Sydney's stone, cold heart

We're saddened by the weekend's news that Sydney's iconic Sirius Building will not be listed on the NSW Heritage Register, despite the unanimous recommendation of the Heritage Council of NSW back in February.

Minister for Environment and Heritage, Mr Mark Speakman, announced on Sunday that he would not list the site on the Heritage Register, as to do so would reduce its resale value and deprive the State - or perhaps more specifically, pockets of Sydney's west - of money to build more social housing. This is despite the higher than anticipated earnings from the sale of other properties around Millers Point, and the remaining properties that would see in excess of $880million brought in if prices continue at current trends.

Minister Speakman says:

I am not listing it because whatever its heritage value, even at its highest that value is greatly outweighed by what would be a huge loss of extra funds from the sale of the site, funds the government intends to use to build social housing for families in great need.

This is a slap in the face for the community of public housing tenants who have made their homes in the purpose-built Sirius Building, which is part of what has given it its Heritage value in the first place. And it's a huge blow to the remaining tenants of Millers Point who still look to Sirius with hope that it could hold what's left of their community together.

It also raises that nagging question about social mix in New South Wales - why do we fall all over ourselves to open up "welfare dependent" communities of public housing in Sydney's western suburbs, by handing it over to private interests for "renewal", while clearing low-income tenants out of those parts of Sydney we'd rather just flog to the highest bidder? It's not like they couldn't benefit from a bit of social and economic diversity in those parts themselves. No, scratch that. It's not like they haven't benefited, with Millers Point recently finding its way into the top-ten of a "liveability index" for Sydney's suburbs, on account of its "rich history and culture". Although how you can define a suburb as "liveable" while most of its long-term residents are in the process of being shipped out by a cash-strapped landlord is perhaps a matter for debate.

As for Sirius, we'll always regard it as part of what makes Sydney great. The lives, the characters, the community that is attached to that building must never be forgotten, even if they are to be lost. True, the Government hasn't quite sold it yet, and there's still time for them to reconsider their plans. But the decision not to list it on the Heritage Register is as clear an indication as you'll get that they would allow all this to be destroyed.

So who will buy it? What will they do? There are calls for a new Green Ban to be imposed on the site, again reflecting part of its very history that gives it Heritage value. We'd like to see that, if such a thing is possible in this day and age. Because even if you leave the question of heritage aside altogether, the day the Sirius Building comes down is the day Sydney's loses its heart.

Ivanhoe Estate Tenant Group - Ryde Council's Volunteer Group of the Year, 2016

Today on the Brown Couch: former Ivanhoe Estate resident Marie Sillars talks about the strength of a community, the shock of relocation, and how to ensure all is not lost to "renewal".

***

My time with the Ivanhoe Estate Tenant Group Inc. started some 6 years ago and I am a Founder Member of the Group. We established a Community Centre (pictured) and started organising BBQs, meetings and getting involved in our community.

Four years ago we heard (on TV News) that Ivanhoe was to be demolished as it had gone past "its use by date" and very quickly we started to gather information, attend meetings, take part in Community Reference Group meetings and even became involved with a Parliamentary Committee on public housing. At the same time the group were running craft classes (we have knitted and crocheted scores of blankets, beanies, scarves etc. which will be donated to a homeless shelter & local hospital) computers for the elderly, breakfasts at the Centre, established a community garden (tenants were invited to take any herbs or veggies that they needed) and generally made ourselves busy with the day to day matters that a community needs. We had Oz Harvest for 2 years where we distributed up to 150 kilos of food on a Saturday afternoon and we had the greatest fun. Most of the Oz Harvest Committee were over the age of 60 and it was a great way to make sure that the elderly tenants had enough fruit, vegetables and groceries to keep them going until the next Saturday. Rain, hail and shine we worked our way through the food with an incredible energy for people of our age.

We knew the time was coming when the final decision would be made but somehow just kept working away trying not to think about the inevitable time when the FACS people would deliver the letters and we would then we would have to decide how we would deal with this. Late last year the letters were delivered and even though we knew it was coming the whole place went into shock and we were called to a meeting at the Community Centre where we were introduced to the officers who would become our Relocation Officers. It was an awful day and it had quite a negative effect upon the tenants, especially the elderly folk. We decided on that day that the Committee would go ahead "business as usual" and try hard to get through what was to become a difficult period. As Christmas at Ivanhoe came and went we all knew that this would probably be our last Christmas together as a group, and the atmosphere around the Centre changed. People were sad and a bit down and together with the Salvation Army on the Estate we tried very hard to keep people's spirits up and tried to make a positive side of the relocations.

