3
would be considered to be eligible but C would not simply because income from his assets would put his total household income well in excess of the WLIL. The disqualification of applicant C would seem to be grossly unfair despite the fact that his total wealth possession is no more or less than that of applicant B. If, however, these cases were considered on the basis of income and possession of wealth together, applicants B and C would most likely fail to qualify, and the only eligible applicant would be A, quite rightly so.
6.
Another recommendation of the Report is that those public housing tenants who have improved their financial
Whilst I subscribe to the situation should not be evicted.
view that it would be unfair to single out flat ownership as a criterion for eviction, I do not consider it wrong or unreasonable to exercise eviction using total wealth possession as a criterion. There is of course the argument that evicting a large number of public housing tenants will have serious
Nevertheless, as I said repercussions on the community. earlier, in dealing with the problems of public housing, we must not consider only one end of the social spectrum in isolation and lose sight of the fundamental issue that there are still many people who are anxiously in need of subsidised housing. I fully appreciate there might be other difficulties in carrying out eviction, but I do not believe these problems are unsurmountable. The present arrangement for the well-off tenants cannot and should not be a continued commitment indefinitely. What we need is to make some real and genuine effort in resolving this anomaly. In the process no doubt a few will be upset but many who are in real and genuine need would be benefitted.
0524S