The end of homelessness

Date
    January 13, 2014


Street homelessness could be eliminated in Victoria within 10 years if the government spent less than $15 million a year on new homes and support, the state's peak homelessness body says.      :-?

The Council to Homeless Persons has put a plan to the government to get the 1092 people estimated to be sleeping rough in the last census off Victorian streets and into their own homes by 2024.

At a net cost of $143 million, the 10-year investment is just half the figure pledged by the Napthine government on Sunday for new tennis facilities at Melbourne Park.

''We know what the solutions are, we just need the political will to make them happen,'' council chief executive Jenny Smith said.


The call for government action follows the death of homeless man Wayne "Mousey" Perry, who was fatally stabbed under a city railway bridge on January 5.

Mousey's son Brad Anderson said it was disgraceful homeless people were still living in fear on the city's streets.      :(

"They need to find a place for the homeless and get them off the streets or something like this could happen again.''

With Melbourne's temperatures predicted to hit 41 degrees this week, staff at a free CBD medical clinic worry those camped in city streets will fall victim to heat exposure. ''Clients say they are being chased away from air-conditioning,'' Youth Projects' Melanie Raymond said.      :(

Under the council proposal, about $13 million would be spent each year building about 50 new properties near public transport and services. Another 50 properties used for short-term accommodation would be turned into permanent homes.

The funding would include money for support to stop people falling back into homelessness, including social workers, education and mental health practitioners.

The plan would cost $267 million but includes $124 million in savings, predominantly through reduced demand on health, justice and other government services. The council has estimated its plan could save $12,000 each year for every person who is helped off the streets.

''People who are sleeping rough are more likely to need emergency and other services as a direct result of their homelessness because they are more likely, for example, to catch pneumonia or become a victim to violence," council chief Ms Smith said.      :(

Program participants would pay 25 per cent of their income in rent. Ms Smith said there was strong local and international evidence that permanent supportive housing programs worked.

The office of Housing Minister Wendy Lovell would not say whether the government would fund the

council's proposal. But a spokeswoman said it was working with the federal government on a plan to replace the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which ends in the middle of this year.

"The Victorian Coalition government is committed to breaking the cycle of homelessness,'' she said.

The council proposal has been welcomed by Victoria's Labor opposition and is supported by front-line services, including the Salvation Army, HomeGround Services and VincentCare.

VincentCare chief executive John Blewonski said $143 million was a relatively "moderate expenditure''. He said the community needed to demand a better deal for those who were at the edge of society. "We are an affluent society and realistically we shouldn't have rough sleepers.''

Opposition housing spokesman Richard Wynne said the minister needed to do more to address homelessness. The MP said he had noticed a group of people sleeping in parklands "less than 100 metres'' from Parliament House.   :(      

Mr Wynne said Labor would have "a comprehensive housing policy for the next election'' but could not commit to a specific dollar figure.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-end-of-homelessness-20140112-30orh.html#ixzz2qDVK8Z3r

It would take very little money for City Councils to build army-style accommodation on Crown Land for the local homeless.

Attached could be shower-rooms, a medical ward, a dining room, laundry, common room, etc.

Simplicity itself.

It has ALWAYS only needed to be done.

But the will simply hasn't been there.

wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 6:17am:

Street homelessness could be eliminated in Victoria within 10 years if the government spent less than $15 million a year on new homes and support, the state's peak homelessness body says

Now there's a good way to get yourself a cheap house.  Just go and sleep in the park for a while.

Beats working and paying off the mortgage for 30 years.... ;D

Street Homelessness Could Be Eliminated.

It could be, in a fair and sensible world.

But.....it's not in the interests of the powers to be to have it this way, they don't want ANYTHING to trickle down this far. The more the bottom rung gets, the less the greedy pigs get.

How dare anyone suggest that we tackle our homeless problem, how inconsiderate!

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:10am:

Street Homelessness Could Be Eliminated. It could be, in a fair and sensible world.

What's fair and sensible about exterminating the homeless?

Oh...you thought there was another way to eliminate homelessness?  Dream on - have you seen some of those crazy animals? 

... wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:10am: Street Homelessness Could Be Eliminated. It could be, in a fair and sensible world. What's fair and sensible about exterminating the homeless? Oh...you thought there was another way to eliminate homelessness?  Dream on - have you seen some of those crazy animals?

A good society would have those crazy animals in a care facility.

If a society is judged by not how it treats its elite, but by how it treats its most vulnerable.........we would fail abysmally.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:31am:

... wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:10am: Street Homelessness Could Be Eliminated. It could be, in a fair and sensible world. What's fair and sensible about exterminating the homeless? Oh...you thought there was another way to eliminate homelessness?  Dream on - have you seen some of those crazy animals?  A good society would have those crazy animals in a care facility. If a society is judged by not how it treats its elite, but by how it treats its most vulnerable.........we would fail abysmally.

Have to disagree there.  The vast majority are looked after.

The rest have the same access to DSP and social / GOVT housing.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:20am:

It would take very little money for City Councils to build army-style accommodation on Crown Land for the local homeless. Attached could be shower-rooms, a medical ward, a dining room, laundry, common room, etc. Simplicity itself. It has ALWAYS only needed to be done. But the will simply hasn't been there.

and how long before it was overun by drunks/druggos  who'd try to save their rent money by pretending to be homeless, in place of genuine homeless?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:20am:

It would take very little money for City Councils to build army-style accommodation on Crown Land for the local homeless

..better still, just put them in the army. 

Swagman wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 9:21am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 7:20am: It would take very little money for City Councils to build army-style accommodation on Crown Land for the local homeless ..better still, just put them in the army.

give them a loaded gun???? there a receipe for disaster ....

Who cares about the Australian homeless? We've got billions of dollars to give to asylum seekers and foreign aid, plus 6 figure salaries for "progressive" academics and public servants. Stuff the homeless!

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:31am:

... wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:10am: Street Homelessness Could Be Eliminated. It could be, in a fair and sensible world. What's fair and sensible about exterminating the homeless? Oh...you thought there was another way to eliminate homelessness?  Dream on - have you seen some of those crazy animals?  A good society would have those crazy animals in a care facility. If a society is judged by not how it treats its elite, but by how it treats its most vulnerable.........we would fail abysmally.

What criminal charge would you use to keep them there???

What about those who choose to be homeless? There are some, not many but even so, are they not worthy of consideration?

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 9:54am:

What about those who choose to be homeless? There are some, not many but even so, are they not worthy of consideration?

no ..

if they choose to be homeless, they live with everything that entails ... if I decide to go bush, and live in a tent and hunt my food, who are you to tell me I need help?

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 9:58am:

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 9:54am: What about those who choose to be homeless? There are some, not many but even so, are they not worthy of consideration? no .. if they choose to be homeless, they live with everything that entails ... if I decide to go bush, and live in a tent and hunt my food, who are you to tell me I need help?

The Govt

Swagman wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 10:00am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 9:58am: The Heartless Felon wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 9:54am: What about those who choose to be homeless? There are some, not many but even so, are they not worthy of consideration? no .. if they choose to be homeless, they live with everything that entails ... if I decide to go bush, and live in a tent and hunt my food, who are you to tell me I need help? The Govt

do they?

Try hunting in a national park.

Try buying a rifle.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:20am:

It would take very little money for City Councils to build army-style accommodation on Crown Land for the local homeless. Attached could be shower-rooms, a medical ward, a dining room, laundry, common room, etc. Simplicity itself. It has ALWAYS only needed to be done. But the will simply hasn't been there.

They could have used old State rail sleeper carriages. Most of those features are built in. But isn't this all being a little bit defeatist? I mean homelessness is due to high rents, not the lack of accommodation. And it all comes back to culture. Our need to cramp together in existing cities.

The history of free/low cost/socialised housing is that it is valued as highly as anything that is provided free.  Socialised housing is particularly prone to burning down.

But worth a try so long as they sprinkle them around, every experience with crowding poor people together is dysfunctional. 

Swagman wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

Try hunting in a national park. Try buying a rifle.

it's not like we have to worry about tigers etc ... My bow will suffice.

