The Martin Place situation has become a battle ground on the subject of public housing, between the NSW State Government and The City of Sydney Council, with Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore lending her own voice to the protest, in a rather politically astute and prudent manner. With recent moves by the NSW Government to close the much celebrated and equally maligned Sirius public housing block near Sydney's paramount location Circular Quay, the Martin Place protest has been afforded unprecedented political focus.
The State governments stance on Sirius has been all but an open expression of their disdain for the notion of a working class population in absolute prime real estate, overlooking the Sydney Opera House. The NSW Government has already sold off public housing around Millers Point, which has housed working class families in the heart of the city for generations.There's of course the lure of money in the coffers and services rendered to developer cronies. That aside, there's a sense of attempting to appeal to voting conservatives who want to see city's poor "in their place;" the distant suburbs where they'll never have to gaze upon them.
The Lord Mayor's requests are well within the realms of reasonable. In fact it's very unreasonable that public housing has devolved to such a crisis point in Sydney, that such a situation has indeed arisen. It's only now that homelessness is really taking centre stage in the political arena. It's not that the right side of NSW politics is about to acquire compassion for the less fortunate in favour of support for their corporate cronies. It's simply a case that in having their values assaulted by an inundation of poverty within their capitalist core, a reasonably unexpected political opposition has been elicited from a jurisdiction that they assumed would assist in remedying what for them is a big problem.
So why did the Martin Place protest initially seem so benign? Over the past decade, homelessness in Sydney has become a very complex issue. This demonstration far from portrayed a traditional preconception of urban homelessness. As the Sydney's housing situation has devolved, homelessness has evolved into a far more complex issue than it was in the past.
Whilst the media hasn't lent terminology to types of homelessness, it can be fairly clearly delineated into three disparate groups:
1. The Sheleterless homeless - People who became homelsess by way of catastrophic personal events. These people generally have difficulties caring for themselves. They find it all but impossible to provide basic shelter for themselves and often have issues relating to mental health and addiction. Many such people have been failed by the mental health, justice and correctional systems. A civilised nation by its very definition, should provide care for such people
2. Free campers by circumstance - This is a group of homeless people who have fallen victim to the linearity between unsatisfactory wages growth and real estate / rental inflation. Insufficient public housing has perpetuated the growth of this group. People in this group are often itinerant workers and pensioners who live with some degree of self sufficiency. This group is the fastest growing homeless group. Many travel and depend on free and budget camping facilities all around Australia.
3. Free Campers by choice - This group are made up of former home owners who have sold their sole properties in favour of a "free camping" lifestyle. This is largely a group of people who have considered their futures and established that selling their homes and assets puts them in a more manageable financial situation, despite some very obvious sacrifices. Whilst "grey nomads" certainly make up a part of this group, the majority of people known as grey nomads don't fit into it. A large proportion of grey nomads, whilst having sold their primary place of residence, have investments, very often in property. The property invested grey nomads are part and parcel of the negative gearing system that has led to a homelessness crisis. Free campers by choice have very little by the way of investments and usually live on a tight week by week budget. Most would probably take offence to being thought of as homeless.
The Martin Place protest wasn't really sure who it represented. The camp's preclusion of drug or alcohol effected people, intrinsically precludes the majority of shelterless people. To ignore substance abuse as a significant issue, is to ignore a large portion of Australia's homeless. It's a very real issue and it needs to be addressed at governmental level.
On the other hand, the inner urban nature of the camp, set it apart form the nature of free camping. Homelessness on inner urban streets is more usually synonymous with shelterless people. The orderliness of the camp, combined with the growing support of inner city cafes, brought a bizarre urbanity to the camp's image. It was on the verge of being labeled "hipster homelessness." It does indeed portray a rather bespoke, artisan image. It seems that Lord Mayor Moore pulled a political punch at just the right time, giving the protest significant political cogency.
