Printable View
Well I reckon a lot of Italians stayed around Innisfail and Ingham and grow sugar cane and bananas to this day.Quote:
The govt. tried that in the 1950's in an attempt to get sufficient labour for the sugar harvest. The then Dept. of Labour and National Service had a rule that migrants had to go where they were sent by the dept. for two years
Regards Philip A
They came earlier. Progressively from about 1910 after the kanakas had been sent home. First were Spanish, then Italians in the 1920's, then Maltese in the depression era. Given the political situation in their homelands then many did not want to go back and the depression unemployment kept them on the cane knife. Australian cane cutters despised the "dagoes". Aussie cutters mostly only worked the season and did not go fruit picking or tobacco chipping in the off season like the "dagoes" who ended up owning the farms. Ethnic surnames abound in the sugar districts. Italian/Sicilian, some Spanish around Innisfail, Maltese by the gross at Mackay, and Danes and Germans from Bundaberg south.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
I was writing about the 1950's when the sugar industry doubled after the war then doubled again. Calwell's "New Australians" were seen as the solution to the labour shortage but this did not work out. The solution was the Qld. government decision to fund and sponsor design and development of mechanical harvesters no matter the cost.
There seems to be an assumption that making public land available for housing is some sort of miracle solution to the problem of homelessness.
I thought that the shortage of building blocks was not so much the result of a shortage of patches of dirt, but the reluctance or inability of the relevant authorities to provide the services and infrastructure that make it possible to build on the land.
True. Services can cost more than the land or building.
Most homeless people would be renters, not buyers.
Rental supplements are far too small to go even close to paying a typical rent, as are Centrelink benefits generally.
People may just have enough money to buy food and live in their old car, or rent but not buy food and depend on charity meals. Rent or food but not both. This is the reality many face.
The cost of land and services means that the only way to have really cheap housing near the jobs market is to go upwards. Unfortunately tenements or tower blocks create their own social problems, especially when the jobs vanish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeros
Zeros, old mate, you got me. I am so impressed by the mature discussion on the subject. Restored my faith . I've been derailed a few times, when my plan went haywire. [ what do they say, the best laid plans are forgotten at first contact with the enemy. ] The mere fact that social media [ AULRO, pretty social place] can have a conversation at a mature level, as we are, makes me feel warm and fuzzy. [ no I have not ****ed myself] May it always be so.
I like your conversation starters Bob. Like fishing from your couch. Throw out a line and see what bites. Lots of hungry fish.
In Asia they build blocks of low rent studio apartments which provide a roof over their heads, have services like air-con, TV and Wi-Fi, security and are close to shops and public transport. I think this could be a good answer for here. They're not slums, they're good quality.
No, public land should not be made available for affordable housing.
How will it be affordable? Who is going to market it and build at affordable prices?
It's not going to happen and the concept has probably been put up by one of the builders representative bodies.
There are thousands of unoccupied houses all over Australia and these could be sourced...if a govt is genuine.....and made available.
If an affordable housing concept needs to brought to fruition then build upwards and build basic units not luxo apartments , we are talking affordable , it can be done if it's kept simple.
My first home was 14squares , ffs , no one wants to market a home this size now at a realistic price , but a bare arse 10sq hi rise unit in an ordinary suburb without coastal or hinterland views could fit the bill.
If socialist,yes public land for public housing
If capitalist, no. Poor people do not deserve a decent living.
So which way?