I just wrote this - now here's a chance since I'm not home and can't damned upload it onto an email to send to myself... at home when I get there.. might need a little polishing, but I'm sure a few of you could do that for me with your witless retorts and occasional valid discussion point:-

"Government........ is like a family.. and should be running its budget in the same way.

The first thing a  family does is feed its dependents... in this case those dependents include, along with the overly fat and pampered public servants and politicians and the like – the pensioners and the unemployed, the homeless, (just added, thank you) the students and such.

You see – the welfare and well-being level of those dependents is based entirely on the policies that the same government – and I draw no distinction between 'left' or 'right' here – has set in place over the lifetime of its existence.  In fact, it is a perfect allegory to say that the unemployed etc are the creation of that government, and thus that government inherits the obligation to feed, clothe and house them adequately.

These are the offspring of government – same as your children are your offspring and you bend heaven and earth to give them the best.  One thing you do NOT do is vilify your own offspring for being dependents.

Now – as I've stated before – just like any family – should Ma and Pa Government wish to purchase a new car, in the guise of, for example, F-22s and such – they may well have to borrow to do that, since this is a big ticket item.

To get a loan from the bank to buy the new car, they need to show that they have the wherewithal to pay it back, and without robbing the food from the mouths of their dependents.

So – borrowing should never be for any frivolous reason – such as to stake the chances of a few more already fat-handbagged women into politics or CEO jobs or any other job for that matter, to fund yet another junket for an already overfat politician or public servant with a  snout deep in the trough when the whole deal can be done online or by phone, or to pay someone to stay home to have their own family.

And robbing the food from the mouths of the GENUINE dependent offspring of Ma and a Government should NEVER even be contemplated.

Would YOU starve your kids to give Mary up the road a shot at a CEO job, or to fund yet another overseas trip by a pollie or flunkey, or to give little Jenny in the next suburb the chance to stay home on full pay to have her kid?

Neither will Ma and Pa Government.. not on my watch."

One can but ponder the priorities of a government that spends a heap of cash on tennis - one of the most over-rated games in the world in my eyes - while people are sleeping out rough.

What IS the core business of government?

People first - luxury items like tennis courts to pamper a few are a very distant fourth or fifth.

Datalife wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 10:49am:

The history of free/low cost/socialised housing is that it is valued as highly as anything that is provided free.  Socialised housing is particularly prone to burning down. But worth a try so long as they sprinkle them around, every experience with crowding poor people together is dysfunctional.

Hence the Grappler (Ghost busters) Party policy of 'rent/buy deals for welfare housing' - not simply Rent/Wreck at your whim after a night on the piss with yer mates on drugs and an inversion of government housing into a simulacrum of downtown Beirut on a bad day. Holey Walls, Batman!  And a full house barbecue.

The Housing Welfare recipient enters into an agreement under which, in return for payment, they develop equity in the home they are rent/buying - which thus engenders greater responsibility, less non-executive burnouts, and a sense of SOME future for the payer, who one day may OWN that HC home and even possibly move up as times change for the better.


:o    :o    :o

Datalife wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 10:49am:

The history of free/low cost/socialised housing is that it is valued as highly as anything that is provided free.  Socialised housing is particularly prone to burning down. But worth a try so long as they sprinkle them around, every experience with crowding poor people together is dysfunctional.

Low cost housing, like welfare, is treating a symptom, which does not work in the long run. Governments should resign if they fail to solve these problems.

Swagman wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 9:21am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 7:20am: It would take very little money for City Councils to build army-style accommodation on Crown Land for the local homeless ..better still, just put them in the army.

Been suggested for the 'king hitter' style to introduce some self-discipline (is there any other kind of discipline?) into these ratbags.

Failed on the issue of resources, including weaponry, to train, house and fit them out.  We don't have it in the till, so Og help us in a genuine crisis, just around the corner and coming to a country near YOU!

Maybe we need to go to a sort of US Army WWII approach, and arm our combat arms to the teeth, while having the support arms trained in their work and a very basic use of weaponry.

