Today's subject is the 1950 Warner Bros cartoon short film, Room and Bird, directed by Friz Freleng, and starring Tweety and Sylvester as their respective selves. See you in about seven minutes.
I must admit: the tenancy-cultural significance of Room and Bird is probably not nearly so great as, say, the adventures of the great detective and awful flatmate Sherlock Holmes, but it gladdens the heart to see a Warners Bros cartoon again (in this one, the dialogue between Tweety and the mouse riding the 'elevator' especially cracks me up). And if you're viewing this at work, I'm sure you enjoyed the frisson of momentary irresponsibility before you scrambled to turn down the volume of Carl Stalling's rambunctious theme music.
Room and Bird sees Tweety and his owner, Granny, taking up residence in an hotel, the Spinster's Arms, despite an express prohibition on the keeping of pets. Add another little old lady and her cat, Sylvester, and a bulldog, and an incompetent authority figure (the hotel detective), and the usual mayhem ensues.
It's timeless fun, but this cartoon is almost 60 years old, and so much of what is depicted belongs to another age. The word 'spinster'; the occupation of 'hotel detective'; the practice of taking up residence in an hotel; each of these things is now most uncommon. What has not much changed, however, is unreasoning antipathy of landlords and agents towards the keeping of pets in rental accommodation.
Pets and other animals are nowhere mentioned in the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW), but most residential tenancies agreements include an additional term prohibiting tenants from keeping any animal on the premises without the written consent of the landlord. In most cases, this additional term is inserted on behalf of landlords unthinkingly, through their use of the mass-produced form of agreement drafted by the Real Estate Institute.
Of course, the Residential Tenancies Act does have something to say about landlords refraining from interfering in tenants' quiet enjoyment and reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, which you might think would mean not interfering in such matters as responsible grown-ups deciding whether they might like to keep a bird, cat or dog. The latter-day authority figures at the REI, however, take that sort of interference for granted. As a result, agents and landlords find themselves assuming the role of Room and Bird's bumbling hotel detective, while tenants continue to make like Granny and smuggle their pets into their rented homes.
It really is a stupid, pointless prohibition. Landlords' interests are already protected by the standard terms that make tenants liable for any damage they cause to the premises, and any nuisances caused to neighbours. And tenants' dogs do not bark any louder than property owners' dogs.
Tweety and Sylvester may not be the best advertisement for pets in rental housing, but then again no tenant's pet that I know of has ever actually lit a stick of TNT, or successfully discharged a gun, or sawn a circular hole in the floor of the premises.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Adventures of the SCSSHBCDAC: in Opium's Thrall!
Previously, the intrepid investigators from the Sydney City and Suburban Sewerage and Health Board's Crowded Dwellings and Areas Committee encountered some of the children of late-nineteenth century Sydney's slums, including two who were removed to the relatively salubrious accommodations of the police sheds. Now their investigations take them where all innocence is truly fled (and the casual racism of the day has free licence)...
Seventh day - Tuesday 25 November 1875.
Burke Ward - along Pitt-street, commencing at Queen's Place.
Met at the Volunteer Club at 3 pm on Thursday 25 instant and commenced our round of visits by calling upon Ah Loon, a Chinaman, known in the neighbourhood as 'Lousy Charley', who occupies a three-roomed stone cottage off Queen's-place, for which he pays 10 s a week - the agent for the property to which this tenement belongs is M'Kenzie. It is 37 feet long and 11 ft high, and divided into three rooms, in each of which is an opium bench, with all the appliances necessary and ready for use at once. Charley is a seller of opium and an inveterate smoker as well, or his appearance greatly belies him. J. E., a white woman, aged twenty-two, who lives with him, also indulges in this demoralizing habit, and their place is an accommodation house of the worst order, for it is impossible to say what diabolical offences are not committed through the agency of this pernicious drug. Of this more hereafter. The woman told us that sometimes their customers were so numerous that they had to wait their turns to enter the room. The unfortunate creature appeared to be completely under the bondage of opium, and the woman assured us, and she herself admitted, though her paramour stoutly denied it, that other white women frequent the place, and that the most revolting and immoral scenes are of frequent occurence. In corroboration of this statement, she mentioned among the names of her visitors some of the most disreputable prostitutes in Sydney. If half the stories we heard were true, it is more than time that this and similar other foul dens of Chinese depravity should be cleared of their occupants and thoroughly purged, for their existence is a blot upon the character of a city like Sydney.
