Search

"Eviction season": Real estate slammed for callous Christmas email

A real estate agency has been forced to apologise after tenants were sent a callous email about paying their rent on time over the Christmas period. The email, which is believed to be sent by Professionals Taylor Lakes in Melbourne, referred to the festive period as "eviction season", and encouraged renters to make timely payments to ensure "your living arrangements are not jeopardised over this festive period". "Christmas is a fantastic time of year and also a very busy time," the email begins. "Christmas time is also known in property circles as 'eviction season' as so many people choose to use their rental payments for Christmas spending instead of ensuring that their family accommodation remains top priority over this period. "We see so many tenants fall behind in their rent and then get into the position where they are not able to catch up, as this is their biggest financial obligation." The agency said it didn't want to be tasked with the "unfortunate job" of having to remove and evict them from their homes over Christmas. "We find this action very unpleasant for everyone concerned and we all enjoy our Christmas much less because of it," it said. "We urge you to pay careful attention and ensure that throughout December and January, you pay your rent on time, every time!" The email was met with a wave of backlash online, with many calling the message "thoughtless" and "not professional". "This is just appalling," Anti-Poverty Network SA wrote on Facebook. Professionals chief executive Katherine Gonzalez-Cork said the email was brought to her attention on Wednesday morning, and offered an apology to the recipients. "The email was distributed to tenants directly from the Taylors Lakes office and the content was not endorsed by me or the Board of Professionals and does not represent our company's expectations of communication with our property renters," she said. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

93-year-old widower with dementia to get kicked out of his home of 60 years

A widower with dementia has been told to pack up his belongings and leave his Brisbane home of 60 years to make way for a school drop-off zone. Trevor Connolly, 93, had no plans on leaving his Coorparoo home in Brisbane's south-east, until a notification of resumption, also known as a compulsory acquisition letter, arrived in his mailbox in October with notice he needs to leave before Christmas. The letter notified Connolly of the Department of Education's plans to forcibly acquire their home and build a new school. The movement of the school is a knock-on effect of Brisbane's expansion plans to accommodate the hosting the 2032 Olympics. The expansion is resulting in the demolition of the heritage-listed East Brisbane State School, which is being rebuilt on the site of the Coorparoo Secondary College. Mr Connolly's home is the last domino to fall in the construction plans, having been designated to be demolished and turned into a drop-off zone for the new school. The 93-year-old widower described the state's decision to acquire his home as "lunacy" and "madness", saying there are numerous other properties they could have chosen. "You feel so useless, what can you do about it?" Connolly told 7News. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CynVcsMpiiW/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CynVcsMpiiW/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by 7NEWS Queensland (@7newsqueensland)</a> </div> </blockquote> "There's no need to knock the house down, there's plenty of room next door." He said the idea of moving out of the house he has called home for over half-a-century as "a heck of a change to even think about". His daughter, Anne, didn't mince words when speaking about the state's Department of Education's plans, describing them as "quite brutal really, and insensitive". Mr Connolly and the department are yet to enter negotiations into compensation for the widower's property, while a spokesperson for the Queensland Department of Education said, "Decisions to acquire land are not taken lightly." Image credits: Seven