Remember Saving Private Ryan and Corporal Upham....??  In real life he would have been armed with an M-37 bolt action - equivalent of the British P-14 but in 30.06 calibre.  Fine bolt action, but not an M-1 (heavy barrel, pop-up peep sight, top-loading Mauser action - I had one as a ... not telling you)....

Point is - I can't see the seriously deranged taking too well to any institutionalised life - some PREFER the streets for some reason.

But as someone else said - these should be in the institutions now closed to sell of the valuable real estate - here in NSW that was a big Labrador thing under Carr - now they either self-medicate or they kill someone or they wind up in prison or they die on the street.

Good one, Bob - hope you've got enough in the till for your retirement.  Might be a good policy to cut past politician's super payments and perks when they are receiving a certain amount of income from elsewhere....... the country could use that money......... to house the homeless........

Footnote:-  Even in the Ia Drang 1966, Engineers attached were armed with M-14s and not the new M-16s that were replacing them.  At the Albany shoot-out, the Cav swapped M-16s for M-14s to snipe the little...... sweat peas... who were massacring the wounded.

"Time comes I need one of them things .. there'll be plenty of 'em lying on the ground"....

The M-14 makes a comeback in my WWIV book set in 2039-2045.....

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:20am:

It would take very little money for City Councils to build army-style accommodation on Crown Land for the local homeless. Attached could be shower-rooms, a medical ward, a dining room, laundry, common room, etc. Simplicity itself. It has ALWAYS only needed to be done. But the will simply hasn't been there.

Good idea.
Homeless people should be able to set up tents & shanty towns in public parks.

The Govt. doesn't let them because it is an eyesore &
shows how bad their own governance is.

It's preferable to hide them away as couch surfers & under bridges.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 11:52am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 7:20am: It would take very little money for City Councils to build army-style accommodation on Crown Land for the local homeless. Attached could be shower-rooms, a medical ward, a dining room, laundry, common room, etc. Simplicity itself. It has ALWAYS only needed to be done. But the will simply hasn't been there. Good idea. Homeless people should be able to set up tents & shanty towns in public parks. The Govt. doesn't let them because it is an eyesore & shows how bad their own governance is. It's preferable to hide them away as couch surfers & under bridges.

Sounds HORRIBLY like a 'detention center' to me.

Curfews, segregation, forced work for no pay, run by maggots like
Serco, police constantly stationed on-site, forced 'health-checks' etc.

I can see it now.... unfortunately.

Well - we always knew the Guv would have to find a use for those onshore detention centres once the flow of asylum seekers dried up...

Load up them cattle trucks - Raus.. RAUS... or der dog vill bite you!  Send 'em West for 're-settlement' - this new horde of desaparacedivos... taken 'em off the streets at gunpoint in a Night and Fog and let God sort 'em out in the gulag....

I seriously thought these would become 're-education centres' for wayward men who were not guilty of domestic violence but attacked and labeled anyway just to get their guns off 'em.... and 'dead-beat' dads with no jobs these days and last on the list for them anyway, who don't cough up massive child support after being booted from the family home...  you know - those convicted under the 'usual suspect' non-laws......

Stalag Strasselebensuntermenschen IV (g) - ve haff vays of making your sleep in a cot!

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:20am:

It would take very little money for City Councils to build army-style accommodation on Crown Land for the local homeless. Attached could be shower-rooms, a medical ward, a dining room, laundry, common room, etc. Simplicity itself. It has ALWAYS only needed to be done. But the will simply hasn't been there.

People are making an assumption here, based on their own middle class perceptions. They are assuming the homeless want to live in homes. Not all of them do and not all of them would move in to accommodation, even if you provided it.
You have to allow people that amount of free will.

The man who was murdered need not have been out on the streets, he had in fact had a roof over his head some time before and chose to leave. He had been encouraged to return and had been considering it, but obviously was not in a rush.

A lot of these people have issues-maybe mental issues, maybe issues with drink or drugs-but you can chuck a deep bucket of money at the problem and still never eliminate it completely. Improve it yes, for those who would like shelter. That's about all you can do. But as for buying each of the homeless a little house? Nope, that's not on.