We next visited Ah Toy's workshop in Queen's-place, where there is a large loft over the workshop, about 60 ft x 30 ft, in which nineteen persons sleep - at least so we were told - but the numbers given us were probably incorrect in most cases, for we never found the beds to correspond. The bedroom of a Chinaman is a square compartment with room for two occupants, in which he keeps all his belongings, and which serves him as a smoking-room, sitting-room and bedroom. The rooms are generally boxed off in this way into compartments which represent so many separate dwellings under one roof. No attempt seemed to have been made to clean the place, nor could we see any lavatories or appliances used in other houses: if these people ever wash themselves they do it by stealth. The attic room in Ah Toy's house, fronting George-street, the owner of which is Mr Redman, is 7 ft high, and as near as we could guess about 14ft x 10 ft; it is divided into elevent compartments, is without ventilation, and very dirty. The closet attached to the house was in a frightful state. The attention of Insurance Societies and Fire Brigaes should be called to this place, for if a fire were to take place in this part of Sydney the result would be disastrous, and the loss of life and property great. The closets in all these houses were in a horrible state; they discharge into an opening over the same drain probably a tributary of the Tank Stream - as in almost every case the tenants complain that the landlord will do nothing.
This day's inspection was not performed without serious fatigue and risk to health to Dr Read and myself. For the next forty-eight hours, and that of the previous night, the horrible sickly smell of opium smoking which pervades all the Chinese quarters seemed to adhere to us, to say nothing of the fear of infection, which is not a pleasant sensation. We have witnessed in the several visits we have made a great many disgusting scenes, the existence of which in such close contiguity to our main thoroughfares we could not have otherwise credited - and we may fairly state that since we undertook the duty entrusted to this sub-committee we have not been able to enjoy a single meal. We concluded the day's work at 6 pm.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Budget ’09-’10: The second take – housing the homeless
In addition to the already discussed “Housing Construction Acceleration Plan”, the guts of the State Housing budget are all about building new social housing properties and providing new accommodation options for disadvantaged people, thus relieving pressure on homeless persons’ support services.
The investment is substantial – around 9,500 new homes are to be built for social housing in New South Wales over the next three years. Much of this will be paid for by grants from the Federal Government’s Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, with the State Government kicking in about $1 billion extra for good measure.
The Governments – both State and Federal – are onto a winner here, as they’ve identified two very large and important birds to taunt with the one stone: a faltering economy, and a social housing market in disarray. I say taunt, because it remains to be seen if this investment can deliver a knockout blow on either of these.
It’s great news for the housing and construction industry, as it will ensure the continued employment, at least in the short term, of many who rely on the industry to earn a crust. It is also great news for the social housing sector, which has been trying to survive on mere scraps for so long that it might have even forgotten how to provide a decent “housing service” to the people of New South Wales.
I hasten to add, from the rather cynical perspective afforded to me by this cozy spot on the Brown Couch, that it appears any benefit to the homeless or to social housing providers is a mere by-product of the economic stimuli. Keeping people gainfully employed is the main game… What a handy coincidence that we just happen to need houses for poor unfortunates as well!
Now, having paid some attention to various comments made by the Federal Housing Minister, The Hon. Tanya Plibersek, over the last couple of weeks, it seems the reasoning is this: “if we build them, they will come”.
Building more social housing provides improved exit strategies for users of crisis accommodation, which means a higher turnover, and better outcomes for users. But let's not forget the restrictive nature of crisis accommodation, which is usually targeted to a particular type of need and thus not generally available to all who would use it. Let us also remember the very narrow criteria applicants must meet before they will be urgently housed by the social housing system, or the finality of loss of social housing if for some reason a tenancy ends on bad terms.