Legal

Prince Andrew “terrified” to leave Royal Lodge amid eviction rumours

Prince Andrew is refusing to exit his royal residence as renovations are carried out on the Windsor property, despite advice to the contrary. According to The Daily Mail, the 63-year-old is putting his foot down over fears that he “might never get back in”, likely in response to circulating rumours that his brother - King Charles - wants to evict Andrew from the home as part of his grand plan to scale back the monarchy. While Andrew no longer holds any official royal duty after his involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, he still maintains his claim on the mansion with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson. And now, that same property is set to become “virtually a building site”, with Andrew having hired builders to undertake necessary repair work on the property, tackling everything from damp to mould. As a source told Page Six, Andrew was reportedly advised to vacate “while work was undertaken” over the course of a few months, “but he’s refused because he’s so terrified that the property might be seized in his absence. “In the meantime, Harry and Meghan vacated Frogmore after being told they needed to leave to make way for Andrew but he is refusing to go there, even though he was given the keys. “He’s allowing Eugenie to stay there. She’s just given birth to her second child so while she recovers and gets back on her feet, she’s staying in Frogmore to be near her mum and dad.” And while some believe the temporary move would make sense for Andrew, his fears remain at the forefront. “It’s become farcical,' an insider told The Daily Mail. “Andrew has roof repairs scheduled later this summer which will take several months to complete and has been advised that staying in the house during those renovations could prove problematic. But he is reluctant to leave.” Buckingham Palace has yet to comment on the rumours, but another source is adamant that the Duke of York will remain in the property, <a href="post.php?post=134779&action=edit&classic-editor">regardless of alleged drama and financial woes</a>. As Page Six noted, Andrew has been making the most of money left to him by the late Queen Elizabeth to fix up the house, with one source explaining that “he’s been quite open about where the money has come from because he doesn’t want people to think he’s come up with it through other means. “The costs are expected to reach into the hundreds of thousands of pounds.” And, as they surmised, Andrew “is adamant that he will see out the end of his [75-year] lease at Royal Lodge.” Images: Getty

Real Estate

Distraught family faces eviction from Australia after 13 years

A family in Sydney’s Sutherland Shire are facing the threat of deportation after 13 years living in Australia, with the Federal Government reportedly declining every attempt they’ve made at gaining permanent residency. Speaking to 2GB’s Chris O’Keefe, Emma and Nathan Mills explained how they’d left the United Kingdom in 2010 to start a new life down under with their two children, entering Australia on 457 skilled worker visas - visas for skilled migrants. They had plans to care for Emma’s dad, who is an Australian citizen with serious spinal injuries and mental health concerns. The young family settled in Sydney’s Sutherland Shire with their kids, and have spent the past 13 years making a home for themselves, and even welcoming a third child - daughter Daisy, who is now 11. Their eldest son James is now 21 and is considered “a respectable young member of the community”, while their second son Harry is undertaking his HSC. According to Emma and Nathan, they have done everything in their power to secure permanent residency for themselves and their children, but have been declined by the government at every stage. And now, they are facing an unwanted return to the country they left all those years ago. “Are we going to be sent back to a country that is essentially foreign to us all now?” Emma said to O’Keefe. “My children don’t have lives or memories of the UK, they have memories of Australia. This is their home.” She went on to stress that they’d “built a life here”, and that it was hard for any of them to “comprehend that this is even happening.” Emma did explain that changes to the immigration system, and her husband’s employment, were factors in their ability to apply for permanent residency - he works as an employment advisor, while she is a full-time carer to their children and to her father. They’d even tried to apply for a carer visa, but were rejected at that turn, too. And as Emma told O’Keefe, she’d only found out about the rejection when her kid’s schools called to inform her their enrolments had been cancelled due to the visa revocations. "The principal informed me that from the Monday she [Daisy] was not permitted to return to school. I was in shock and disbelief," she said. "I then got a call from Engadine High School with the same news. What shocked me and frightened me the most is my eldest son [still attending school] was due to sit his HSC the following week." And while the family did win an appeal in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that should have permitted them to stay in Australia, they were never granted visas, and even their Medicare was cancelled. Things took another turn for the worst on April 13, when they received a letter from the Home Affairs Department that gave them 35 days to leave the country, or else they may be detained and deported. Emma revealed that her father was “absolutely devastated” about how the situation was transpiring, and that they’d “tried to do everything the right way” to no avail. Still, they’re determined to keep fighting to stay in their home, and have appealed for Immigration Minister Andrew Giles to reconsider the potentially life-changing decision. Images: Drive with Chris O’Keefe / 2GB

