@rogespeed wrote:
So having dodged the covid bullet and accrued nominal 120 billion in Commonwealth goodwill by avoiding city wide shutdown - words hardly can express appalled astonishment that there be so many in considered sub-standard accommodation comprising , men, women and children
( not as implied roaming the streets to forage and diving into skip bins at dusk to avoid censure , clearing the streets for all that glitter to dance and play)
WA government dismantles homeless camp (msn.com)
So what would be the material requirements to resolve this issue assuming standard suburban living is the universally accepted objective
So what is a few or several billions dollars ?
15,000 seekers , how many dwellings ? Not 15,000 - many will be in partnerships or arrangements of benefit , many with children
maybe 6000 houses , 4000 units . 10,000 dwellings - land ? repurpose some crownland . plenty of arid land . no cost to acquire , cost to develop ? low cost but effective Cement moulded wall dwellings ( low maintenance walls easily hosed down)
, solar/wind domestic and commercial , artesian water ? desalinated .. waste recycled for grey water usage , integrated services , real nbn , police , deputised vigilantes , medical , ambo , psych , P12 school, stockade , part time community development employment projects ( without the chains) Extend the train line
In the end a nice little community of agreeably like minded people - I am sure would work in sim city....
You have to be kidding. That is a recipe for disaster.
Those 15,000 you speak of consist of some whose names are on public housing wait lists (so they are probably in normal rentals at the moment) but there are also 1000 living on the streets.
The tent city that has been dismantled-did you read the bit about it where it said
Police this week linked the camp to a number of serious crimes in the broader area, including assaults and child sex offences.
Mr McGowan has accused "anarchists" of establishing the camp opposite the office of Communities Minister Simone McGurk as a political stunt ahead of the election.
The premier ramped up his increasingly heated rhetoric on Saturday, claiming that volunteers at the camp had had no intention of helping people.
"They just want to protest ... it gives them a kick," he said.
Unfortunately some of the organisers of that camp and members of the council were encouraging people to move in there ... it was a shocking thing they were doing.
I think these people have been cynically used as a political stunt. Just have a look at the photo. It's public parkland and it is directly across the road from the office of a state minister.
No, people don't have the right to just squat and take over any place they feel like it. If I wanted to set up camp in the Botanic Gardens for a week or two in the chrissy holidays, I'd soon be moved on. What gives these organisers the right to just decide that they will encourage people to camp on what is public space.
I'm not saying that the people camping this way don't have genuine needs but you can bet your bottom dollar quite a few of them have problems. The problems may be mental, physical, problems of addiction etc. Of course people in the general community can have those problems too.
But you're talking about setting up a town where a much higher than normal concentration of the population would have problems. It would most likely be a slum area in no time.
Just let me tell you a little true story. Years ago, my job was in literacy support and I would have smallish groups of up to 12 children, the lowest of the low. Sometimes it was hard going and that was because children who ar behind-way behind- are usually that way because they have some problems. Perhaps they have difficulty concentrating, perhaps they have other problems. But when you have them sitting next to each other, it doesn't help.
I had two particular boys who were hard work. Then their teacher was ill and off work for a week and I had her class. I thought, going in-this will be fun wth them in the class as well as the other 25 to teach. But you know what? They were fine. Their teacher had them sitting at extreme opposite ends of the classroom and next to quiet, well behaved (and tolerant) kids. The normals helped tutor the ones with problems. I can honestly say it can be far easier teaching a class of 27 or so than it can be with a much smaller group of children who all have problems.
The moral of the story-don't put all your problem people togeher, spread them out more in the community.