While the need for housing options of last resort continues to increase (see the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s recently released “Counting the Homeless 2006” report), providers of housing of last resort continue to operate with a general policy of exclusion. It is, after all, much harder to get into a social housing tenancy than it is to get kicked out of one.
Building more homes is a step in the right direction. But building a social housing system that works will take more than just bricks, mortar and money in the coffers…
The investment is substantial – around 9,500 new homes are to be built for social housing in New South Wales over the next three years. Much of this will be paid for by grants from the Federal Government’s Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, with the State Government kicking in about $1 billion extra for good measure.
The Governments – both State and Federal – are onto a winner here, as they’ve identified two very large and important birds to taunt with the one stone: a faltering economy, and a social housing market in disarray. I say taunt, because it remains to be seen if this investment can deliver a knockout blow on either of these.
It’s great news for the housing and construction industry, as it will ensure the continued employment, at least in the short term, of many who rely on the industry to earn a crust. It is also great news for the social housing sector, which has been trying to survive on mere scraps for so long that it might have even forgotten how to provide a decent “housing service” to the people of New South Wales.
I hasten to add, from the rather cynical perspective afforded to me by this cozy spot on the Brown Couch, that it appears any benefit to the homeless or to social housing providers is a mere by-product of the economic stimuli. Keeping people gainfully employed is the main game… What a handy coincidence that we just happen to need houses for poor unfortunates as well!
Now, having paid some attention to various comments made by the Federal Housing Minister, The Hon. Tanya Plibersek, over the last couple of weeks, it seems the reasoning is this: “if we build them, they will come”.
Building more social housing provides improved exit strategies for users of crisis accommodation, which means a higher turnover, and better outcomes for users. But let's not forget the restrictive nature of crisis accommodation, which is usually targeted to a particular type of need and thus not generally available to all who would use it. Let us also remember the very narrow criteria applicants must meet before they will be urgently housed by the social housing system, or the finality of loss of social housing if for some reason a tenancy ends on bad terms.
While the need for housing options of last resort continues to increase (see the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s recently released “Counting the Homeless 2006” report), providers of housing of last resort continue to operate with a general policy of exclusion. It is, after all, much harder to get into a social housing tenancy than it is to get kicked out of one.
Building more homes is a step in the right direction. But building a social housing system that works will take more than just bricks, mortar and money in the coffers…
Monday, July 6, 2009
It's tax time
It's the new financial year, and the thoughts of many Brown Couch readers will turn to the task of completing their tax returns. Actually, such is the complexity of the Australian tax system that about 70 per cent of the population regard the task as altogether too hard and place it in the hands of a tax agent. But while our thoughts are on the topic, let's have a look at one of the by-products of tax time: the Australian Tax Office's annual Tax Stats report and, in particular, what it says about the affairs of the nation's landlords.
The Tax Stats for 2006-07 have been out for a couple of months now, but as far as I can tell their publication passed with nary a mention in the media. That's odd, because they make an interesting read – or even better, an interesting handful of charts – on the conduct of rental property investment in the last days of the boom.
First, the Tax Stats show that the number of landlords (measured by the number of persons declaring rental income) grew by almost 50 000 over 2006-07, to just over 1.6 million persons. As chart 1 shows, growing numbers of persons had been piling into the market for more than 10 years.
(Chart 1: ATO, Tax Stats 1994-95 to 2006-07. Click on the image for a better view.)
The Tax Stats for 2006-07 have been out for a couple of months now, but as far as I can tell their publication passed with nary a mention in the media. That's odd, because they make an interesting read – or even better, an interesting handful of charts – on the conduct of rental property investment in the last days of the boom.
First, the Tax Stats show that the number of landlords (measured by the number of persons declaring rental income) grew by almost 50 000 over 2006-07, to just over 1.6 million persons. As chart 1 shows, growing numbers of persons had been piling into the market for more than 10 years.
(Chart 1: ATO, Tax Stats 1994-95 to 2006-07. Click on the image for a better view.)
And chart 2, below, shows the total gross rental income they enjoyed. Over the 12 years, it grew substantially, from just over $8 billion to almost $21 billion. No wonder so many people wanted to get into the market, right?