Legal

“What am I going to do now?”: 77-year-old widow forced from her home

When Rosemarie Earley lost her husband, Eric Earley, she’d already suffered enough heartbreak to last a lifetime. But her devastating situation wasn’t to end there, with the New South Wales government landing one more blow to the 77-year-old: she had to leave the home she and Eric had shared for almost 50 years. Rosemarie and Eric had moved in to their Pendlebury Parade property in the ‘70s, establishing themselves as well-known and well-loved fixtures of the street. However, it was their experience back then that seems to have caused Rosemarie’s present day trouble, with different rules and regulations surrounding whose name could be on the lease. As Rosemarie explained to A Current Affair’s Hannah Sinclair, the paperwork was “in my husband's name. Eric Earley. The females had no say in the matter back in those days. Everything was in the husband's name because he was classed as the breadwinner. We were just housewives.” Rosemarie and Eric had left England for a new and “better life for the family” in 1971, and were allocated their home by the government. "When we moved in it was an empty shell,” she said. “There were no carpets, no window fittings, not even lightbulbs. No soil. So we had to buy soil. “We bought a garage, we paid to have the gas connected, put the carpet [down] and everything else that was needed. "We were under the impression we were buying because the paperwork said we had been approved to purchase.” But this was not the case, as Rosemarie went on to explain. When their rent collector had dropped by, Eric had asked when the pair might be able to pay their deposit on the home, but was told they never would. “We were actually told by the man that came and did the inspection a couple of weeks after we moved in that, 'this is your house, you can stay here till you die'. That was his words," she recalled. It was a cruel reminder that Rosemarie was served in late 2022, when Eric passed away from heart failure at just 83 years old. In the wake of her devastating loss, Rosemarie contacted the government and applied to be recognised as a tenant. They had other ideas, and just a few months later, Rosemarie was informed the one level house with ramp access did not meet her needs anymore. “I was so happy when I finally signed the paperwork to say that I could live here and it was now in my name,” she said, “and then six weeks later or so, I got the letter saying that this house no longer meets my needs. "I don't understand why. Why couldn't they wait till my husband had been gone even 12 months, so that I would have acclimatised to being on my own? Why did it have to be four months?" Rosemarie went on to admit that she thinks Eric would be “devastated” to know what she was going through without him, admitting that “that was his one worry, that I wouldn't get treated properly when he died and that's what's happened. I'm not getting treated properly." "Can you believe that in 2023 as a woman you still don't have the same rights as your husband? "I don't know. Why are they still going by those rules? Why haven't they adapted to the fact that life now is in two names? Husband and wife, or man and woman. A partner.” Images: A Current Affair / Nine

Real Estate

Harry and Meghan’s eviction confirmed

Harry and Meghan have been asked to vacate their British residence, Frogmore Cottage on the grounds of King Charles’ Windsor Castle estate, a statement has confirmed. “We can confirm The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been requested to vacate their residence at Frogmore Cottage,” said a spokesperson for the couple. Charles’ decision comes as just another stage in the fallout of Harry’s memoir, Spare. In the book, Harry made numerous revelations about the royal family, and none have taken too kindly to it, especially not when considering the couple’s Netflix documentary and TV interviews. While Buckingham Palace has not yet publicly addressed the report, many have begun to speculate, and The Daily Mirror’s royal editor Russell Myers told Today that King Charles III did in fact come to his drastic decision because of the book. “Apparently the King has had enough,” Myers began, ”and whether he asked them to leave or told them to leave, the result is still the same.” As with most recent discussions involving the royals, the question of whether or not Harry and Meghan would attend Charles’ coronation quickly arose. Myers seemed to be of the opinion that Harry wouldn’t dare, as this latest rejection seemed likely to be “the final nail in the coffin.” “I have always said that Harry and Meghan have to have this big currency,” he added, “all they talk about is their relationship with the royal family, and you can bet your bottom dollar that relationship is in the gutter now. "I can't imagine any of the family would want to see them, but you never know with them, they might turn up for a couple of days." It was reported by The Sun newspaper that King Charles has offered the house to his brother, Andrew. However, they added that Andrew would prefer to stay in his current home. "There are a lot of royal residences and pretty much not enough royals to put in them," Myers said of the situation. "Andrew can't afford it, he’s having his wings clipped, and he's not going to get the big allowance he had when the Queen was still with us,” he went on. “Everyone has to tighten their belts. "Andrew is still digging his heels in. He says <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/prince-andrew-s-eviction-fears" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he doesn't want to leave Royal Lodge</a>, but I don't think he will have any choice at the end of the day." Images: Getty

