Comments on: Bushfire Housing

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:08:58 +0000

camille – a hotel is better than a tent, but given its going to many months, perhaps a year or two for some before their houses are rebuilt a hotel is not a great long term solution.

btw the smh and age have had some interesting articles on houses which survived. One highligted was a house which had a lot of concrete render applied and used to seal any gaps so embers couldn’t enter. Also extra thick glass that would be less likely to break (although metal shutters would probably be better) combined with some clearing around the house appears to have helped.

By: Liam

Liam — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:08:39 +0000

Chris, the plan goes like this:
1. Householders and landlords buy home and contents insurance.
2. Disaster strikes.
3. Governments, with NGOs, take responsibility for short-term housing and emergency response.
4. The insurance companies arrange to meet the medium- and long-term housing needs of their customers, in the private housing market, as per their obligations under the policies. It seems that the private sector can’t do web-savvy either, even when it’s a core part of the product they provide. Who knew?
The word for the expectation that the Government provide step 4, or more importantly, that the Government provide replacement housing for uninsured homeowners, is “moral hazard”.
Now I’ve got nothing against either compulsory home insurance along the lines of the CTP policies drivers buy—but that’s a different big-government socialist argument.

By: camille

camille — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:48:31 +0000

Concrete dome homes could be the way to go. Do they burn in a raging fire is the question. Those poor victims surely could be housed in a nice hotel somewhere until homes are built for them.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:32:50 +0000

The question is about how to house, for a relatively short time, a relatively large number of middle-class instantly-homeless people, generally without complex needs (ie. alcoholism, mental health, histories of violence, poverty, abuse). Outside meeting the immediate Army-tent needs, this isn’t a need for which any Government anywhere in the world plans.

I would hope that they do plan for situations like this. Its the situation that occurs when natural disasters occur – be it fire, flood, cyclones etc.

It is, however, precisely the reason the insurance industry exists. C’mon, let’s see those payouts.

Given that they’re estimating around 25% of the residents are uninsured there is still going to be a problem even if the insurance industry can react fast enough. And as was reported last night, the insurance assessors aren’t even allowed into many of the affected areas yet.

One thing that did come out of Lateline was that around 40% of the insurance premium in Victoria is taxes for the fire services and those who don’t pay for insurance avoid paying the fire levies. Perhaps it should be an unavoidable part of the council rates instead. That way everyone pays and there is less disincentive to go uninsured.

By: joe2

joe2 — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:33:42 +0000

Oxfam, fitzroy group, have a neat site that is a goods and services registry. It takes things a lot further than accommodation offers.
http://bushfireaid.wikispaces.com/

By: Liam

Liam — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:17:19 +0000

Helen, no State Government housing department in Australia is good yet at using the web. Their clients, frankly, aren’t universally set up yet to contact the authorities through a facebook page or a twitter feed. That the State Government isn’t very good at using the web to do emergency housing isn’t the point.
The question is about how to house, for a relatively short time, a relatively large number of middle-class instantly-homeless people, generally without complex needs (ie. alcoholism, mental health, histories of violence, poverty, abuse). Outside meeting the immediate Army-tent needs, this isn’t a need for which any Government anywhere in the world plans.
It is, however, precisely the reason the insurance industry exists. C’mon, let’s see those payouts.

By: joe2

joe2 — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:14:18 +0000

“I think the criticism that the State authorities weren’t using the web very well is a valid one. As Marie pointed out, a mobile number only doesn’t really cut it in this day and age.”

Some interesting stuff on that very subject over at Troppo. If the CFA can be considered part of government.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/02/13/copyright-exclusive-ownership-web-20-and-fighting-bushfires/#comments

By: Helen

Helen — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:50:41 +0000

Liam – It’s very well designed as an information clearing house I think. I like the fact that the must-have numbers are in huge font on the front page and this page is really useful, something people could bookmark for constant reference. (For general references, granted, not necessarily housing in particular.)

I think the criticism that the State authorities weren’t using the web very well is a valid one. As Marie pointed out, a mobile number only doesn’t really cut it in this day and age.

By: Liam

Liam — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:48:49 +0000

I don’t knock your efforts at voluntary organisation, Max and Marie.
I have a bit of contact through work with the NGOs who in my State plan for disaster recovery. Without them there’d be no disaster recovery.
I do knock your odd fixation with the Department of Human Services (Victoria’s Dept of Housing as I understand it). “Limited choices”? ‘Dingy’ housing commission ‘villas’? I’m not quite sure you understand what State Government housing is or does, or what needs it exists to serve. It doesn’t serve severe but limited emergencies like this one.
I certainly think you oughtn’t to attach puerile Government-blaming to any kind of sincere relief effort.
It’s lame.

By: Max

Max — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:29:35 +0000

Hi All
On the day the site launched repeated attempts were made to DHS to indeed provide all database details so as they could manage the vetting process.
This service was provided to assist people who were in less fortunate positions than us – nothing more, nothing less.
This is one of our proudest achievements – and we did not get paid a cent (not did we ask for any money).
My question is – why did the government resources not prepared for something like this – or why did they not engage their internal/external resources to build something similar>