The bleeding obvious about homelessness

Apart from noting that Falzon's darling Angela Davis is a hardline communist, who, for all her purported advocacy of prisoners, was rightly vilified by Alexander Solzhenitsyn for her strange refusal to support prisoners in socialist countries throughout the world, I have very little to add to my E.S. 2013 comments on Falzon's ludicrous proposals re. homelessness: "Here are a couple of pointers in the right direction. Many homeless are mentally ill. That's because our governments in their ivory towered wisdom threw them on the streets a couple of decades back and left many of them to self-medicate: one of the greatest acts of cruelty committed in our society in the last half century. Many other homeless are aborigines in the absurd state-manufactured constructs we call "remote communities". A third tranche are unemployed because of minimum wage laws and other union-backed coercive regulations which chop off the lowest rungs of the employment ladder plus the mountain of green and red tape that prevents people starting up small businesses. Another significant number are homeless due to marital breakdown - a chief cause of which is the introduction of no-fault divorce. In sum, Australian citizens have no reason to feel guilty about the homeless. What they need to do is punish the la-la land policies of left-inspired regimes that created the problem in the first place." The only thing I will add is that abolishing government-imposed restrictions on housing development such as stamp duty, greens-inspired blockages to land release, and the labyrinth of regulations concerning house design, would greatly reduce the cost of housing to the poor. In the light of his support for the hypocrite Angela Davis, I don't expect Falzon - a big-government-at-all-costs advocate - would approve of these measures, even if the poor were to benefit.

I hope HH doesn't fall on hard times. But if he does, Vinnies will be there to help.

As someone who became a single parent without an unencumbered home because of my husband's gambling problem (gaming: a policy-driven initiative) ... because of my workplace being Tendered (tenderised!) out with the loss of my job (another policy-driven initiative) ... because one of my 3 children was considered not to exist even though we had proof she did (policy-driven initiative to exclude if her paperwork ... yes paperwork! ... was not older than 5 years!!!) ... because I've worked hard to raise decent citizens (my children) and worked/studied part-time (therefore have little superannuation) etc, etc, I am deeply offended at HH's assumptions about the policy approaches that cause homelessness. I concur with Margaret C.

Thanks John. Solid as usual. How about the 2 words Housing Trust?? Provided shelter and dignity, not simply a small and shrinking crisis service, and huge work opportunities too. Started by a Liberal Premier. Their rent to purchase plans were the entry point for any many of us. With our large young family we were Trust tenants and glad to be. I believe one day there will be a return to such schemes and it will be considered innovative and bold. Simply telling people to rent privately forever, will only store up disaster for the future elderly.

Thanks for another deeply human and deeply Christian article John. HH's contribution shows just what Australia is up against if it's to respond humanely and innovatively to people's real situations and real needs. Your para on the Immigration Detention camps is a perfect account of the vicious and financially disastrous response that our politicians, for electoral advantage, have chosen to make to people in distress. I don't recognise the country we'e become. Keep feeling, thinking and writing for us.

If government were not in the way, one could build a basic earth bag house for around $300.00, and a really nice one for around $5,000 in about six weeks. But government *is* in the way. So there are 540 regulatory ticks required from start to finish of a basic house in Melbourne, which the earth bag house would totally fail, even though it has excellent green credentials. And then around 44% of the final cost of a regular house is in taxes. Moreover, the cost of land itself is astronomical compared to regions around the world with similar population density (eg Texas). That's because of government land use/release/zoning restrictions. It's bleeding obvious that the biggest enemy of affordable housing for the poor is the state.

Am I supposed to apologise for making suggestions that, in my opinion, would drastically reduce the cost of housing for poor Australians? Not going to do that, my friends: I care for the poor and want to help them.

HH identifies at least some of the groups most at risk of homelessness: the mentally ill, Aborigines in remote communities, single mothers. Having identified them,do you take the position HH that, for some reason, they do not deserve a housing policy that gives them the chance of a home? Do the mentally ill not deserve a home - perhaps because they are mentally ill; and Aborigines, remote or city, are they not deserving because of their Aboriginality; and single mothers because...? Categorising those in need is not a solution. And nor is your proposal for self constructed bag houses. I do agree though that the cost of housing in Australia is at an absurd level. Driven up, in my view, by tax concessions to the well-off.

Whether or not we feel guilty or not is irrelevant. Our obligation to our neighbour does not depend on how guilty we feel. And homelessness is a problem whether or not those involved are mentally ill. We are a rich country and we can afford to solve the problem. And that would benefit all of us in upholding the dignity of those in distress. Indeed, negative gearing was originally sold by Treasury to the government on the grounds that it would stimulate the supply of low cost housing. So who were the utopian dreamers? Indeed, it is time we recognised that naive faith in the market system is simply another idol..

To HH, you are right, Angela Davis is a communist. john Falzon is always quoting Marxist's ideology, example on 28 May 2014 he wrote an article published by Eureka Street which he quotes Brecht Franz Fanon, and Slavoj Zisek. the 3 of them are well known Marxists. I am a supporter of the SVDP, and I pray that John Falzon Chief Executive of the Saint Vincent de Paul Society, will distant himself from Marxist, Communist, Socialist crap.

Zizek a communist? Ms Davis always sounds so supercilious and self righteous I turn off fast in terror if by mischance 3CR is using her to fill dead air as I turn by, so she may be a hardline Stalin could do no wrongist for all I know. Still HH's comments about prisoners in socialist countries deserves an answer. Amongst his(a guess, I know, I can be wrong, but that's where I'd lay my bets)confusing pile of fact and opinion this might be a followable thread leading somewhere informative.