(Chart 2: ATO, Tax Stats 1994-95 to 2006-07. Click on the image for a better view.)
(Chart 2: ATO, Tax Stats 1994-95 to 2006-07. Click on the image for a better view.)
Actually, no. In net terms, most landlords over the declared a loss in 2006-07 – in fact, 69 per cent of them. And the proportion of losers had grown over the preceding six years or so.
So how did they do over all, in net terms? Chart 5, below, shows the sorry state of the rental business. The nation's landlords haven't collectively turned a buck since 2000-01, and 2006-07 plumbed a new low: total net rental losses of $6.4 billion.
(Chart 3: ATO, Tax Stats 1994-95 to 2006-07. Click on the image for a better view.)
The poor things. More than anything, the reason why these landlords lost money was because of their interest payments. In 2006-07, the nation's landlords paid more than $16 billion in interest on getting into the rental market, this amount having climbed steeply since 2001. (These payments are, of course, tax deductible – the magic of negative gearing.)
(Chart 4: ATO, Tax Stats 1994-95 to 2006-07. Click on the image for a better view.)
So how did they do over all, in net terms? Chart 5, below, shows the sorry state of the rental business. The nation's landlords haven't collectively turned a buck since 2000-01, and 2006-07 plumbed a new low: total net rental losses of $6.4 billion.
(Chart 5: ATO, Tax Stats 1994-95 to 2006-07. Click on the image for a better view.)
And this is the system of housing investment that governments and the housing industry want to kick start again?
One of the objectives of Ken Henry's current review of Australia's tax system is to reduce the complexity of the tax system. That's the least it should do. Let's hope the Henry Review sets its sights higher and proposes to deal with the madness of a tax system that encourages house-price speculators to such profligate borrowing and unproductive 'investment'.
One of the objectives of Ken Henry's current review of Australia's tax system is to reduce the complexity of the tax system. That's the least it should do. Let's hope the Henry Review sets its sights higher and proposes to deal with the madness of a tax system that encourages house-price speculators to such profligate borrowing and unproductive 'investment'.
Friday, June 26, 2009
NSW State Budget: the good, the bad and the windows of opportunity...
It’s time we had a look at the NSW state government’s recently announced budget for 2009-2010 – what’s in it for tenants?
Aside from a general increase in the maintenance budget of Housing NSW (long overdue), there are three initiatives of interest. We’ll call these the much-touted “saviour” of the housing industry, an attempted medium- to long-term plan to combat homelessness, and a new subsidy to assist victims of domestic violence to move out on their own.
We’ll look at each in turn over the next few days… Starting with the saviour:
The Housing Construction Acceleration Plan.
In the words of the NSW State Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, “this provides a 50 per cent cut to stamp duty for newly constructed dwellings up to $600,000.00 purchased in New South Wales from 1 July to 31 December 2009”. This applies to everyone except for first home buyers, who already enjoy substantial relief from stamp duty, as well as various first home owner grants. (Notably the State Governments’ contribution to such grants is to continue for another year). So, this initiative might coax landlords as well as owner-occupiers into the market for new housing in the immediate future.
The government suggests in its “Budget Highlights” package that this is an investment to “support growth and construction jobs in the housing sector”. The Urban Taskforce Australia, an organisation representing property developers, has hailed the plan as the “strongest measure taken by any government in Australia to support new home construction”. Clearly, they’re quite happy with it, and why wouldn’t they be? As a targeted economic stimulus measure, it sounds like good news. But what’s it really going to do for the housing market?
The CEO of The Urban Taskforce, Mr Aaron Gadiel, suggests “… far more people will benefit – not just first home owners. Some people who aren’t first home buyers are now likely to bring forward their home purchase to take advantage of this grant”. The Housing Industry Association’s Executive Director, Mr Graham Wolfe, puts it this way: “the saving in stamp duty provides a window of opportunity for anyone looking to buy a new home”.