Real Estate

Prince Andrew’s eviction fears

Prince Andrew is facing eviction from his £30 million (~$53m) Windsor home, according to reports. The controversial royal figure is allegedly “distraught” over the news that a cut to his yearly earnings is on the horizon. It is expected that Andrew will have his allowance of 249,000 (~$440,000) cut in April, the same allowance that he has been “dependent” on since he took a step back from his royal duties in 2019 in the wake of sexual assault allegations against him. Andrew has reportedly informed his friends that he will be unable to maintain his home, Royal Lodge, without the money from his brother, and will be forced to leave the property by September. Reports claim that the 30-room mansion is in need of extensive work. Despite the cutbacks, Andrew will not be left penniless, as he will maintain his Navy pension. The Duke of York currently resides at the property with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson. It has served at the official country residence of the 63-year-old since 2004, and was previously the Windsor residence of Queen Elizabeth II’s mother. Andrew’s yearly allowance, paid out from his mother’s private estate, has allowed for the upkeep of Royal Lodge. However, King Charles III is now in control of those payments, and with his goals for the British monarchy, his sights have been set on Andrew. Over the Christmas period, it is alleged that a senior royal made the joke that “we will kick Andrew out of the house.” The jest is likely to have fallen flat with the royal, as a source informed The Sun, “Andrew and Sarah are distraught they have been given such short notice. “The Queen died only a few months ago. He’s not being explicitly kicked out but it’s expected that he won’t be able to afford the maintenance - Royal Lodge has a swimming pool, 98 acres of land, and is already in need of some repair.” The source went on to explain that Charles’ decision was about telling Andrew “he can use his own money to pay for things” and how the same went for other members of the royal family, such as Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. “And while there is leniency with working members of the family, who have offices funded by the Sovereign Grant,” they added, “there have been other examples.” It was mentioned that Charles “doesn’t feel he should pay for the upkeep of ponies to pull the carriage” in reference to Charles’ aim to slim down the British monarchy, and the review into how their money is being spent. “He knows the public won’t want to see money wasted,” the source surmised. “Particularly in the current climate.” Images: Getty

News

Shanty towns and eviction riots: the radical history of Australia’s property market

