Housing is Not a Human Right in the US
by Sandro Montefusco from il lavoro culturale, republished under a Creative Commons License
By John Lawrence
Why does homelessness persist in the world’s richest nation? The simple answer is that having a roof over one’s head is not a human right in this society. Fortunate people, those with a home and a car and other assets will not vote to give others what they possess even on the most basic level. Article 25 of the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
However, the United States of America does not agree with or abide by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It is not a right here to have housing and necessary social services.
There is a policy called Housing First which attempts to provide housing without qualifications or conditions and a social worker to deal with follow-up problems of substance abuse, job search, and mental health. But Housing First is not a right. It’s subject to the same funding problems or lack thereof that every other government program is subject to.
If it were a right, then it would be society’s top priority and would come before new sports stadia, military expenditures on weapons of war, tax subsidies to the likes of Exxon Mobil and GE and tax breaks for “carried interest” which only benefits hedge fund managers. Boeing made $26 billion in U.S. profits over a five-year period and received a U.S. federal tax refund of $401 million over the same time.
Obviously, housing, affordable and otherwise, is not a human right or even close to it in the USA. It would take a new Constitution to make it a right. The US Constitution provides the right to own a gun, the right to free speech, assembly etc. Anything having to do with real human needs is not a right as far as the US Constitution is concerned. Not education, not medical care, not social security, not unemployment insurance.
That’s why all of these things are political footballs, tossed back and forth between Republicans who want to get rid of any safety net, and Democrats who seek to provide one. If the Repubs had their way, they would even get rid of Social Security and Medicare. The only program they support is more money for US militarism. Lobbyists for Defense Contractors obtain hundreds of billions of dollars each year for the US military-industrial complex. To the extent that the middle class is supported at all, it is supported by the likes of Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop Grumman which hire Middle Americans to do their dirty work.
Lobbyists for Defense Contractors obtain hundreds of billions of dollars each year for the US military-industrial complex. To the extent that the middle class is supported at all, it is supported by the likes of Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop Grumman which hire Middle Americans to do their dirty work.
Rents Continue to Rise in the Low-End Market
Many think it’s antithetical to US values to provide free housing for people who can’t provide it for themselves. They would just as soon people who can’t pay rent go without just as they would have to go without if they weren’t able to pay for any other consumer item.
Since the market prevails, US values are tilted in favor of not interfering with the market even if people are priced out of the market by high rents. It’s no wonder that people can’t afford to pay rent as rents continue to soar thus pricing more people out of a roof over their head. For government to provide a floor on housing prices or rents would be interfering with the market according to Republicans, so we can’t do that. Nothing can interfere with the market no matter how much misery it causes. The market is sacrosanct.
There was an article in the August 11, 2016 edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune: County Rent Rose Quicker at Low End.
Builders are building high-end rentals because that’s where the most profits can be made. They aren’t building low-end rentals so there is a housing shortage for the low end with the result that there is only a 1% vacancy rate. This makes it possible to raise rents at the low end faster than at the high end where there is a larger vacancy rate. Talk about the perversions of the capitalist system!
The people who need it the most get shafted the most while the people who are well-off continue to get preferential treatment. The Market sees to that.
The “low end” is defined as rents below $1950. Rents for low-end apartments have gone up 21.7% in San Diego just in the last year. People in this category are spending 69% of their income on rent according to the Union-Tribune. At the same time, the article points out, money for subsidized housing has decreased at the federal and state levels. What this means is that we can expect to see more homeless people soon as rents soar out of reach for most low-income people.
American priorities are not with those who live in poverty and need help with just the basics of life in order to survive. Survival of the fittest ethics, which the US espouses simply by benign neglect, dictate that those on the bottom rung of the social ladder can just fall off and get no sympathy from government authorities or the civilian population.
US government priorities are militarism and rugged individualism which say that everyone has to fend for themselves and devil take the hindermost. This has led to a society where the upper few percent own most of the assets and make most of the income. The 400 richest Americans now have more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the population.
San Diego authorities think it’s perfectly OK for all the tourists they are trying to attract to come here and observe the squalor represented by a thousand or more people living on the street, taking care of basic human needs there and discarding tons of trash.
Imagine how much pleasanter it would be if tourists could walk down any street and not have to step over the homeless or step in their feces. But the authorities think that this is a small price to pay for San Diego’s wonderful weather and amenities. Homelessness, side by side with tourist attractions, is not a problem for those who can put their blinders on and focus on their own pleasure. There is no money in providing housing for the homeless, and besides it would interfere with the market. It would actually put a damper on rising rents and home prices which would be a good thing except for those builders who are striving to maximize profits. They will continue to build high-end apartments because that’s where the money is.