As time went on and we were still attending meetings the interviews with our respective Relocation Officers were conducted and we were then told to wait as the Officers searched for places for us. As this has been happening tenants started to move away and so I contacted some people outside of the Estate to help establish a "Footprints" Committee to gather information, pictures and stories about the Estate so that when the new places are built, people there will know that there was a thriving, exciting community existing before. Ryde Council, Salvation Army, Macquarie University, FACS, and many of our wonderful supporters have come on board with this idea to create media, films, interviews and many other ways to show how a great Community CAN work and that Public Housing Tenants can work in a positive and intelligent way to come together and be proud of what they have achieved.

Two weeks ago I myself had to move and I am not very far away from the Ivanhoe Estate so I am able to keep craft classes happening on Mondays for those who are still there. The Committee who had worked so hard at Oz Harvest had started to move away also and we will all keep in touch in the future. As this Community fades away we are keen to let people know that through the Footprints Programme the Ivanhoe Committee will not be forgotten.

Last week (5th May 2016) some of the Committee attended a Volunteer of the Year Evening with Ryde Council and I was so very honoured to be nominated as Volunteer of the Year. I did not win but the Ivanhoe Estate Tenant Group DID win Volunteer Group of the Year 2016 and I have to say it was one of the proudest moments of my life. Even through our times of sadness it just shows that a community such as the Ivanhoe Estate can shine through, smile and move on to other communities. As they say "Onwards and Upwards" but in the end it has been a great achievement and one I will never forget!

Marie Sillars May 2016

Let's walk the talk in Waterloo

Today's entry on The Brown Couch is by Julie Foreman, Executive Officer at the Tenants' Union of NSW. 

Last Thursday (February 11), I attended a public meeting on the redevelopment of the Waterloo public housing estates hosted by Jenny Leong MP, one of two Members of Parliament representing the suburb. Over one hundred local tenants attended. Also in attendance was the Social Housing Minister, Brad Hazzard MP, shadow Social Housing Minister Tania Mihailuk MP, and FACS Deputy Secretary Southern Cluster, Paul Vevers. I was heartened by the level of interest and attendance by all stakeholders.

Can the Government balance competing interests and walk the talk in Waterloo?

Tenants expressed anxiety and confusion about the announcement. The following snippets capture the questions and concerns raised:

“Is my home being demolished?”

“When will I be moving?”

“Where will I be moving to?”

“Will I get a like-for-like house when I move?”

"Why do I have to lose my home, my community, my security?"

“I feel like my life will be on hold for the next 5 years."

“How are you going to deal with all the extra parking needed?”

“I am afraid of moving away from my health supports and friends”

“Will you cover my moving costs?”

“Why didn’t you take the last 10 years of consultations into account?”

“You just sprung it on us before Christmas with a flyer under my door!”

The Minister suggested to participants that meetings such as these just scare and raise anxiety. I believe they reflect honest and real concerns.

Unfortunately, the issues raised do not surprise me – they are what I have heard at every gathering (large, small or one on one) of social housing tenants facing or experiencing redevelopment. I heard it in Riverwood, Bonnyrigg, Minto, Claymore, and Ivanhoe. This is not to deny that there are also some tenants who want to move, in the hope of changing their overall circumstances.

What did surprise me was that FACS Housing and the Minister had not anticipated this response, and adjusted their usual announcement process accordingly. The public housing agency has been through this a number of times, and assures us over and over that they have learnt from their mistakes. 

The Minister did assure us at the meeting that he would make sure those affected in Waterloo would be treated sensitively, and be consulted at every step along the way. I am not yet cynical enough to believe that he was just ‘talking the talk’ and not prepared to ‘walk the walk’. That is because Minister Hazzard and Mr Vevers did make some commitments. He agreed that additional supports for tenants would be needed during this period. He agreed that with a local, annual turnover rate of between 8-9% of public housing tenants, those affected by redevelopment works could be rehoused within the area as works progressed. He indicated that he would personally hold regular, local consultations. And he said there would be no rush to relocate tenants. He even committed to answering questions raised at the meeting at a consultation he is to host this week.