Skyrocketing property prices and an impossible rental market have seen growing numbers of Australians struggling to find a place to live. Recent images of families pitching tents or living out of cars evoke some of the more enduring scenes from the Great Depression. Australia was among the hardest hit countries when global wool and wheat prices plummeted in 1929. By 1931, many were feeling the effects of long-term unemployment, including widespread evictions from their homes. The evidence was soon seen and felt as shanty towns – known as dole camps – mushroomed in and around urban centres across the country. How we responded to that housing crisis, and how we talk about those events today, show how our attitudes about poverty, homelessness and welfare are entwined with questions of national identity. Shanty towns and eviction riots Sydney’s Domain, Melbourne’s Dudley Flats and the banks of the River Torrens in Adelaide were just a few places where communities of people experiencing homelessness <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1106767" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sprung up</a> in the early 1930s. Some <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1106767" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lived in tents</a>, others in makeshift shelters of iron, sacking, wood and other scavenged materials. Wooden crates, newspapers and flour and wheat sacks were put to numerous inventive domestic uses, such as for furniture and blankets. Camps were rife with lice, fevers and dysentery, all treated with home remedies. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469663/original/file-20220620-23-cm58ov.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469663/original/file-20220620-23-cm58ov.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469663/original/file-20220620-23-cm58ov.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469663/original/file-20220620-23-cm58ov.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469663/original/file-20220620-23-cm58ov.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469663/original/file-20220620-23-cm58ov.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469663/original/file-20220620-23-cm58ov.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469663/original/file-20220620-23-cm58ov.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>Some people lived in tents in the Domain during the Depression of the 1930s. <a class="source" href="http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo-explore/fulldisplay?vid=MAIN&search_scope=Everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US&context=L&isFrbr=true&docid=SLV_VOYAGER1713846" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Knights, Bert/State Library of Victoria</a></figcaption></figure> But many Australians fought eviction from their homes in a widespread series of protests and interventions known as the <a href="https://commonslibrary.org/lock-out-the-landlords-australian-anti-eviction-resistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">anti-eviction movement</a>. As writer Iain McIntyre outlines in his work <a href="https://commonslibrary.org/lock-out-the-landlords-australian-anti-eviction-resistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lock Out The Landlords: Australian Anti-Eviction Resistance 1929-1936</a>, these protests were an initiative of members of the Unemployed Workers Movement – a kind of trade union of the jobless. As <a href="https://rahu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Sydneys-Anti-Eviction-Movement_-Community-or-Conspiracy_.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explained</a> by writers Nadia Wheatley and Drew Cottle, <blockquote> With the dole being given in the form of goods or coupons rather than as cash, it was impossible for many unemployed workers to pay rent. In working class suburbs, it was common to see bailiffs dumping furniture onto the footpath, pushing women and children onto the street. Even more common was the sight of strings of boarded up terrace houses, which nobody could afford to rent. If anything demonstrated the idiocy as well as the injustice of the capitalist system it was the fact that in many situations the landlords did not even gain anything from evicting people. </blockquote> The Unemployed Workers Movement <a href="https://rahu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Sydneys-Anti-Eviction-Movement_-Community-or-Conspiracy_.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">goal</a> was to <blockquote> Organise vigilance committees in neighbourhoods to patrol working class districts and resist by mass action the eviction of unemployed workers from their houses, or attempts on behalf of bailiffs to remove furniture, or gas men to shut off the gas supply. </blockquote> Methods of resistance were varied in practice. Often threats were <a href="https://rahu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Sydneys-Anti-Eviction-Movement_-Community-or-Conspiracy_.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sufficient</a> to keep a landlord from evicting a family. If not, a common <a href="https://rahu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Sydneys-Anti-Eviction-Movement_-Community-or-Conspiracy_.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tactic</a> was for a large group of activists and neighbours to gather outside the house on eviction day and physically prevent the eviction. Sometimes this led to street fights with <a href="https://commonslibrary.org/lock-out-the-landlords-australian-anti-eviction-resistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">police</a>. Protestors sometimes <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1106767" target="_blank" rel="noopener">returned</a> in the wake of a successful eviction to raid and vandalise the property. Protestors went under armed siege in houses barricaded with sandbags and barbed wire. This culminated in a <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ANZLawHisteJl/2007/2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">series</a> of bloody battles with police in Sydney’s suburbs in mid-1931, and numerous arrests. It’s not just what happened – it’s how we talk about it Narratives both reflect and shape our world. Written history is interesting not just for the things that happened in the past, but for how we tell them. Just as the catastrophic effects of the 1929 crash were entwined with the escalating struggle between extreme left and right political ideologies, historians and writers have since taken various and even opposing viewpoints when it comes to interpreting the events of Australia’s Depression years and ascribing meaning to them. Was it a time of quiet stoicism that brought out the best in us as “battlers” and fostered a spirit of mateship that underpins who we are as a nation? Or did we push our fellow Australians onto the streets and into tin shacks and make people feel ashamed for needing help? As Wendy Lowenstein wrote in her landmark work of Depression oral history, <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/69032" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Weevils in the Flour</a>: <blockquote> Common was the conviction that the most important thing was to own your own house, to keep out of debt, to be sober, industrious, and to mind your own business. One woman says, ‘My husband was out of work for five years during the Depression and no one ever knew […] Not even my own parents.’ </blockquote> This part of our history remains contested and narratives from this period - about “lifters and leaners” or the Australian “dream” of home ownership, for example – persist today. As Australia’s present housing crisis deepens, it’s worth highlighting we have been through housing crises before. Public discussion about housing and its relationship to poverty remain – as was the case in the Depression era – emotionally and politically charged. Our Depression-era shanty towns and eviction protests, as well as the way we remember them, are a reminder that what people say and do about the housing crisis today is not just about facts and figures. Above all, it reflects what we value and who we think we are.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185129/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/helen-dinmore-1000747" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Helen Dinmore</a>, Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of South Australia</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/shanty-towns-and-eviction-riots-the-radical-history-of-australias-property-market-185129" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: <a href="https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-160054430/view" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NLA/Trove</a>

