Advertiser reports.
“Tenants are being given the same story...owners want to sell the houses and units,” resident Joanne Roughead told the local paper.
“We don’t believe it,” she said. “These premises will go to desal workers for huge returns.”
“That wasn’t supposed to happen,” she said. “We had that guarantee from the shire council, State Government and AquaSure (the consortium developing the desal plant).
Cr Paul said there is not much the council can do about the allegations, without verifying the facts.
‘However if the claims are proven, we will take immediate action,” he said. “This is the very thing the desal project was not supposed to affect. It wasn’t meant to dislocate ratepayers, making the vulnerable even more vulnerable.”
RESIDENTS in a township near Victoria’s new Desalination Plant say they are being evicted so that landlords can re-let properties at a significantly higher price, to people working on the controversial project.
Bass Coast mayor Peter Paul is said to be investigating the issue whereby agents tell tenants the owner wants to sell the property, only to then re-let the property, at a substantially higher rent.
One resident is being evicted from an Inverlcoh house she has been paying $250 per week for. The home would fetch $500 per week, if it were put on the open market, the South Gippsland Advertiser reports.
“Tenants are being given the same story...owners want to sell the houses and units,” resident Joanne Roughead told the local paper.
“We don’t believe it,” she said. “These premises will go to desal workers for huge returns.”
“That wasn’t supposed to happen,” she said. “We had that guarantee from the shire council, State Government and AquaSure (the consortium developing the desal plant).
Cr Paul said there is not much the council can do about the allegations, without verifying the facts.
‘However if the claims are proven, we will take immediate action,” he said. “This is the very thing the desal project was not supposed to affect. It wasn’t meant to dislocate ratepayers, making the vulnerable even more vulnerable.”
Friday, May 14, 2010
Desal Forum
Desalination Forum
22nd May 2010
7.30 PM
Wonthaggi Town Hall
It has been about nine months now since the consortium building the desalination plant last met with the community to give any details of what they plan to build.
This is a very unsatisfactory situation. The government have set up a community liason committee that gives the community the same spin answers as the DSE used to. After requesting the answers to many questions over the last months without getting answers we called for another community forum. In the end we have had to set one up ourselves. Senior staff of the consortium have been asked to attend and sit on a panel, as have staff of the Bass Coast Shire. We also have a panel of water, environmental and economic experts to help answer the community’s questions about the desal plant being built and its likely effects.
FREE ADMISSION
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Basscoast Housing Crisis Class Action
If you have been forced out of the Basscoast due to the high rents and want to do something about it then please contact me for information on the legal action we will be taking and add your name to our list.
Abuse of the VCAT system.
Some agents are abusing the VCAT processes to obtain vacant posession of
rented inverloch properties.
This is being used as a scare tactic on local tenants.
This is a form of harrassment and a clear abuse of the VCAT system.
rented inverloch properties.
This is being used as a scare tactic on local tenants.
This is a form of harrassment and a clear abuse of the VCAT system.
For those about to SQUAT
Check List
1. That their water supply has not been disconnected by their managing agents without consent.
2. Change all locks on the property.
3. Make an application to VCAT. This will strech your stay up to 14 days.
1. That their water supply has not been disconnected by their managing agents without consent.
2. Change all locks on the property.
3. Make an application to VCAT. This will strech your stay up to 14 days.
Abuse of the VCAT system by Inverloch Agent.
The latest technique being used by some local agents is to ABUSE the VCAT processes
by applying for unnessecary and unlawful possession notices that are then used as
intimidation against tenants. One tenant was actually told that when they handed in their
keys that the agent would then withdraw their VCAT application.
This application was totally unnessecary due to the fact that these tenants had already
given their notice some weeks before and did not owe any rent on the property.
We are seriously concerned about this practice because these agents are not even
bothering to officially withdraw these notices, they are just not turning up to the VCAT
hearings and the applications are being dismissed, this is just an abuse of this system in
total.
We have also heard that some tenants are also having water connections disconnected
without them knowing or providing written consents for managing agents to do so which
we beleive is a breach of the privacy act.
Some tenants are just being outright bullied by these agents and we here at
basscoast housing crisis have duly noted this behaviour and will be providing these
details to CAV and the TUV so these breaches of tenants rights are totally followed up
As some of these agents are signed up to the housing accord we believe that these
agents should lose their licences and face heafty fines for the treatment and displacement
of the local community.
by applying for unnessecary and unlawful possession notices that are then used as
intimidation against tenants. One tenant was actually told that when they handed in their
keys that the agent would then withdraw their VCAT application.
This application was totally unnessecary due to the fact that these tenants had already
given their notice some weeks before and did not owe any rent on the property.
We are seriously concerned about this practice because these agents are not even
bothering to officially withdraw these notices, they are just not turning up to the VCAT
hearings and the applications are being dismissed, this is just an abuse of this system in
total.
We have also heard that some tenants are also having water connections disconnected
without them knowing or providing written consents for managing agents to do so which
we beleive is a breach of the privacy act.
Some tenants are just being outright bullied by these agents and we here at
basscoast housing crisis have duly noted this behaviour and will be providing these
details to CAV and the TUV so these breaches of tenants rights are totally followed up
As some of these agents are signed up to the housing accord we believe that these
agents should lose their licences and face heafty fines for the treatment and displacement
of the local community.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
