United in distress

In the 25-year stewardship of Labor representation, public housing increased in Rivervale beyond the Government’s own threshold of 11 per cent to 15.1 per cent.

The Liberal Party intends to correct this and reduce percentages to existing government guidelines. There is no ‘attack’.

He also incorrectly says, ‘public housing was intended as a mainstream affordable option for all’. Public housing is not intended for all but available when rental market prices and/or servicing a mortgage, for various reasons, becomes unattainable.

Both Labor and Liberal candidates’ telephone canvassing, one-on-one meetings and the well-attended Liberal Party’s law and order forum all strongly indicated crime and anti-social behaviour were the top concern in our community.

It is not a case of private verses public housing residents because we are united in our distress.

One recent Sunday evening I shopped at Kooyong Road and the staff offered me the rear door to leave because of an alcohol-fuelled street argument brought inside the shop. The following evening there was a street argument that continued past our home.

On both occasions the language was loud, foul and the behaviour alarming. These are real, regular occurrences for many people in this area.

I know of two households who have sold and moved elsewhere and of one family now considering moving.

I believe perpetrators of anti-social behaviour receive the benefits of public housing as their behaviour and lifestyle would preclude them from other means of accommodation.

Therefore, I don’t believe it ‘unintelligent’, as Mr Watkins wrote, to link anti-social behaviour to our larger public housing percentage because, unfortunately, public housing is not only available for good community members but also a catchment for anti-social residents who show little regard for community wellbeing.