Social Housing – old antagonisms die hard

Paul Syvret is one of the regular writers for the Courier-Mail. When he’s not writing pieces about politics and the economy – usually in a manner which tries to make economic news intelligible – he writes general opinion pieces. Maybe it’s the opportunity to sound off about something other than economics and politics, but from time to time he really lets fly. What is interesting is not that a journo is strongly sounding off about something that annoys them – there’s plenty of those, as there are bloggers – but that he sometimes flays his (and his newspaper’s) own audience, very strongly and directly.

Today, he has written a column attacking those commenters who reacted to the State government’s announcement of a boost in public housing dwellings with a torrent of abuse at public housing tenants. Syvret described some of them as “mean-spirited, self-righteous snobs”.

Having a good supply of affordable housing is immensely beneficial to all of us in the community, no matter how much we earn or where we live.  The actions of both the federal and the state government to boost the amount of social housing is one of the better things those governments have done.  Ensuring housing affordability is something which governments have done very poorly over the last 10 years.  There are still some key policy levers which should be changed to improve this situation, but the state government’s plan to expand social housing is long overdue and they deserve congratulations for it, not an outburst of snobbery, class hatred and intolerance.

In an age where many stories on the websites of mainstream media provide a chance for readers to comment, the volume of responses published is far greater and often more aggressive than the traditional letters to the editor page.  This has meant many comment threads contain some quite toxic views, particularly on contentious issues. This isn’t unique to mainstream media sites of course. Anyone who has run a blog usually becomes rapidly aware of the difficulty of deciding how abusive a comment should be in order for it to be deleted.

Unlike at least some blogs, this mainly provides a chance for the reader to sound off, rather generate any response from the journalist.  (There are a few exceptions to this – the blog posts of George Meglogenis from The Australian probably being the best example.)

While (as far as I know) Paul Syvret doesn’t directly respond to commenters in the same thread (although he does do a “live chat” online today to follow up on the social housing story), this is now at least two opinion pieces he’s written in the paper (and online) which attack the deep divisiveness and selfishness of many of the commenters on a previous topic.

Another was a piece in November decrying many of the comments on the refugee issue as bigoted, ignorant and racist.  When you see some of the original comments, it’s hard to disagree (even though quite a few people seem to think that no one should call anything racist any more).

It may well be just the continuing commentary of an angry but small minority, but when you realise that there are comments with even more vilification in them that aren’t published, it is hard to deny that there is still quite a way to go before the hallowed Australian notion of ‘a fair go for all’ is actually taken to heart by all.

Please like & share:

93 Comments

  1. Red Crab:

    That’s interesting. Last night on the news, there was a community of people demonstrating because the local council wanted to charge them $8000+ each for the building of a public bridge on public (council) property.

    Not long ago, I saw people demonstrating because their local council was trying to charge each resident around $800-$1000 for the installation of a concrete footpath that ran past their homes on council property. By rights, we don’t even have to mow the footpath. They are lucky we are doing them a favour.

    Where I live, Council Waste Management is not currently following the lead of the BCC on green waste disposal. They said they don’t want to put the private contractor out of business.

    I think you will find that most councils are now privatising everything, the same as federal and state governments. There are private contractors who collect garbage and supply water. No doubt a large corporation will also collect a Carbon Tax.

    This is what I now call the Crush Australia Policy. Do not make much government income from assets and utilities; charge the people as much as possible, even for things that should be covered by council rates and charges; and empower huge corporations to rip them off further.

    Also, import various things from overseas to put Australians out of business. Who cares if Australians don’t have jobs?

  2. Now here’s a story from tonight’s “A Current Affair”.

    Property developers have tried for 10+ years to get an elderly woman out of her house. She has been offered up to $5,000,000 for her property.

    Now we are told the government is going to bring in new legislation to seize HER FREEHOLD LAND, and sell it to developers for a large profit.

    I guess this is known as THE DIRECT APPROACH to remove singles and couples from fairly large pieces of prime inner city land.

  3. you know what polititions and councils are most afraid of ?

    the posibility of ordinary australians actualy reading the australian constitution there is a possibility that local councils are not recognised

    now if this is tru then how can they legaly charge rates etc.
    as far as im aware they evolved from local road gangs and thats all they are untill the law is change and that wont happen untill australia becomes a republic and changes the constitution

    that is why they are all trying to become corperations private companys ( different laws )

    as everything one must not just look but must also see and question

    now if a council wants to build a bridge on the ppls property and charge them then they should have a local referendum to be legal if they dont then they cant even build it because its not there land its crown land ownd by the govt not the council .
    councils are there to provide a mantinance service for govt property and infrostructure in there local area which is payed for in the way of grants and payments from the govt out of govt taxes.