Real Estate

The extraordinary reason a family of five were evicted

A family of five from the Sydney suburb of Baulkham Hills have been left in the lurch after they were abruptly evicted from their rental home for a shocking reason. The Cowley family moved into the home six months ago, and even paid $10,000 of rent upfront when they signed their lease. Despite this, mother-of-three Michelle <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/renting/crazy-reason-baulkham-hills-family-evicted-from-home/news-story/fd4a01ae4eda47b7814fd7f8f2534134">told</a> A Current Affair that the family were evicted for “complaining” that the home needed $17,000 worth of urgent repairs. “The reason they want us out is we have apparently complained too much, but as you can see, there’s a hell of a lot to complain about,” Michelle said. The repairs began with a broken dishwasher, but quickly started to pile up. It then led to cupboards without doorknobs, leaks, a broken washing machine, and culminated with a massive hole in the roof near the main entrance, which is still exposing electrical wires and structural beams. Dave Cowley described the pool as more like “the Parramatta River” after a range of repairs failed to stop mud washing in. “Even now, we would be happy to work with the owner to get those important things repaired,” Mr Cowley said. Their real estate delivered the bad news to the family in April with no explanation as to why their six-month lease would not be renewed. “It‘s not up to me letting the tenants stay. It was the end of a fixed term, so they signed a six-month lease. At the end of the lease they were sent a notice to end the tenancy,” Raine and Horne Baulkham Hills property manager Callan Root said. The family has since taken the matter to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the result is yet to be received. Image credits: A Current Affair

Real Estate

Shanty towns and eviction riots: the radical history of Australia’s property market

