DEATH BY EXPOSURE PREFERRED TO INSIDE BEDROOMS
This is my first attempt at blogging and is meant to a medium of discussions about the problems of providing accommodation for people who claim to be at risk of homelessness or those who claim they are already homeless. Whilst it is written from the viewpoint of a rooming house operator; it will also actively attempt to lobby for the reasonable treatment of tenants by government authorities. It will be a no nonsence expose of what is really happening behind closed doors. It will lobby governments to allow and encourage new operators to provide accommodation for the different levels of need without penalising operators who dare to provide 4 or more unrelated people with a place to sleep at night without them needing to register with government departments for fear of heavy penalties. We realise the need for safety, however absolute safety from fire or smoke is not possible unless government prefer everyone live in canvas tents with easy to open doors for excape in case of fire. Death by exposure is more likely by those who have already lost a room due to council closures. The State Coroners case a few years ago when two people died in an upstairs Brunswick backpackers establishment being used as a reason why Councils need to close down several houses causing the eviction of many people. albeit. even some deserving it.
I couldn't agree more...Rooming Houses are the "buck stops here" accomodation and MUST be protected by Governments who have totally failed the under-priveleged people within our society both with health and public housing.Now they want the cream from Rooming House Operators and if you don't comply you will be shut down....WHAT A JOKE!!
ReplyDeleteNewspaper reports indicate that several rooming houses in ‘blank Council have chosen to close down rather than spend a cent on their properties when the expenditure may have been only $2000 to say put in a wired in smoke alarm. Some landlords are like that, however if as the tenant experts claim that Rooming Houses are ‘super profitable’ then why is it that so many landlords or operators have decided to close down so many rooms. One could say that there is no chance of any risk of death from fire whilst living under a bridge without lockable doors...but maybe you can see my point...that a simple infringement notice to several operators irrespective of whether they were liked or detested has resulted in the loss of several bedrooms from the system. Another option to keep tenants indoors is to remove locks altogether ...giving a similar level of security as a tent would offer but whilst this is acceptable in a caravan park is not seen as acceptable in a Rooming House. Tenant representatives have the view that they can convince Governments to Legislate to force greedy landlords to provide top facilities for not so top tenants. This policy is not working in ‘blank’ Council...with most operators choosing to CLOSE DOWN altogether. Where is the benefit in it for the new homeless? Are tents more suitable?
ReplyDeleteIn my recent 20 page submission to the DHS Inquiry into Rooming House regulations I suggested the a simple change in regulations by DHS Victoria, they could create several thousand new rooms for occupation by the homeless relatives of the current occupants of Publc housing. Moreover, if caravan or tents were permitted in those same backyards...would increase accommodation for the homeless by 10-30,000 places. However,under current Victorian Planning Schemes it is illegal to live in a tent or possibly a caravan in a backyard for more than 28 continuous days.... My example shows how simple part of the problem could be partly solved by a 'can do' government without penalising private operators and forcing the closure of rooms by Councils throughout Melbourne because council health department officials fear being sent to jail by the Victorian State Coroner in the statistical possibility that someone will die in a rooming house fire. WHERE IS THE LOGIC IN A MODERN AUSTRALIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN 2011 ???
ReplyDelete