So here at the TU we have put together a list to help all of us - tenants, FACS Housing, Minister Hazard, and community organisations - ‘walk the talk’, and thus increase the prospect of sensitive, appropriate and effective redevelopment. Collective learning from research commissioned by FACS Housing, built on consultations over a number of years with tenant groups and the non-government sector, informs the list:

- Acknowledge the strengths and history of the existing community;

- Progressively move people within the estate as new buildings are constructed;

- Undertake a social impact assessment to inform the best plans and processes for tenants and their communities;

- Fund additional supports and independent tenant advice while maintaining funding of existing services and supports;

- Include genuine community empowerment and involvement at appropriate levels;

- Don’t give undertakings that cannot be met;

- Make available past plans or reports on consultations, to enable tenants to participate in informed discussions;

- Make sure communication is clear, regular and takes place in different forms;

- Provide additional training and support to FACS Housing staff tasked with working as relocation officers. This training should include presentations from tenants who have lived through the experience of redevelopment in other areas;

- Undertake ongoing evaluation;

- Follow up and support tenants that have moved;

- Carefully consider allocations to ensure they are appropriate;

- Listen to tenants and treat them with respect! This sounds easy but is anything but if really taken seriously.

Similarly, research and past experiences have provided evidence on practices to avoid – worst practice principles, if you like. So on this note, be sure not to engage in:

- Tokenism in forming partnerships and building community involvement;

- Short-term 'quick fixes'. Good outcomes take time;

- Public representations and narratives of disadvantaged locations, which entrench the problem by exaggerating an area's dysfunction;

- Actions which merely displace the problem. Projects that merely move people to new locations do not solve problems of poverty and disadvantage.

Read more about what the experts say about best and worst practice in redevelopments here.

Social housing and its bold new future

Today the NSW Liberal Government has announced a new 10 year social housing strategy, Future Directions for Social Housing. The Sydney Morning Herald has called it "an historic decision to privatise public housing in New South Wales". We call it an incentive to fix the Residential Tenancies Act 2010.

It's true that one of the main thrusts of the strategy will be the redevelopment of estates, with all the uncertainty and anxiety that brings for tenants who start to wonder whose homes will be next to go... But it will also place an ambitious degree of faith in the private rental market to more or less "rescue" tenants from social housing.

Like the discussion paper that came before it, the strategy is based around three key pillars -

• More social housing
• More opportunities, support and incentives to avoid and/or leave social housing
• A better social housing experience

Under each of these, the Land & Housing Corporation and FACS Housing will be given a series of tasks.

More social housing means:

• the Land & Housing Corporation will increase their estate renewal and redevelopment activities. This will be "in partnership with the private sector" through the Communities Plus program. We'll be keeping our ear to the ground for details as each new development is announced, and making notes on our Clearing House blog. The strategy says "FACS will work closely with communities to avoid unnecessary disruption to tenants' lives". We certainly hope so.
• ownership or management of more properties will be transferred to community housing landlords. The strategy aims to increase the proportion of social housing owned or managed by the non-government sector to 35%, and will require community housing landlords to assist with the Land & Housing Corporation's relocation needs when redeveloping estates. They'll also be required to report on tenant outcomes according to a set of targets - we'll be keeping an eye out for those.
• the Government will be relying on proposed new funding models, such as the Social and Affordable Housing Fund and Social Impact Bonds - which means attempting to bring private finance into the construction of new and renewed social housing.
• further attempts at tackling "under-occupancy".