  4. Red Crab:

    Yes, I’m sure both Andrew and my local councillor have said that local councils have no constitutional power.

    But certainly someone has empowered them to take charge of local communities and the provision of basic services.

    I know the former Pine Rivers Shire Council was walked over twice by Telstra. They put whatever they chose on council land and buildings and got away with it.

    To my knowledge, more money is now being given to local councils by the federal government (bypassing the States).

    To put it plainly, if you don’t pay your rates and land taxes, the local government has the power to sell your house and land.

    On the front page of this week’s North West News, there’s an article entitled: “Out of Reach – Property Valuations Skyrocket”.

    The opening paragraph states:

    “Councillors have urged home owners not to panic over speculation monstrous rate increases are on the way.”

    It says the new median land values for homes in Alderley, Stafford and Newmarket are $310,000, $320,000 and $405,000 respectively.

    I don’t really think the local councils are trying to become private corporations. They are privatising services by putting work out to private corporations e.g. Unitywater. Private companies have had the garbage contract for many years.

    I think it would be true to say that whether we are talking about government at the federal, state or local level, we are also moving towards a “user pays” system for everything. You pay your taxes, but still get to pay and pay and pay, so that those with the most financial clout become even more wealthy.

    I’m sure the same is happening with public Education and Health.

  5. Red and lorikeet

    Local Coucnils exist as a result of State Government legislation. Each State has a local Government Act or something with a very similar name. These Acts Authorise the formatoinn of Coucnils, describe their functions and legitmise their powers.

    It never ceases to amaze me the general level of ignoracne in socirty about basic governacne processes.

  6. Ken:

    I think people get confused sometimes because there is an overlap of services which can make governance more complex, costly and frustrating.

    Andrew Bartlett and Barnaby Joyce would both like the State governments removed, due to inefficiency and overlap issues, I think.

    I don’t think Tony would mind me saying that he and I are both opposed to abolition of the States, largely because we believe that bigger government is not better government.

    I would like the federal government to liaise more with the states so that various portfolios are administered equitably and efficiently throughout Australia.

    At the moment, it seems as if Kevin Rudd wants that to happen, but there are other indicators that the eventual plan is to wipe out the states and centralise government in Canberra e.g. Rudd giving more money directly to councils and sticking his nose and taxpayers’ money more directly into hospitals and schools, as if he is our saviour instead of the creator of some of the infrastructure problems.

    I think centralisation would give the federal government more power globally, which is something that both Tony and I don’t want, because of Rudd’s stated agenda to develop an Asia/Pacific Economic Union by 2020.

    The Australian people said a resounding “No!” to this decades ago, because they knew it would bring with it low wages and poorer working and living conditions, but the federal government has simply kicked us in the guts and let us all down, clearly dancing to the tune of high taxing and financially acquisitive corporations.

  7. It never ceases to amaze me the general level of ignoracne in socirty about basic governacne processes.

    ok ken
    at what point in time did any state or federal govt of australia have a refferendum to allow local govt councils to be formed with the power to charge land rates. one would think that to allow such a thing to happen there would have to be some sort of consent from the ppl
    there is refferendums for such things as daylight saving and shopping hours .

    but here is the thing ken”
    there is a shire in australia that has been taken to court in resent times and admitted in court that they are not a legal body voted for buy the ppl .

    i would suggest that mabe you look into it a little more .

    like us ordinary ppl

  8. Andrew O:

    You said you preferred to listen to the leaders of parties, rather than lone protester remarks. While this makes sense in a lot of ways, sometimes the party leader has a much worse agenda than either the members or the national/state executive.

    Party leaders have been known to lie like hell about their concerns for Australians, just to get voted in. Sometimes they have probably had to face up to some realities of which they were previously unaware, but a lot of the time, it has just been blatant misrepresentation.

    Red Crab:

    We have very few referenda, mainly because the government doesn’t give a rat’s **** what the constituents think about important issues, especially when it conflicts with the global agenda.

