Herald Sun agenda against Melbourne's Homeless

Remove this Banner Ad

Fundamentally a result of Australia's ridiculous property situation. I hope those that oppose redevelopments in interests of heritage and character of their suburbs realise this is the result.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

igon value said:
Fundamentally a result of Australia's ridiculous property situation. I hope those that oppose redevelopments in interests of heritage and character of their suburbs realise this is the result.
Click to expand...


something ridiculous like 80,000 houses empty in Melbourne

* investment property owners
 
radiojake said:
While accessibility to social services exarcerbate



something ridiculous like 80,000 houses empty in Melbourne

**** investment property owners
Click to expand...
Yeah. The federal government giving property owners money back in tax to let them hold their properties empty beggars belief.

I just wish those who oppose apartment blocks going up because it ruins their street scape or whatever realised that this is the downstream consequence. By opposing development, you are denying people to have a roof over their head.
 
I find it weird that no one mentions that the rationale behind negative gearing - that it keeps rents reasonable such that the government does not have to provide housing and is therefore cheaper in the long run - has turned out to be complete bullshit.

We have a massive homeless problem in our two largest cities.
 
igon value said:
I find it weird that no one mentions that the rationale behind negative gearing - that it keeps rents reasonable such that the government does not have to provide housing and is therefore cheaper in the long run - has turned out to be complete bullshit.

We have a massive homeless problem in our two largest cities.
Click to expand...

Negative gearing is a joke

Was brought in to encourage investment in rental properties, and now we have an oversupply in the market

Its middle/upper class welfare, and should be killed immediately
 
Ruck Machine said:
So you do nothing to help them ...

At least I have the balls to admit I don't give a s**t about them.
Click to expand...
Nope, not one thing.

Can you identify any difference between doing nothing and calling for them to be removed from a city because their existence offends you? I doubt it :)
 
igon value said:
Fundamentally a result of Australia's ridiculous property situation. I hope those that oppose redevelopments in interests of heritage and character of their suburbs realise this is the result.
Click to expand...

Correct.

The pressure from the property trickles down. That is the real story.

I used to sometimes drive past the Half Moon Caravan Park in Brooklyn, arguably Melbourne's least desirable suburb to reside in.

As a kid i'd go past and wonder why anyone would want to holiday in such a crap place, not understanding that of course this caravan park was for people who couldn't secure a standard rental.

Well if you drive past now, it's all been vacated and it's just vacant land:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...t/news-story/2a4d598d06d6e930f2b3ff441b271524

Kudos to News Ltd for that particular story (albeit hidden away) on one of the causes of homelessness.

The half moon is not the only place like this to close recently. Successive governments prioritise revenue from developers over proper housing planning, and this is what we get.

Homelessness and sprawling suburbs without amenity or transport, people paying massive percentages of their incomes to live in squalid pieces of s**t just so someone else can avoid some tax.

But the homeless are the ones copping it the worst.
 
igon value said:
I find it weird that no one mentions that the rationale behind negative gearing - that it keeps rents reasonable such that the government does not have to provide housing and is therefore cheaper in the long run - has turned out to be complete bullshit.

We have a massive homeless problem in our two largest cities.
Click to expand...

Applied to the creation of new dwellings, or to the cost of making an old condemned piece of crap livable - i can see it's purpose. It removes the burden of creating available public housing from the government, allowing private investment to do it. So you either spend more tax (public housing) or collect less tax (neg gear) and end up with greater housing supply. Same same.

The problem is that the neg gearing is being abused by people simply flipping existing properties. Ten of us here in theory could buy and sell the same place to each other ten times over, at the taxpayer's expense, without increasing housing supply one bit; but draining the public purse as we go.

It's crazy. If it were not currently legal and you tried to introduce it as policy you'd be roundly condemned for being a fool.
 
Gough said:
Problem with the Murdoch press, and others, is that they see them selves as setting the agenda, and as being part of the political process, as opposed to reporting on the facts. So we end up with an unelected group of journalists, acting on behest of their paymasters trying to unduly influence debate.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't the editorialists masquerading as journos, it's the flock of sheep easily swayed by their propaganda and the politicians/government agencies with no backbone too scared of the "backlash" if they don't go along with what the Murdoch press wants.
 
Gough said:
No better example of this is the difference in coverage of the current government compared to the almost daily shrilling at every wrong doing, real or imagined of the previous Labor government by the Murdoch press.
Click to expand...

Never mind previous Labor government, the Andrews government in Victoria seems to be the blame for absolutely everything according to the Hun's front pages.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

_007_ said:
Nope, not one thing.

Can you identify any difference between doing nothing and calling for them to be removed from a city because their existence offends you? I doubt it :)
Click to expand...

No.

However I also can't find any difference between 'not giving a s**t' and 'doing nothing'.
 
Gough said:
No better example of this is the difference in coverage of the current government compared to the almost daily shrilling at every wrong doing, real or imagined of the previous Labor government by the Murdoch press.
Click to expand...

Yeah Murdoch shouldn't have reported the previous Labor governments real wrong doings.
 
Gough said:
The tenor of the coverage, and level of scrutiny has been completely different. As kickazz pointed out too, they're doing the same thing to Andrews in Victoria right now. Labor governments seem to be held to a set of standards by the Murdoch press that aren't applied to their opponents.
Click to expand...

The media should stop reporting Labor's mistakes and the homeless and we should change the date of Australia Day and then we can ignore all the bad stuff so it won't exist and we can all ride off happily into the sunset on our unicorns.
 
Last edited:
Crankyhawk said:
To be fair it is hard to report on the failings of the current (Abbott / Turnbull government) when they fail to do anything but bitch and moan how it is all Rudd/ Gillard fault.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is actually gillards fault
 
Ice-Wolf said:
LMFAO oh wait you're serious.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't I be serious?

Take this:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/i...ck-nursing-home-for-poor-20160326-gnrnmh.html

A development proposal explicitly to cater for the most disadvantaged in society, blocked by councillors in the interests of 'heritage'.

Or better read as: the rentier class defending their investments and looking to continue to engage in rent seeking.

Thankfully VCAT overrode the council's decision, but this kind of decision making is rampant in Australia, with spurious heritage reasoning given as the defence for keeping 'undesirables' out of people's neighbourhoods to protect property prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nut
The war against employment
Replies
4
Views
570
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
ferball
Charges against Bernard Collaery dropped by A.G. Dreyfus
Replies
9
Views
611
Not Important
N

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top