“A window of opportunity”… Get in quick before the money runs out! You can’t afford to miss it!!! At these prices you’d be a fool to put your money anywhere else…
Now, call me a nay-sayer and a ne’er-do-well, but perhaps there are some very good reasons why people should NOT bring their purchases forward, simply to take advantage of yet another “saving” on stamp duty. Enticing home purchasers to prematurely increase debt in order to qualify for a stamp duty concession does not strike me as a good idea. To illustrate this point, I recommend a cursory glance over numerous comments made earlier on the Brown Couch. Start with the "numbers" tag and work your way back from there.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this Global Financial Crisis largely the product of housing related debt? Does it not seem a little odd to try to reinvigorate the market by offering yet another incentive to borrow more money now? Can somebody in government please give me a definition of the word irony?
Still, I do see one positive that may come out of all this. It could give us a few more opportunities to test out the new “Mortgagee Repossessions” amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, now that they’ve made their way through the legislature.
Aside from a general increase in the maintenance budget of Housing NSW (long overdue), there are three initiatives of interest. We’ll call these the much-touted “saviour” of the housing industry, an attempted medium- to long-term plan to combat homelessness, and a new subsidy to assist victims of domestic violence to move out on their own.
We’ll look at each in turn over the next few days… Starting with the saviour:
The Housing Construction Acceleration Plan.
In the words of the NSW State Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, “this provides a 50 per cent cut to stamp duty for newly constructed dwellings up to $600,000.00 purchased in New South Wales from 1 July to 31 December 2009”. This applies to everyone except for first home buyers, who already enjoy substantial relief from stamp duty, as well as various first home owner grants. (Notably the State Governments’ contribution to such grants is to continue for another year). So, this initiative might coax landlords as well as owner-occupiers into the market for new housing in the immediate future.
The government suggests in its “Budget Highlights” package that this is an investment to “support growth and construction jobs in the housing sector”. The Urban Taskforce Australia, an organisation representing property developers, has hailed the plan as the “strongest measure taken by any government in Australia to support new home construction”. Clearly, they’re quite happy with it, and why wouldn’t they be? As a targeted economic stimulus measure, it sounds like good news. But what’s it really going to do for the housing market?
The CEO of The Urban Taskforce, Mr Aaron Gadiel, suggests “… far more people will benefit – not just first home owners. Some people who aren’t first home buyers are now likely to bring forward their home purchase to take advantage of this grant”. The Housing Industry Association’s Executive Director, Mr Graham Wolfe, puts it this way: “the saving in stamp duty provides a window of opportunity for anyone looking to buy a new home”.
“A window of opportunity”… Get in quick before the money runs out! You can’t afford to miss it!!! At these prices you’d be a fool to put your money anywhere else…
Now, call me a nay-sayer and a ne’er-do-well, but perhaps there are some very good reasons why people should NOT bring their purchases forward, simply to take advantage of yet another “saving” on stamp duty. Enticing home purchasers to prematurely increase debt in order to qualify for a stamp duty concession does not strike me as a good idea. To illustrate this point, I recommend a cursory glance over numerous comments made earlier on the Brown Couch. Start with the "numbers" tag and work your way back from there.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this Global Financial Crisis largely the product of housing related debt? Does it not seem a little odd to try to reinvigorate the market by offering yet another incentive to borrow more money now? Can somebody in government please give me a definition of the word irony?
Still, I do see one positive that may come out of all this. It could give us a few more opportunities to test out the new “Mortgagee Repossessions” amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, now that they’ve made their way through the legislature.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Curse of the Wolfman: discrimination in rental housing
The Brown Couch notes with concern reports in today's sports pages that Manly Sea Eagles winger and tenant, David 'Wolfman' Williams, has had applications for tenancies declined by bigoted landlords and real estate agents. According to the Herald:
"I got rejected from like seven places because I was under 25 … and a footballer," the 22-year-old said.
Your correspondent at the Brown Couch does not follow Williams' game, being instead a devotee of Australia's national football code (go Hawks!), but I do feel a strong sympathy for the man, born of a common experience. As an employee of the Tenants' Union, I too have had more than my share of applications for tenancies refused where I have disclosed my occupation.