More opportunities, support and incentives to avoid and/or leave social housing means:

• Family and Community Services will "remove work disincentives" for public housing tenants. This includes revising policies that create work disincentives, and reviewing the rent setting model and eligibility criteria. This is really the good news.
• trying to improve educational and employment opportunities for social housing tenants. They'll do this through the allocations system - providing houses for people who can work or study in areas with better access to jobs and schools. It sounds like a good idea, but it's just as likely to create further residualisation and stigma for those who miss out. They'll also try to create new employment opportunities for social housing tenants through new repairs and maintenance contracts.
• introducing "Personal Support Plans" - where a "client" agrees to "realistic goals" in exchange for tailored supports and services. The architects of the Housing First model must be scratching their heads in wonder, and we're concerned about how these plans will interact with a residential tenancy agreement. What will happen to tenants who fail to achieve their goals? Will they lose their housing, as well as their tailored supports and services?
• increasing the budget for Private Rental Assistance products, to try and convince more tenants to try and survive in the expensive and chronically insecure private rental market (which the government considers a form of "independence") where they will not need to rely on social housing assistance.
• collaboration across the Whole of Government to better coordinate assistance. The problem is, FACS have forgotten to include NSW Fair Trading in the list of agencies they'd like to work with - even though they are in the midst of a review of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 and could work towards giving tenants greater stability, liveability and affordability in the private rental market.

A better social housing experience means:

• improving customer service and using more methods of communicating with tenants.
• implementing new repairs and maintenance contracts.
• mandatory evictions for tenants who get caught up in criminal activity.

It's a big plan - it reflects a high degree of ambition, for better or worse. It will present new opportunities as well as risk - particularly for public housing tenants, who will start to wonder just how secure their current tenancy is. But unless changes are made to the Residential Tenancies Act to give greater stability to tenants in the private rental market, the answer remains "comparatively so". Decamping to the private rental market should remain an option of last resort.

Most of all, this new strategy comes with a great big list of things to do. We'll be keeping a close eye on how FACS and the Land & Housing Corporation begin to work through its implementation, and how it progresses from here.

Flat out on the Brown Couch - Part 2

Last week we brought you Part 1 of ‘Flat out,’ our breathless overview of the NSW Government’s proposed strata reforms. That was all about box office – the increasingly contested redevelopment proposals, and plans for tenant representation in strata governance. Like a kind of ersatz Jurassic Park: ‘50 Million Years in the Waiting’.

But not all that is golden glitters, and there is plenty more besides to interest tenants - in the Strata Schemes Management Bill particularly.

Look out for Flat Out 2 on PC wherever good tenancy games are sold

I’m a fixer; I fixed it

For one, the management bill should go some way to addressing a common impasse between tenants and landlords. Too often, tenants are frustrated in their efforts to obtain basic repairs to common property – including any structural wall - with the landlord refusing to take action because the owners corporation won’t sanction the works. This intransigence often persists even in the face of Tribunal orders requiring the landlord to do the work. Of course, such circumstances are far from ideal; Tenants are denied a basic right under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, and landlords are forced to choose between breach of their residential tenancy agreement and defiance of building governance.

Under the new regime, owners will be able to undertake ‘minor cosmetic works’ to common property connected to their lot without reference to the owners corporation. Such works include replacing carpets or curtains, painting, and filling minor cracks. And an owner will only need a standard resolution – that is, a bare majority of votes – for ‘minor renovations’ such as replacing wiring, kitchen works, and addressing faulty light fittings.

Whilst these provisions are clearly no panacea, and do not touch on major works such as structural repairs, we suspect they will come in handy for a good number of tenants with hamstrung landlords looking to do the right thing.

Everybody in the house

The Management Bill also takes aim at another common ill of the strata tenancy – overcrowding. Any Sydney resident will have heard stories of students and others crammed into every conceivable nook and cranny of inner city apartments, far beyond any sensible capacity. Famously, Domain brought us the story of the man renting a Newtown balcony for $215 per week: breezy. The serious health and safety risks of such arrangements are self-evident.

Mike D, Ad Rock, and MCA enjoy a night in at their city apartment

The proposed new laws will allow strata committees to enact by-laws limiting the number of occupants per bedroom to two or more. An owners corporation will be able to pursue contraventions of these laws through the Tribunal, to the tune of up to $5,500 for an initial breach, and up to $11,000 for further breaches within 12 months.

It is appropriate that committees are empowered to make and enforce rules forbidding the unsafe renting arrangements created by overcrowding. But we are concerned that, as it stands, an owners corporation can chase enforcement against “any person” in breach of the by-laws. This leaves it open for the many sub-tenants that end up in overcrowded apartments as victims of unscrupulous head tenants, the dearth of affordable rentals, or the difficulty of obtaining social housing, to be held liable for significant penalties.