Many Sydneysiders would be utterly unaware that Martin Place is a "crown reserve." Ms Moore's letter to the NSW Minister for Family and Community Services, outlines the relationship between local governments and the state government in relation to crown reserves. It clearly outlines that the police have the responsibility of enforcing action on "public land." It's widely accepted that if nothing of a criminal nature nor which takes the form of public nuisance occurs, the police aren't likely to act on anyone who stops and rests without incident on public land. It's also widely accepted, albeit wrongly according to the document, that councils are the jurisdiction tasked with the removal of "free campers" from crown land. In many instances, councils task themselves with issuing fines for simply taking up very temporary residence on public land. Ms Moore's letter clearly states that the only powers held by council officers in regard to public land under the Crown Land Act, is to "demand the provision of a name and address."
It seems that the key to where one can or can't "free camp" is down to the zoning of the land on which one chooses to camp. Given today's easy access to GPS and online mapping technology, this information is readily available in combination with information from The NSW Department of Industry - Lands and Forestry. Legislation obviously differs to a certain extent from state to state, but free campers would be wise to research the situation in each state.
All across Australia, free campers tend to gravitate towards areas that are widely recognised among the camping community as camps. In many instances such locations have been allocated for camping by local governments. In many other cases they are roadside locations where councils' positions on camping range from ambiguous to rigidly restrictive. Camps where people congregate tend to have a great deal of attention drawn towards them. In the case of locations with no clear local government position on their usage, protestation to their usage as camps can come from various angles.
It might be better for the free camping community as a whole, if people gave some thought to identifying a discrete location on crown land. Reserves, parks, picnic areas, ovals, to name a handful, are frequently places that offer car parking that's suitable for a discreet overnight stay. Common sense should prevail in such circumstances. If people don't draw attention to themselves and turn their stay into a protracted affair, it's very unlikely that there would be any attempt by council officers to move anyone on. It's apparent that areas that attract significant attention from large numbers of campers are most often the focus of local governments. It's in those frequented locations that political squabbles errupt over free camping. In some ways, free campers' tendency to congregate, exacerbates such acrimony. Be alone and be discreet; you probably won't be bothered.
Councils throughout Australia are under pressure to close down regional free camps. Caravan parks and their representative body the CIAA see them as competition. Given the financial circumstances of many people who use such camps, they're very unlikely to use caravan parks if they were the only option. In locations where local governments allocate areas for free camping, many people are being excluded by means of compliance. In hand with the Campervan and Motorhome Club (CMCA) of Australia, a growing number of councils are undertaking to exclude everyone other than those who own motorhomes or large generally very expensive caravans, from free camps.
Exclusion from free camps is being imposed under the guise of environmentalism. Some councils require that "grey water" holding tanks are fitted to vehicles. The technicalities of grey water tanks are discussed in a previous blog post, "The Best Things In Life Are Free Camps," for the purpose of this post it's important in summary to point out that it's virtually impossible to fit grey water tanks to some smaller caravans, camper trailers and tents. The CMCA's membership is dominated by owners of large, very expensive motorhomes, some of which are converted motor coaches, exceeding 18 metres in length.
These people are not representative of free campers who have been pushed into that particular types of homelessness by financial hardship. These are very often people who can very much afford to stay in caravan parks, but like many wealthy people, they endeavour to get out of spending so much as a cent whenever they can. It's unlikely that anyone begrudges them using free camps, but it does appear that many such people do begrudge others using allocated free camps, viewing people of a lower financial status as undesirable.
Lord Mayor Moore's letter to the NSW Minister for Family and Community Services could open a large can of worms as far as the politics of free camping go. If it goes viral throughout the free camping community, a number of councils might end up with quite a task when it comes to moving on campers. If campers are making just a one night stop, based on the information outlined in the letter, it's hardly worth the effort required by councils to move them on. It's probably advisable in the future for people who intend free camping in NSW to familiarise themselves with the Crown Land Act, in particular sections 156 to 159. Similar acts exist in all states and territories.
No comments:
Post a Comment