Discrimination in the provision of rental housing in New South Wales is subject to State and Federal anti-discrimination legislation. Under each of these regimes, discrimination on grounds of race, sex and a number of other factors is illegal; unfortunately, neither of these regimes prohibits discrimination on the ground of occupational status. The Australian Capital Territory's Discrimination Act 1999, however, does prohibit discrimination on grounds of a person's 'profession, trade, occupation or calling' (s 7(1)(m)). This measure should be extended to citizens of New South Wales and Australians generally. The Wolfman and his similarly affected colleagues should not have to move to the Canberra Raiders in order to get housed.
Williams' comments indicate that another factor may be involved in the discrimination he has experienced: his age. Discrimination on this ground is generally prohibited by both State and Federal legislation. Williams and anyone else who is knocked back for rental housing because they are too young, or because 'the landlord really wants a family to move in' or some similar excuse, should consider contacting the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board or the Australian Human Rights Commission to find out more about making a complaint.
Williams says that despite the prejudice he encountered he is 'in a good place now', and the Brown Couch wishes him well as he settles into his home.
"I got rejected from like seven places because I was under 25 … and a footballer," the 22-year-old said.
(David 'Wolfman' Williams, tenant.)
Your correspondent at the Brown Couch does not follow Williams' game, being instead a devotee of Australia's national football code (go Hawks!), but I do feel a strong sympathy for the man, born of a common experience. As an employee of the Tenants' Union, I too have had more than my share of applications for tenancies refused where I have disclosed my occupation.
Discrimination in the provision of rental housing in New South Wales is subject to State and Federal anti-discrimination legislation. Under each of these regimes, discrimination on grounds of race, sex and a number of other factors is illegal; unfortunately, neither of these regimes prohibits discrimination on the ground of occupational status. The Australian Capital Territory's Discrimination Act 1999, however, does prohibit discrimination on grounds of a person's 'profession, trade, occupation or calling' (s 7(1)(m)). This measure should be extended to citizens of New South Wales and Australians generally. The Wolfman and his similarly affected colleagues should not have to move to the Canberra Raiders in order to get housed.
Williams' comments indicate that another factor may be involved in the discrimination he has experienced: his age. Discrimination on this ground is generally prohibited by both State and Federal legislation. Williams and anyone else who is knocked back for rental housing because they are too young, or because 'the landlord really wants a family to move in' or some similar excuse, should consider contacting the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board or the Australian Human Rights Commission to find out more about making a complaint.
Williams says that despite the prejudice he encountered he is 'in a good place now', and the Brown Couch wishes him well as he settles into his home.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Better protection for tenants when landlords default on mortgages
Some much-welcome news: the NSW State Government has announced that it will introduce legislation this week to better protect tenants when landlords default on their mortgages and the mortgagee (usually a bank) takes possession of the premises – and evicts the tenant.
(Well done!)
We don't yet have the detail of the legislation, but the Minister for Fair Trading, Virginia Judge, says that it will provide:
The TU has previously asked the Government to deal with the mortgagee eviction problem as a matter of urgency, so we are very pleased that action is being taken now.
The TU and the Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services saw a wave of these cases a couple of years ago, when interest rates were rising. We expect to see another wave in the coming months, as unemployment rises. This time, it looks like the law will better protect tenants.
Well done, Minister Judge.
(Well done!)
We don't yet have the detail of the legislation, but the Minister for Fair Trading, Virginia Judge, says that it will provide:
- Immediate introduction of a 30 day notice to vacate once a mortgagee is entitled to possession of rented premises
- Permit a mortgagee who becomes entitled to possession of a premises to authorise the release of the tenant’s rental bond
- Relief for relocation expenses, with tenants who receive an eviction notice to withhold all future rent and / or recoup advance payments – i.e. a rent holiday, or compensation from the mortgagee.
The TU has previously asked the Government to deal with the mortgagee eviction problem as a matter of urgency, so we are very pleased that action is being taken now.
The TU and the Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services saw a wave of these cases a couple of years ago, when interest rates were rising. We expect to see another wave in the coming months, as unemployment rises. This time, it looks like the law will better protect tenants.
Well done, Minister Judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