    Daylight saving and shopping hours are probably considered fairly trivial issues. I think extended shopping hours and stores opening on Sundays damage family life and increase the divorce rate. They also add to costs for the consumer.

    Having people on various shifts which differ from day to day, and from week to week, keep people off balance and make it difficult for them to care for their children.

    I think extended shopping hours have also damaged pay rates, entitlements, working conditions and access to full-time jobs.

  9. Red

    Local Government existed way before the Constituion. When Australia was first settled by the British each State was governed by a Governor appointed by the UK Soveregin.

    The Governors of most Australian states began creating local parishes and parish trusts (as was the UK modle) at least as early as the 1820’s and gave them powers to collect tithes, taxes and rates from landowners princiaplly to pay for roads and local services. For instance the Council of the City of Sydney was created by legislation in 1842, 60 years before the Australian Constituion.

    In your own QLD it was in 1851 that you became a seperaet colony, before that you were just an outpost of NSW and in 1879 that local gvoernment was established by the passage of the Divisionla Boards Act.

    These in turn grew into local Authorities, no refeenda were held on anything back in those days.

    pleae tell me the Shier you are alluding to and I wil;l research it for you

  10. ken
    the shire as far as i know was the city of geraldton in western australia.

    Local Government existed way before the Constituion. When Australia was first settled by the British each State was governed by a Governor appointed by the UK Soveregin.

    so what laws are they governed buy australian or british

    just where in the australian constitution are they recognised

    if one had a problem with a council that could only be solved in court under what laws would one have to represent themselves british or australian.

    its plain to me that you are the best person to ask such a question.

    These in turn grew into local Authorities, no refeenda were held on anything back in those days.

    i think there in lies the problem local authorities have grown unchecked buy the very ppl that they represent and become a power unto themselves

  11. Not much Feral, but as the bird sayas you haev to link the dots. You will find that most Coucnils have some strategic document that will say they aim to use the LEP (planning laws) to facilitate affordable housing.

    Some indeed actually do, by ensuring that certain developments inlcude a proportion of “basic” units alongside others, or by zoning certain sites as “residnetail boarding house etc”.

    red – no British laws apply to anything local Coucnils do these days, they are subject to the normal laws applying within their State jurisdiction(s)

  12. no British laws apply to anything local Coucnils do these days, they are subject to the normal laws applying within their State jurisdiction(s)

    so anything that the any council wants to do in regards to council building laws for example have to pass before there state govt for aproval before they can be acted upon.and what happens if they dont and go ahead and make without aproval any dissision s are they laws or not.

  13. I think it is clear that the local council is the underdog of government.

    Here in Queensland, the Labor government amalgamated councils. They didn’t care how much councillors or residents objected. Then they held a referendum after the fact, which showed that about 70% of the people were against amalgamations. This was simply a waste of money, and another smack in the face to the general public.

    Local councils have no constitutional power, which is why they are walked over by state and federal governments AT WILL.

    I think in the future we will see councils empowered within their region or province, after the states have been wiped out, which I think is the main intention of amalgamation.

  14. Ken, my comment was aimed at other contributors to this thread. No-one has attempted to directly address social housing issues since Lorikeet on March 12th. Since then there’s been nearly 20 comments, most of which have been even less relevant IMO than the ‘rooms for refugees’ red herring upthread.

    By any measure, councils have a minor role in determining the supply of social housing – its the Federal & State governments who drive the sector. Councils mainly act as a brake on public housing provision by providing a platform that enables the loud and the ill-informed to subvert democratic processes.

  15. interesting the only comment you made was to complane about the quality of your nabours when you lived in state housing .

  16. Red Crab:

    Good point.

    Feral:

    I really think you could learn to think laterally a bit more.

    When people campaigned against the building of high rise apartments, and tried to stop the State government from building similar accommodation for public housing tenants at Mitchelton, I don’t think the Brisbane City Council had much involvement at all.

    As more and more high rise apartments are being built at Chermside, with developers now desiring to make them 20 storeys high instead of 10, a woman I know barged into Mayor Campbell Newman’s office and gave him a piece of her mind.

    I thought you might have paid a bit more attention to what I said about the State government (in NSW I think) moving to get rid of elderly people from their homes, and selling THEIR FREEHOLD LAND to developers in order to make a huge profit.

    Here’s a new piece of information about the road toll and the number of people injured on Australian roads in only one year. There are 30,000 people injured, including 1600 deaths. So I think it is important to consider that public housing may be even more greatly needed in the future by people with serious disabilities.

