[CAN] 10 Anzac Highway | Kaufland Supermarket

[SBD]

Actually, during the “full employment” years of the 50s and 60s there was probably more public housing for low and middle income workers. It also didn’t have the stigma that it sadly has now.

You mean like the housing provided for returned service people as part of their service to the nation?

Yes, but also just public housing in general was more common and accepted in that era for people on lower incomes.

There was a lot of public housing built in the Elizabeth area in the 1950s and 1960s for factory workers such as at Holden, WRE (technicians and scientists), Levi and various other large factories that have since shrunk or closed. I'm not sure when or which government changed the policy settings to make Housing Trust predominantly for unemployed people who couldn't afford to live anywhere else, rather than for working families.

It might have been 1980s that a lot of Housing Trust houses were sold to their tenants? Presumably this was pushed as "achieving the great Australian dream of home ownership".

[Moderator, feel free to move this to the pub if we are too far off track]

[Eurostar]

Prior to Playford Alive they were demolishing houses in Smithfield Plains , some of the Housing Trust were offered for sale in 1999/2000

[SBD]

Prior to Playford Alive they were demolishing houses in Smithfield Plains , some of the Housing Trust were offered for sale in 1999/2000

I know a couple who bought their home around that time in Munno Para (they were already the tenants). I also know someone who lives in the house she and her husband moved in to when they arrived in Australia in the 1960s in Elizabeth Downs. When she moved in, they had ocean views!! I think her husband worked for WRE.

[Spotto]

Sorry but more public housing is wrong. There isn't enough employment, so why should such an even bigger burden be put on those who do have jobs?
Provide employment, fix the damn economy and there wont be such an increased need for the government to provide housing.

These two sites should be sold off to private developers to develop, housing, apartments, retail.

Studies literally show that it’s better for the economy to give those in need a “leg up” with public housing than it is to sweep them aside and make it someone else’s problem. Why is there such a stigma around those on lower incomes or unemployed having “not earned” public housing? I know good people who’d give an arm and a leg for even a half decent place to live. Building our way out of COVID is one of the post-COVID approaches being discussed, why not kill two birds with one stone? Stimulate the economy with infrastructure and at the end of it have somewhere affordable for people to live who can then stabilise their lives and then contribute back into the economy?

Australia already has an affordable/public housing shortage which is only going to increase. COVID is also contributing. It’s more of a “burden” to not help these people.

[rev]

Sorry but more public housing is wrong. There isn't enough employment, so why should such an even bigger burden be put on those who do have jobs?
Provide employment, fix the damn economy and there wont be such an increased need for the government to provide housing.

These two sites should be sold off to private developers to develop, housing, apartments, retail.

Studies literally show that it’s better for the economy to give those in need a “leg up” with public housing than it is to sweep them aside and make it someone else’s problem. Why is there such a stigma around those on lower incomes or unemployed having “not earned” public housing? I know good people who’d give an arm and a leg for even a half decent place to live. Building our way out of COVID is one of the post-COVID approaches being discussed, why not kill two birds with one stone? Stimulate the economy with infrastructure and at the end of it have somewhere affordable for people to live who can then stabilise their lives and then contribute back into the economy?

Australia already has an affordable/public housing shortage which is only going to increase. COVID is also contributing. It’s more of a “burden” to not help these people.

I also said that there's plenty of people, single parents & their kids and so on, who are in need but are on waiting lists while the scumbags who trash public housing and their neighbourhoods get placed straight away. Quite clearly my opinion isn't that we shouldn't provide public housing, but that it should be provided to the right people who deserve help and not the lowlife scum who abuse the system and cost the tax payer more and more each year to clean up their mess.

The government is rebuilding many old trust homes. The amount of junky scum that don't work that I've seen get placed in these brand new homes is disgusting and appalling when you consider there are people who desperately need that little bit of assistance but can't get it.

If the economy is fixed and jobs created then those who actually need help will be able to get jobs because they are the ones who are likely to go and seek employment to get them selves out of the circumstances they've unfortunately found them selves in. You then don't need to provide as much government housing, or as much new stock.

The system is broken. Building more public housing isn't going to fix the system. Addressing the issues within the system will fix the system. Why are the junkies who choose to be unemployed losers get looked after quicker then those who desperately need help?

The burden isn't to help people who need it, and provide assistance for them.
The burden is that we are wasting tax payers money on junkies and losers who choose to be unemployed, who have no intention of ever working, who also damage public housing that they are provided. That is the burden.

[bits]

I also said that there's plenty of people, single parents & their kids and so on, who are in need but are on waiting lists while the scumbags who trash public housing and their neighbourhoods get placed straight away. Quite clearly my opinion isn't that we shouldn't provide public housing, but that it should be provided to the right people who deserve help and not the lowlife scum who abuse the system and cost the tax payer more and more each year to clean up their mess.

The government is rebuilding many old trust homes. The amount of junky scum that don't work that I've seen get placed in these brand new homes is disgusting and appalling when you consider there are people who desperately need that little bit of assistance but can't get it.

What would you do with the lowlife scum?
I think the trick is giving them the house is in fact societies cheapest way out once society failed to educate them better.
If you don't give them a house they will just take one and the police costs more than the house.
Putting them in jail costs more money than the house.

Sucky people are difficult to deal with.

I assume those that can't get a house are still considered functional people that will likely sort things out themselves.

[rev]

I also said that there's plenty of people, single parents & their kids and so on, who are in need but are on waiting lists while the scumbags who trash public housing and their neighbourhoods get placed straight away. Quite clearly my opinion isn't that we shouldn't provide public housing, but that it should be provided to the right people who deserve help and not the lowlife scum who abuse the system and cost the tax payer more and more each year to clean up their mess.

The government is rebuilding many old trust homes. The amount of junky scum that don't work that I've seen get placed in these brand new homes is disgusting and appalling when you consider there are people who desperately need that little bit of assistance but can't get it.

What would you do with the lowlife scum?
I think the trick is giving them the house is in fact societies cheapest way out once society failed to educate them better.
If you don't give them a house they will just take one and the police costs more than the house.
Putting them in jail costs more money than the house.

Sucky people are difficult to deal with.

I assume those that can't get a house are still considered functional people that will likely sort things out themselves.

We're drifting way off topic now.
How I would deal with these animals would probably horrify some on this site so I wont post that. But we treat our indigenous peoples worse.

Lets get this thread back on topic...
There was an article this weekend about redeveloping the showgrounds in light of this site likely becoming housing now.
Apparently the government is in talks with the feds or ADF about taking over Keswick barracks too.
There's probably a bit of heritage listed stuff on both sites though, but I think if they can take over especially the showgrounds raise what they can to the ground and redevelop it into high density housing it would be a great outcome.
Most of what's held indoors at the showgrounds could be held at the convention centre and entertainment centre.
The royal show it self could be held in any number of parklands that surround the city such as Victoria Park, no big loss.

[Patrick_27]

Most of what's held indoors at the showgrounds could be held at the convention centre and entertainment centre.
The royal show it self could be held in any number of parklands that surround the city such as Victoria Park, no big loss.

You have a really warped perspective of what is required to hold the royal show and how much of an asset it is to the state, furthermore, you forget that the showgrounds are owned by the Royal Agricultural & Horticultural Society not the state government... So any of what you've just suggested it not going to happen.