It's also increasing stated location preferences from a minimum of one to three.
That it even has to do this proves state housing is frequently not about need. It's about choice.
Nearly 10,000 social housing offers were made last year and of those 3,453 were declined, with 414 for unacceptable reasons such as wanting a garage or a bigger back yard.
Primarily people want a state house because they are cheaper than private rentals. Social agencies and budgeting organisations know this and work with the client to facilitate acquisition of state rentals.
There is an old adage "beggars can't be choosers" which means people with no other options must be content with what is offered.
They are not content because they have other options.
Yet this compromising centrist government still gets the jelly wobbles:
Under the changes people who refuse a property without a good reason may be removed from the social housing register for 13 weeks.Why not much longer or permanently? The door is always left open to those who would play the system.
2 comments:
Lindsay ... I would not like us to get to the point where there was no leeway at all for those seeking SRH. There has to be flexibility in any system to accommodate legitimate concerns and three down to one seems a sensible compromise.
As for removing those those from the register who decline accommodation for 'no good reason' and I guess the question is 'what constitutes no good reason' .... objective or subjective decision? Probably a mixture of both.
There will always be those who will try and game the system such is the nature of the culture of 'entitlement'. Sad.
The sooner we either sell off - or better still, demolish - every "state house" (really bludger housing) the better.
There will always be those who will try and game the system
Anyone who applies for a bludger house, or a bludger accomo "benefit" is gaming the system as far as I'm concerned.
Post a Comment