IN an open letter to the ACT housing minister, a social housing tenant faced with eviction from her home of 40 years has condemned the government’s housing renewal program as nothing more than a grab for money and an act of “unethical cruelty”.

Yvette Van Loo’s Ainslie home has been earmarked for sale or redevelopment as part of the public housing “Growth and Renewal” program.

In February the 74-year-old was one of more than 300 social housing tenants – including elderly people, people with disability and people with chronic health issues – that received letters from Housing ACT saying they would have to move from their home.

In a letter penned to the housing minister, Ms Van Loo describes the program as “unethical” and “cruel”.

“Targeting old and/or disabled people and forcing them out of their homes is an act of unbelievably unethical cruelty,” Ms Van Loo says.

“The most surprising thing is that such barbaric attitude should come from a Labor government seconded by the Greens.

“I fail to find any trace of Labor and/or Greens principles in such undemocratic actions.”

In her letter, Ms Van Loo asks ACT housing minister Yvette Berry to disclose the real cost of the territory government’s “Growth and Renewal” program.

“How much does the implementation of such a program actually cost?,” Ms Van Loo says.

“I would dare suppose that this large sum of money is meant to be spent on building new homes and maintaining old ones and is highly sufficient to do so, but I wonder whether too much of it is not being syphoned towards bureaucratic purposes?

“I suggest that this sum is more than sufficient to answer the present and future needs of housing without its old tenants being the object of forced relocation.”

Ms Van Loo says Housing ACT showed a lack of compassion in the way they notified tenants of their intent to relocate them.

She is also critical of the lack of assistance offered to help tenants move out of the homes that many have in lived in for decades.

“The contempt Housing is showing towards its tenants is truly reflected in the “help” they offer to relocate people: a skip (since tenants only own rubbish, apparently) and up to $1750 dollars towards “utility connection fees, reconnection of existing services, and reasonable removalists’ expenses”; I wonder what “reasonable removalists’ expenses” means?

“Leave most of your possessions behind in the skips so generously provided? This sum would not actually cover half of any “reasonable” moving expenses incurred by even the poorest tenants, which means you expect old people to part with and leave behind (in the said generously provided skips) most of their precious possessions and lifetime memories.

“What psychological effects, what profound traumas do you think this would entail for the “relocated” tenants?”

Ms Van Loo’s comments are echoed by other social housing tenants facing eviction, including 70-year-old Rowan Element who has lived in her home for almost 40-years.

“The thought of moving devastates me,” Ms Element commented on an CityNews opinion piece.

“I raised my children here as a single parent, and have always looked after the property and paid my rent.

“My son passed away ten years ago, this was his home, this is where I keep his ashes and where his spirit lives on. I cannot even begin to think about how I would move.

“I have had one discussion with the housing relocation officers six weeks ago, when they told me as they were leaving that I would receive a phone call from one of them or their supervisor within a few days, and as yet I have heard nothing.

“So I live every day with this axe hanging over my head, in limbo, with no clear way to move forward.”