  17. Red Crab, by any reading that’s a totally dishonest misrepresentation of my comment of Feb 11th.

  18. the feral abacus
    your only!! comment is prity strait forward to me its a complaint about the quallity of the nabours that you were subjeted to.
    just how would you explain it.

    this county is being run buy stupid greedy ppl and they think that they can do what the rest of the world has failed at .

    i.e public housing made from high rise uncontroled imigration the control of the countrys food suply buy two major players the sell off of the ppls resorses alowing none residents to buy up our homes and taking the opitunity of australian children owning there own home etc

    here is the point if any govt or council belives that you can have high desity public housing a nd high rise public housing without conflict and crime they should not be where there are because the would be beyond arigance to think they could do what has failed badly most everywhere its been tryed elcewhere in the world.

    mabe these people who make these plans should be made live in one of the housing estates in england or china for a year.

    that enables the loud and the ill-informed to subvert democratic processes.

    so you are saying that only so called educated ppl can have a say or expess there fear in regard to how there lives are being run.

    democratic processes.now theres a statement how could you have democratic process when councils have close meetings to discuss such things as public housing and who contracts for such work will be awarded to.

    i feel a lot better now !

  19. Red Crab:

    Yes, you make some excellent points.

    We are certainly no longer living in a democratic country, or one where even a reasonable modicum of patriotism is practised.

    All levels of government would appear to be run both directly and indirectly by big business, primarily for the benefit of … big business.

    Big business is in the process of removing farmers from their land with the help of government, citing environmental considerations. Farmers are blowing themselves away or walking off their land, because most of our politicians are only interested in empowering corporations to rob us in every way possible.

    The reason they have Council Estates for public housing in London is because the middle class and the wealthy don’t wish to have integrated housing due to blatant condescending snobbery.

    I think integrated housing would help the poor to improve their living standards, parenting and budgetting skills, but that would only be if city dwellers developed a better sense of community and were willing to be inclusive.

    Let’s face it. Most people are greedy and selfish, which has been taught by the government through various avenues for 30 years.

    If you can divide the people, you can conquer them in the workplace and in the community.

    If you can create an anarchical situation, you can bring in draconian laws.

    If you tax and rob the people at every opportunity, they will be attracted to communism.

  20. “I’ve had the experience of simultaneously being on both sides of the argument. I spent several years in public housing where the behaviour of neighbours in adjoining public housing made our lives a misery.

    I’m entirely in agreement with Andrew that public housing is of great benefit. However, IMO some classes of tenants need a lot of support & proactive management that they don’t currently receive. There’s more to good public housing than the buildings.”

    Red Crab, is your world view so blinkered and so jaundiced that you are unable to read this comment as anything other than sheer bitchiness about the people on the other side of the fence?

    You need to re-read it again and again until the realisation finally dawns that it is about the complexities that accompany public housing, and that housing for difficult client groups is often managed without regard to context or consequences.

  21. “so you are saying that only so called educated ppl can have a say or expess there fear in regard to how there lives are being run.”

    Don’t be ridiculous, Red Crab – of course not! I didn’t suggest or imply anything of the sort: you made that connection, not me.

  22. Red Crab, is your world view so blinkered and so jaundiced that you are unable to read this comment as anything other than sheer bitchiness about the people on the other side of the fence?

    thats harsh . !!
    i have this problem of seeing the world as it is and ppl as they are.
    some ppl dont like that but im old enough not to let that worry me.

    but i would not have sead the other side of the fence that could mean anything.

    here is the point
    dont wast time complaining to your council about social houseing they are only there to do there job which is the maintinance of the state owned property .
    if the state want high rise state housing the only have to put it through there own state planing commision and buypass any complaints .
    its done all the time . the ppl who make these decisions dont have to live there.

    with predicted population growth predictions intence housing is the only option for the planning dept .you dont have to have an education to see that
    intence housing is not the problem its the social problems that are associated with them and there in lies the challenge .

  23. Well, well, I return to Bartlett to find myself seemingly in caught in the middle of a robust exchange between a Certain Crustacean and the (increasingly?) Feral Abacus.
    I grew up in public housing; rough and ready place is Elizabeth, SA
    I would NOT rescind the experience for an isolated upper crust upbringing, in the least.
    As TFA says, all that’s needed is a relative pittance to be spent on social infrastructure and these places could do even better, too.

