Cr Dobson referred to the many conversations he had had with the “movers and shakers” of the community, the people with the capacity to make a real difference in closing the gap between the demand for social housing and the available stock.
Cr Dobson said nearly every conversation started with a statement that “we are not against social housing” and that they understood the need.
Like Cr Dobson, they supported the cause, but didn’t support the proposed car park development specifically. Cr Dobson urged the same influential people to step up and contribute to solving the social housing shortfall.
Cr Sam Spinks took a different view, speaking of the heartbreaking characterisation of social housing tenants as “broke, deviants, perverts” during the community debate.
Cr Spinks went further, telling the meeting the affluent in our community had failed to wrap their arms around those in need and had instead used their resources and influence to try to push them away.
This characterisation is as wrong, and as stigmatising, as those referring to social housing tenants.
As difficult as the decision to reject the sale was, it was the right one.
The challenge now is to find a way forward.
Over the past 24 hours I’ve spoken to a number of affluent and influential people who are genuinely committed to helping.
The six-month public debate has highlighted the very real need for more affordable and social housing and a genuine partnership between council, housing agencies and the business and development sector is now possible.
The talk is of making provision for social housing in every stage of every new housing estate, and looking for and completing higher density infill developments, including in the CBD, at break-even or a fraction of the return they would normally expect from a commercial project.
Another comment during the broader debate at the council meeting was that there just wasn’t the land available to spread social housing out.
There is a land crisis as well as a housing crisis in Greater Shepparton and both can be solved through a co-operative approach.
Council has the capacity to expedite land development and can prioritise projects that include a social dividend. Housing authorities can partner with developers and council to identify and develop greenfield and brownfield sites.
The car park proposal may well have benefited from a similar collaborative approach in the embryonic stage.
The failure to include the community in addressing the social housing crisis was the most disappointing aspect of the whole process. The concept was only made public at a meeting just prior to Christmas last year and the community opposition grew quickly because of the impression this was something being done to them, not for them, or with them.
There is an opportunity for a course correction, to engage not so much the movers and shakers, but the many doers in the community, who have the capacity, if engaged properly, to make a real difference.
