The issue is not whether HousingFirst is legally entitled to sell the properties. It is whether a social-housing provider should be this reluctant to explain the terms, timing and consequences of selling homes occupied by vulnerable tenants.
This reluctance was on display at last week’s council meeting. After a fairly benign question about the Oasis sale, Cr Justin Halliday challenged the description of the properties as ‘sold’.
Question from Cr Halliday: Does the use of the word ‘sold’ mean there is a binding contract, or is it more of an ‘under offer’ status where there is an intention to transact?
Answer from senior council officer: That clarification is correct. There is an offer, and settlement will only take place once alternative accommodation has been arranged for the tenants at that particular premise.
Cr Halliday is both a councillor and a board member of HousingFirst and the Port Phillip Housing Trust (we kid you not – the boards of both organisation are the same people). Given these roles, he was well placed to have access to the sale details. Why, then, did he ask a council officer to clarify them publicly?
Twenty-eight social housing units are changing ownership and tenants face relocation, yet the public discussion has focused on whether the properties should be described as ‘sold’. That distinction matters, but so do the signed contracts and their consequences for residents.
Earlier in the month, TWiSK asked HousingFirst to provide details of the sale terms. The response was bland: ‘HousingFirst is still progressing with the sale of the properties in Greeves Street, in line with its asset renewal strategy.’
Still searching for a straight answer, TWiSK asked HousingFirst again on 18 September. This time, it received a more revealing statement:
‘HousingFirst has entered into multiple contracts of sale with multiple purchasers. Settlement of individual dwellings will occur progressively and is dependent on resident circumstances and the availability of appropriate alternative housing. No resident has been evicted as part of this process, which forms part of an ongoing resident relocation program. All residents have been offered alternative dwellings.’
That statement changes the picture. The real estate agent handling the sale said on 23 August that the entire parcel had sold for a total of $9.505 million. HousingFirst now says there are multiple contracts with multiple purchasers. This begs a range of questions about process, but more importantly, the statement raises the possibility that settlement depends on residents being relocated.
Notice HousingFirst’s careful choice of words in its latest statement: ‘No resident has been evicted as part of this process.’ The obvious sceptical response is to add one word: ‘yet’.
TWiSK finds it hard to imagine that the contracts allow settlement to be deferred indefinitely. Vacant possession may be a condition of settlement, but it is reasonable to ask whether the contracts contain a deadline or sunset clause — three months, six months or even a year — and what happens if suitable alternative housing is not found in time.
Disclosure of any settlement deadline would also reveal the pressure tenants may face to accept HousingFirst’s alternatives, even if those options are inferior to their current circumstances. The recent letter to tenants suggests that such pressure is already be building.
For HousingFirst, it seems ‘evicted’ – like ‘sorry’ – is the hardest word to say.
From the transcript of the meeting
Cr Thomann Q: What is the status of the Oasis Community Housing properties, and what is being done to ensure the tenants are not evicted?
A: While the council is not the decision-maker regarding this housing property, they have been kept informed by Housing First. Housing First has put arrangements in place to ensure that tenants are not evicted. Settlements for the units (approximately 28 units) will only occur once appropriate alternative community housing has been found for the tenants. Additionally, the proceeds from the sale are intended to go toward the 68 dwellings at the Grosvenor project in Balaclava. There is no information suggesting that any evictions have occurred.
Cr Halliday Q: Does the use of the word “sold” mean there is a binding contract, or is it more of an “under offer” status where there is an intention to transact?
A: That clarification is correct. There is an offer, and settlement will only take place once alternative accommodation has been arranged for the tenants at that particular premise.
As recorded in the official minutes:
- Councillor Thomann: The sale of the Inkerman Oasis Community Houses has happened. Can we have an better understanding of the status of this and what Council’s involvement is?
Brian Tee, Acting General Manager, Community Wellbeing stated that while Council is not the decision maker in relation to this housing property, Council does have a long history with HousingFirst and Council is concerned about any suggestions that any vulnerable members of the community have been badly treated or indeed evicted. Council has been kept informed by HousingFirst in terms of their proposal. They have sold the property and Council has been ensured that arrangements have been put in place that people aren’t evicted. Settlements of those 28 units only occur once appropriate alternative accommodation has been found for those tenants, and that alternative is at alternative community housing. Council also understands that the proceeds of the sale will go towards 68 dwellings at the Grosvenor Project in Balaclava. Council doesn’t have any information that suggests there has been any evictions, the only information Council does have is that there is individual processes and programs in place for people at those premises.
Councillor Halliday followed up to clarify the use of the word sold in this situation? It is my understanding that the use of the word ‘sold’ would involve a binding contract to sell the properties. Whereas what Council officers are describing is an intention to transact is more of under offer rather than a property being actually sold.
Brian Tee, Acting General Manager, Community Wellbeing stated that that clarification is correct in the sense that there is an offer and a settlement only occurs once alternative accommodation has been arranged for the tenants at that particular premises.