Real Estate

Single mother’s new home accidentally cleared out

A single mother has been left distraught after her apartment complex’s management mistook her apartment for one destined for eviction, and cleared out all the possessions belonging to her and her three children. Single mother Stephanie Gunia moved into the apartment in the US state of Nebraska last week, and knew something was not right as soon as she entered her new home. “I knew something was wrong, right when I walked in the door and saw my mat was gone,” she told local news channel KETV 7 Omaha. “We walked in and there was nothing in our apartment except for a mattress,” Gunia, 31, told the outlet. “My kids' stuff was gone, their clothes, everything.” When the devastated mother asked why the unauthorised clear-out occurred, Gunia revealed, “They said they got the wrong apartment. They cleaned out the wrong apartment.” All of the family’s belongings were thrown in dumpsters in the carpark of the apartment complex, covering everything in trash and grime. “Our stuff was in five of the seven dumpsters,” said Gunia, who had been living in the apartment for just one week before arriving home with her kids, who she had just picked up from school, to find it cleaned out. “I just went grocery shopping the day before, all that food is ruined, food was mixed in with the toys, and there was like beer and trash ‘gooze’ all over my kids' stuff, our clothes,” Gunia said. “My kids were crying because they were scared, they don't know what's going on, they don't know why somebody threw their stuff away in a trash can.” The mother called the management of the complex in a panic, with staffers at the organisation telling her to call police to report that she had been burglarised, not realising their mistake. When officers arrived at the scene, they noticed no signs of burglary, as Stephanie’s neighbour informed them they had seen a group of men moving things out and placing them in the garbage. Police eventually discovered that the complex hired a company to clear out an apartment belonging to another tenant - one who owed back rent and was supposed to be evicted from the property that day. The management company has since apologised for the mistake, saying in a statement that “almost all” of the family's possessions had been rescued from the bin and that the group had provided Gunia a $250 gift card. Meanwhile, the distraught mother told <a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/there-was-nothing-in-our-apartment-la-vista-womans-apartment-cleaned-out-by-mistake/39745982">KETV</a> that while the gesture is a start, it does not come close to making good on the oversight, which has left her kids scared and without a bed to sleep on, as she is not comfortable letting them sleep on the sullied mattresses police and staff pulled from the dumpsters. Image credits: KETV 7 Omaha News footage

Real Estate

Aged care residents given 10 weeks to find a new home

Older Australians living in aged care have been forced out of their homes, after it was decided that the only facility in their small town would be shut down. <a href="https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/elderly-aussie-residents-face-being-forced-out-of-nsw-aged-care-facility/78205e17-fc8a-4372-bb23-09aa081f538c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Current Affair</a> reported that the owners of Anglian Care, the only facility in the northern NSW town of Bulahdelah, gave families of residents ten weeks to find their loved ones a new place to live. The decision has angered the community, with local resident Rod telling the program that losing “40 staff” and “40 local jobs in a small community” will be devastating. Norma Hughes, a resident of the Cedar Wharf Lodge, told A Current Affair that she never imagined she would be asked to leave on the eve of her 90th birthday. “I was going to finish my days here but that’s not happening anymore,” she said. Her son Neil and daughter-in-law Lyn were also angered by the situation. “The staff found out that day, I think I was the only one there that wasn’t in tears, they were all crying going ‘damn, what’s going on?’” Neil said. “It was pretty sad for them; for everybody in a sense.” Bob, another resident, passed away at the age of 99 shortly after his family was interviewed by A Current Affair. His son-in-law, Kevin Carter, said the stress of being evicted was a heavy weight for him in his final days. “Ninety-nine is a lot of age and how do you accommodate meeting the new nurse and staff? It’s quite frightening,” Mr Carter said. Bulahdelah’s nursing home has been in operation since 1991, and the decision to close its doors came after the church reviewed its 11 aged care homes and found it wasn’t viable to continue operating. The church said in a statement this was because the Federal Government wasn’t offering any long-term funding for small regional services like the one in Bulahdelah. Though the closest facility is half an hour away, many residents will be forced to travel an hour away to Taree, meaning their loved ones will have to embark on two-hour round trips to visit them. Rod told A Current Affair that a solution could arise through a “stay of execution”, but that he didn’t have his hopes up that Anglican Care and the bishop would change their minds. “Potentially it could be saved … but they’re not flexible, they’ve made their decision and they won’t listen,” he said. Now it seems the only hope for elderly Austraions in towns like Bulahdelah could come after the looming federal election, if the next leaders decide to funnel money into these areas. Images: A Current Affair