  24. Feral:

    I think Red Crab was reacting to your somewhat narrow view of the various interactive issues being discussed here.

    I agree with you that the public housing sector now has a different mix of people than it once had. Instead of the government mainly housing the poor, they now have far more people with mental and physical disabilities, and more sole parents.

    Last Wednesday I heard very down-and-out people from Keperra discussing a terrible problem that existed in their neighbourhood involving the sociopathic behaviour of one set of residents. It sounded as if they had drafted a petition and were looking for signatures.

  25. Paul W – several of my friends grew up in the Elizabeth-Salisbury area during the 60s and 70s too.

    Would you care to speculate how your experience in public housing there compares with the public housing experience nowadays? And if you think there would be large differences, can you identify any of the factors that have given rise to those differences?

  26. “thats harsh . !!”

    Not really, Red Crab. Anyone who repeatedly verbals me can expect that I will assert my position vigorously.

    “if the state want high rise state housing the only have to put it through there own state planing commision and buypass any complaints .”

    I don’t think social housing necessarily equates with high rise development. The high-rise state housing I’m familiar with is all 30 to 40-plus years old. I’m not aware of any proposals for high-density social housing as it is widely perceived to be problematic.

    To the best of my knowledge all of the new public housing stock over the last decade has been low- or medium-density housing.

  27. Well, for a start, whatever the other faults, we at least didn’t have high rise.
    For the benefit of other readers, Elizabeth is a satellite town about twenty miles north of Adelaide, hurriedly erected as a dormitary suburb for workers at the airforce base( my family), Defence research, or the new Holden’s plant and its feeders, built during the fifties sixties and seventies. I’d imagine a bit like Sydney’s south western subs, the southern suburbs of Perth, Broadmeadows in
    Victoria or Inala (where I lived as a tiny tot).
    Since the green spaces between
    Elizabeth and Adelaide have been gobbled up for development, Elizabeth has begun undergoing more expansion, as it now sits on the margin between city and country.
    The place was rough but healthier for the soul earlier, at least people had jobs, even if these were only mud kicking in some factory or on a road gang.
    For people like my mum, who left extended family and a livable culture in Sydney and Melbourne, the place was unforgiving; in turn my mother refused to forgive my father.
    And that’s the problem with these places. People are uprooted, dumped in a dustbowl and left to get on with it.
    Its worse now, because it’s a rust belt place. Sometimes several generations of long term unemployed live under the same roof and the subculture is “negative”, a weird derivative of US ghetto culture. They often lack the wherewithal to do better, hence they are in Trust accomodation, altho as people they are no less likeable, or “moral”, than people from anywhere else.
    What “lacks” in a place like Laborite Elizabeth- apart from opportunity- is the lack of amenities, services and social infrastructure. A dormitary town like Elizabeth can be a lonely, isolating, barren and alienating sort of place- a breeding ground for depression, alcoholism, drugs, self harm and violence.
    The most vulnerable include young mothers, often alone and lacking extended family help, unemployed, immigrants, disabled, indigenes and kids.

  28. Not really, Red Crab. Anyone who repeatedly verbals me can expect that I will assert my position vigorously.
    would not expect anything less.

    i don’t think social housing necessarily equates with high rise development. The high-rise state housing I’m familiar with is all 30 to 40-plus years old. I’m not aware of any proposals for high-density social housing as it is widely perceived to be problematic.

    so just how would you expect the dramatic rise in population to be housed in places like s.e queensland for example .
    the cost of devaloping areas of land to accomidate the amount of housing i.e three bed one loe that would be needed is prohobitive compared with the land need for high rise apartments.

    The place was rough but healthier for the soul earlier, at least people had jobs
    thats correct there were jobs with the way the world is heading now it wont mater where state housing is put there is no jobs for these underprivalaged people

    i like to now with rudds rush to populate how dose the country intend to house these ppl when they cant house the ppl that are here now ?

    paul walter its good to see your comments againe.

    point of interest i actually live i one of the poorest suburbs in the southern subs of perth at the moment i must admit it is entertaining if nothing elce.

  29. Red Crab:

    Cramped high rise housing is starting to be built near major shopping centres in Brisbane, some of which are on the railway lines.

    High rise is a thing of the future, and fits in with Agenda 21.