This is, we say, obviously unjust. These provisions should be enforceable against responsible head tenants and lot owners, certainly, but not sub-tenants.  And we would gently note that not even perfect strata legislation, handed down from a divine legislator, could comprehensively address the serious issues that drive renters into overcrowded apartments in the first place. Clearly a broader response is needed.

On the subject of enforcement, the Bill also includes general provisions allowing owners to challenge by-laws in the Tribunal. NCAT may invalidate by-laws it finds to be harsh, unconscionable, or oppressive.

Unfortunately, these otherwise welcome measures are a closed shop. Tenants cannot make the relevant Tribunal application, so anybody affected by an unjust by-law will need their landlord to pursue it on their behalf. And presumably ask nicely for the favour, Sir. It’s not hard to see a great number refusing to go down the time-consuming Tribunal road in a fight against their own strata company.

We think this option should instead be open to any occupant affected by harsh, unconscionable, and oppressive by-laws. More so because lot owners who refuse to take this action may also be in breach of their tenancy law obligation not to permit interference with tenants’ comfort. So opening up these provisions to all affected would provide the added bonus of preventing disputes between owners and renters.

Return to redevelopment

Finally, we return briefly to the battleground that is the Strata Schemes Development Bill. The new rules have overlooked an important consideration – what happens to tenancy agreements when the owners corporation affirms a decision to redevelop. As it stands, seldom used ‘fall back’ provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act, concerning a party gaining superior title to a property over the landlord, will apply. These would allow a developer-purchaser to terminate all tenancy agreements without notice, and seek Tribunal orders for vacant possession immediately.

This must be addressed, as it will place tenants who have broken no law and breached no contractual obligation at the serious risk of short-term eviction. The easiest way around this problem is a simple amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act - extending provisions that protect tenants for 30 days when a mortgagee comes into possession to tenants affected by strata redevelopment.

That’s it for our Brown Couch series on the strata reforms package. But feel free to put any further comments or questions in the box below. Alternatively, we encourage you to check out the Tenants’ Union’s full, formal submission here.

Millers Point: three new homes for every property sold?

Last night a second government owned property in Millers Point was sold. Family and Community Services Minister Gabrielle Upton reports it sold for $2.56 million. This follows the first property sale price of $1.911million.

Minister Upton says for each property sold in Millers Point, the government's public housing portfolio could be increased by three. But not so long ago the Secretary of FACS said the current State Budget would deliver a 'line-ball' increase in social housing supply this financial year.

More recently, the Minister herself told the Budget Estimates committee (see page 5 of the transcript) that for every million dollars her department spends on its housing portfolio, only $190,000 – 19 per cent – goes towards new housing. Of the rest, $340,000 is used for 'improvements' (for example, kitchen upgrades), and $470,000 goes to repairs and maintenance.

Now, we're all for spending money on overdue repairs and maintenance of the government's housing portfolio, but it's a bit rich to sell other people's homes in order to pay for it. Especially when much-needed growth of the portfolio is implied, to justify the sales.

Anyway, on the basis of Minister's Estimates statement, we thought we'd see what we could do with the $4.471 million raised so far. Within the confines of the Budget, of course...

First things first, we'll have to put about $1.52million aside for 'improvements', and a further $2.1 million aside for repairs and maintenance. This leaves us with just under $850,000 to tip into the 'new housing' bucket.

$800,000 will get you a pretty swish flat in Sydney, leaving change for stamp duties, legal costs and perhaps even some champagne to celebrate.

Cunningham St Sydney - from www.realestate.com.au

Or, if you wanted to replace the two Millers Point properties with a pair of dwellings, you can get a nice little studio in the same complex...

Cunningham St Sydney - from www.realestate.com.au

... a spacious walk up in Parramatta...

Early Street Parramatta - from www.realestate.com.au

... or a respectable family home in Campbelltown, for around $400,000.

Lindesay Street Campbelltown - from www.realestate.com.au

Of course, if you wanted to replace the two Millers Point properties with six homes in Sydney, you'd be hard pressed to do it. You'd be looking at around $140,000 per home. A quick look at the real estate pages tell us you can still find homes at such low, low prices, but nowhere near Sydney. You'd have to look in places like Deniliquin, South Grafton, Dubbo, Jindabyne, Albury and Orange.