Retirement Life

Doctor evicted from home over coronavirus fears

A Queensland doctor has been evicted from her sharehouse after she refused to stop working. Hannah*, a doctor specialising in anaesthesiology, was working a 10-hour shift at a hospital near Brisbane when her landlord sent her a text message asking to talk about “isolating the house”. When she called her landlord after the shift, she was told she had to either stop working or move out. “He essentially said I could either stop working or I had to move out as soon as possible,” Hannah told the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-22/coronavirus-fears-doctor-evicted-during-crisis/12162880">ABC</a>. “He felt that I was at high risk of being exposed and thus bringing COVID-19 back to the house, I suppose.” One of the text messages from the landlord read: “If you opt to stop work and isolate with the girls there is no need to move…” The landlord’s announcement came a day after Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a six-month <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-01/coronavirus-eviction-moratorium-in-australia-what-does-it-mean/12105188">freeze on evictions</a>. Hannah said she was at the time helping out at the intensive care unit with one patient had COVID-19, but she did not have direct contact with the patient. “We are helping to provide a service through the COVID-19 crisis. So, I don’t think it’s fair to stop me helping with the delivery of that service because of his desire to protect the house,” she said. “It doesn’t seem that he quite made the connection that if he came in with a serious infection, it’d be people like me at work who would be looking after him and making sure that he got through that.” When Hannah told her landlord she was considered an essential worker and could not find a new residence due to having to work overtime, he said he was “very understanding” but maintained that he needed the house “isolated”. The landlord said she should cook, shower and brush her teeth at work and remain only in her room when at home. He also offered to help her look for a new place and asked if the hospital could provide her with accommodation during the pandemic. Hannah went on to contact a property lawyer who drafted a letter informing the landlord of the Prime Minister’s eviction moratorium, which was met with “a lot of anger”. Hannah said the landlord’s daughter, who was also her housemate, told her she was not wanted at the house. “She said, ‘stay if you want, but I’ll make sure it’s not pleasant for you’.” Hannah left the residence two days after the first text. She stayed at a motel which her hospital put up for one night and moved to her colleague’s accommodation the next day. According to the Residential Tenancies Authority, property owners and managers who are not “significantly impacted” by COVID-19 should continue to honour their responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008.

Home & Garden

83-year-old may be evicted for taking too many cookies

Elsie Cruey was left shocked when she received an email telling her she could be kicked out of her apartment. The 83-year-old grandmother of five was issued with a strange violation that apparently could result in her losing her home - taking too many cookies from a community event. The apartment block, located in Virginia, U.S, was made with 62-year-old’s and up in mind. “On 06/12/2019 — The Resident was stopped from taking a partial gallon of milk by the Assistant Community Manager at Breakfast,” the email read, the <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/shes-83-and-might-get-kicked-out-of-her-apartment-among-her-violations-taking-too-many-cookies/ar-AAISZBq?li=AAgfYrC">Washington Post</a> read. “During Mix and Mingle the Resident was observed by the Community Manager taking a plate full of cookies. “On 06/13/2019, the resident and Community Manager had a conversation and the resident admitted to taking the cookies and having them with milk before bedtime.” “The Resident must immediately cease taking and/or attempting to remove food, beverages and other service items from the community events.” Cruey says another email popped into her inbox on September 16, this time it told her she would have to be out by October 17. However, Cruey says she will put up a fight and does not want to leave. “I adjusted to it,” she says. “And I’d be happy to stay here the rest of my life. If it takes negotiation, whatever it takes, I’d like to stay right where I am.” Elsie’s daughter, Sandra, said the apartment was a “perfect fit” for her mother who thrives in atmospheres where she is able to live independently. “I want my mother to stay, but if she can’t, I want other people to know they need to be careful before they sell their parents’ property,” she said. “They might think they found somewhere for their loved ones to stay long-term and later realize they were wrong. “You might think you found a great place, but things might change.” Images: (Theresa Vargas/TWP)

News

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"Eviction season": Real estate slammed for callous Christmas email

93-year-old widower with dementia to get kicked out of his home of 60 years

Prince Andrew “terrified” to leave Royal Lodge amid eviction rumours

Distraught family faces eviction from Australia after 13 years