  30. Paul Walter, thanks for that great sketch of life in Elizabeth.

    I think your comments regarding your mother tell us much about the interaction between broader social and physical infrastructure and individual circumstances. Hope, aspiration, disappointment and disillusionment have profound effects at the personal level, so managing community resources to provide a positive setting is an important goal. How to best go about doing that for the greatest portion of people is the challenge…

    You commented

    ‘What “lacks” in a place like Laborite Elizabeth- apart from opportunity- is the lack of amenities, services and social infrastructure.’

    I’ve heard similar comments elsewhere, but I’ve never been clear on exactly where the deficiencies lie. After all, the area has public transport, some shopping areas, a hospital, and I gather the Octagon Theatre used to provide a social focus. So it would be informative if you could elaborate on this point, as well as providing a welcome diversion from Lorikeet’s latest anti-UN campaign.

  31. Red Crab & Lorikeet, I really do not think that inner-city high rise development has anything to do with social housing. Its simply too expensive & too upmarket: generally speaking its aimed at well-paid young professionals.

    Nor do I think that your claims that population growth demands high density housing are sustainable: high-rise apartments are only being built because there are people who are prepared to pay a considerable premium to live inner city lifestyles.

  32. Feral:

    I think it is essential that you become conversant with the contents of Agenda 21. Then maybe your opinion will change.

  33. This is off-topic, but just to get it out of the way:

    Agenda 21 is a comprehensive UN document relating to sustainable development, which was adopted by most of the world’s nations about 20 years ago.

    Some details about Agenda 21 at this link:

    Some far right-wing groups in the USA have developed a range of off the wall conspiracy theories about the supposed hidden agendas contained within it (as they tend to do with anything related to the UN). I am not interested in that sort of nonsense polluting the comment threads on my blog.

    The document itself and all the related work coming out of it are all online and out in the open. Its a long document, but has 4 main sections:

    (this summary from Wikipedia)
    Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions:
    Includes combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, population and demographic dynamics, promoting health, promoting sustainable settlement patterns and integrating environment and development into decision-making.

    Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development:
    Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), and control of pollution.

    Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups:
    Includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and workers.

    Section IV: Means of Implementation:
    Implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and mechanisms and financial mechanisms.

  34. Feral, the Octagon/ Shedley theatres were bulldozed years ago along with the green spaces around the Town Centre now chocked up with commercial ribbon development around the vicinty. All the social facilities such as social security, were moved to the periphery of the ring around the town centre, a visit to various of above becomes even more onerous than previously. Right throughout the place, swathes of parks, schools etc were hived off to developers in the wake of the economic recession of the early nineties. The motor car now rules and public transport out at Elizabeth has deteriorated something shocking, imho.
    But its not a refugee camp in Pakistan or Africa, although poverty is a relative thing and can be cultural as well as physical.
    On the other hand, it is the home of Central District, the SA footy league Premiers eight out of the last ten years.
    The ‘Dogs, once an easybeat laughing stock, now regularly have the”traditional” teams on toast and no more of the”poms” or “povos” jive, when these turkeys who persist in supporting redundant teams come out to Sleepy Hollow to get their butts kicked.

  35. Bingo, Paul Walter? A well-intentioned social experiment failed for lack of bingo?

    I drove through Norton Summit today, glanced at the statue of Tom Playford as I passed through that dodgy intersection on the crest of the Ranges by the Summit Hotel, & it occured to me how unlikely it was that he could have envisaged how his Grand Idea might have come unstuck due to a shortfall of Fat Ladies and Legs Eleven.

    Best laid plans etc. Oh well, good to hear that the Mighty ‘Dogs are finally having their day. Not before time, mind you.

  36. Well,of course,theyhave already tried high rise in locations like Colling wood and Redfern. These vertical ghettos have caused a lot of grief over the years as to social problems morphing into healthmentalhealth and crime issues.
    I just wonder what it says of the yuppie pathology , that they not only can go can go to highrise, but pay vast sums to live there, when normal people are throwing themselves off the twentieth floor in fits of anxiety driven existential despair.

  37. its cheeper and more profitable to sell a so called inner city high rise lifestile fools with easy parted money than actually build an open estate with the trees and ammenitys to go with .

    its a well known fact! that the closer people live togather the less tolerance they have for each other .

    anyway lets face it if the greed mentality could be changed things would be different .

Comments are closed.