Which leaves us with two possible conclusions to ponder: either the money will be used to buy houses in regional NSW, or more of our existing metropolitan public housing will be demolished so that we can 'replace' the Millers Point homes on land already owned by the NSW Government.

Help us keep track of what's happening with public housing sales and estate redevelopment. Check out our Clearing House blog for more information.

Millers Point/Barangaroo

Millers Point is in the news again, with an excellent article by Tim Barlass in the Sun-Herald that focuses on the residents of Millers Point, and some political and historical context by Evan Jones at New Matilda.

(Millers Point resident Robert Goodsell, 94. You'd like to think that he shouldn't have to worry about being evicted. Photo from the Sun-Herald.)

Not yet in the news is the outcome of the social impact assessment that was conducted recently for NSW Land and Housing Corporation, as part of the NSW State Government's review, announced in October last year, of its continuing ownership of the Millers Point properties. 

We understand that a draft report is with LAHC. The stated intention of the SIA consultant was that the drafted report should be made public, for discussion and feedback, before the final report goes in to LAHC. We look forward with interest to seeing the draft.

*

In the meantime, we might look over the boundary of Millers Point to Barangaroo, previously the wharves of east Darling Harbour, now being redeveloped into a glittering citadel of various land uses: commercial, cultural, residential, open space, and gambling.

There's no necessary connection between the development of Barangaroo and the review of properties at Millers Point: they're separate sites, and nothing needs to happen at Millers Point in order for any part of the development of Barangaroo to proceed (equally, if nothing was happening at Barangaroo, the Government might still be reviewing Millers Point).

But when people think about one, they often think about the other. So do we – in a critical way.

We're thinking particularly about the monumental, billion-dollar, international higher-roller casino proposed by James Packer's Crown Group for the middle section of Barangaroo, on land originally intended to be open space. You can see it, in the form that won Crown's design competition, below; it's the tallest of the towers in the image.

In design terms, the Brown Couch prefers one of the runners-up:

The runner-up is at least honest: it looks like nothing so much as a mugger's knife. What to make of the subtly turning forms of the winner? The twisting of a forearm?

But it's not the way the casino is to look that bugs us most. Rather, it's the depressing thought that we, as a society, have arranged our affairs such that we can marshal the huge resources – the machines, the labour, the steel, glass, concrete, electronics and myriad other elements – to build such a thing, for the purpose of attracting, from half a world away and conveyed here by yet more steel and glass and electronics and the combustion of thousands of tonnes of fossil fuels, a select few persons who will do nothing more than sit at tables and flip over little bits of cardboard and push around little pieces of plastic.  

But we can't organise things so that some marvelous old buildings can be properly repaired and maintained, and kept available for the community that has lived in them for years and, into the future, for newcomers – perhaps including in the mix working people who service the buildings and businesses of the city.

Or can we?

Launching 'Clearing House' – the TU's social housing estate redevelopment blog

Today the Tenants' Union launches a second blog. Clearing House is the TU's record of what's going on in social housing estate redevelopments.

 As we say on the new blog:

Over the last 10 years, estate redevelopment has become an increasingly big thing for Housing NSW – and for the many tenants who have to live with it. Looking ahead, it's only going to get bigger.

When news breaks that your estate is to be redeveloped, it can be hard to know where you stand. Should I go? Should I come back? Should the redevelopment happen at all? Plans get made and revised. People come and go. Work starts and stops. Promises may be made, and broken.

The purpose of this blog is to try to keep track of what's happening with estate redevelopment, on the ground in each estate. We'll try to log announcements, events and changes of plans as they happen, and link back to earlier information so you can see how things may have changed.

In doing so, we'll be taking our information from official public statements and documents by Housing NSW, the NSW Land and Housing Corporation, and the responsible Ministers, from media reports, and from tenants and workers on estates – so please tell us what you know in the comments or by email.

Hopefully all of us – tenants, advocates, housing officers, Ministers! – will become a bit better informed, and a bit wiser, about how social housing estate redevelopment is actually going, and how it might go better. 

Clearing House starts its round up of developments with posts on Millers Point and Riverwood North, with more to come.

Your regular Brown Couch service will continue as usual.