Housing for Homeless Needs Dedicated Funding Source
Here is what’s needed: an increase in the sales tax with the increased funds earmarked for building housing and providing services for the homeless. So far there has been no dedicated funding source for the homeless. It needs to happen now as the City of Los Angeles is proposing.
Furthermore, if the City of San Diego can contemplate a $1.8 billion bond measure for a new sports stadium for the Chargers, it can contemplate a $1.8 billion bond measure to build housing and provide services for the homeless. It’s the right thing to do, as I heard a politician say once.
Until such time as dedicated and increased funding sources are available, homelessness will continue to be a thorn in San Diego’s side, a canker that continues to fester.
Other funding sources are also available like the money the City of San Diego is hoarding in various funds like the LMIHAF. There’s $28.7 million in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund. There’s also $259 million in long-term assets that can be leveraged by using it as collateral and issuing bonds for much more. See the 4-part series by Kathryn Rhodes and myself: Is Affordable Housing in the City of San Diego an Oxymoron?
In past versions of US society, there were actually prominent politicians who wanted to eliminate poverty. Remember the War on Poverty?
FDR had programs that put people back to work in the Works Projects Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. Today, however, workers are expendable. Robots and automation can provide everything that consumers can pay for. In a consumer economy, the homeless have little to offer.
If people cared, they would vote to use their tax dollars to help the homeless. It wouldn’t be the function of charity to provide for them. It would be a priority of government to see that everyone was well housed, well fed and well educated. Instead, we have a society that is well armed and well entertained by the spectacle of violence every night on the evening news.
John Lawrence
Latest posts by John Lawrence (see all)
- Economist Kenneth Arrow, Nobel Laureate, Dead at 95 - March 22, 2017
- Container Ships Burn Dirtiest Fuel: the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Could Change That - March 15, 2017
- Cities and States Prefer Public Banks To Wall Street - March 7, 2017
How about a new amendment to the U. S. Constitution making the right to housing a constitutional right, just like the First Amendment?
How about a new Constitution? It will come to that when the 99% finally realize that they’re getting screwed by the 1%.
Not to change the subject, but are you skeptical, John, that the Constitution is relevant? that people will abide by it?
Frankly, Paul, I’m skeptical that a 240 year old document is that relevant to today’s world when most major European countries have revised their Constitutions several times. It’s not the Bible after all.
The problem with the 99% is that 50% of them (even though they are fully aware of the fact they’re getting screwed) have no problem with screwing over the other 50%. It’s why I think the whole 99% vs. the 1% is a bit clichéd.
Going to share this article with some friends. Open your eyes and your hearts folks.
I don’t know, John, but I’m guessing that the constitutions of the European countries you are referring to are easier to amend than ours is, which may explain why they have been amended more often than ours has.
Let’s not bring the Bible into this discussion at all. This is not the place to share our religious views.
Chris, you are touching on a subject that I have long felt is the case: 98% of us have a financial condition somewhere between the top and bottom 1%. Where each of us falls depends in part on how one’s financial wealth is measured.
Not only that, but we are spread out all across the entire range from the destitute and nearly destitute to the obscenely rich and all those close to being “obscenely rich”, and everything in between, where most of us are… somewhere in between. I think where we stand on the whole issue of money and wealth is framed by our personal perspective, which in no small way is shaped by our own personal wealth.
Paul, they weren’t amended. They were replaced altogether. This is from the NY Times:
Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years. By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” These days, the overlap between the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those most popular around the world is spotty.
Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.
It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)
Isn’t the nature of a constitution to be a document that lays out the structure and moral objectives of a government and defines the moral objectives of that government? My understanding of the U. S. Constitution is that the articles of the constitution itself lay out our form of government while the amendments are essentially moral imperatives, each on the issue it addresses. Given this role, I don’t see how a country can realistically replace its constitution every 20 years.
I agree that some of the issues that are addressed by the U. S. Constitution are weird today, and that there is a need for amendments addressing several issues that are not addressed currently. You named some of them that our constitution does not address but other country’s constitutions do address. I must admit that I have never read the constitutions of other countries, but they must be written in such a way that they are easier to replace than ours is. If you feel we need a new constitution, how would you go about replacing the one we have with a better one?
Unlike some, I agree with Jefferson’s comment that the constitution should be amended from time to time in the future to keep up with changing times and values so that the constitution “reflects the values of the living generation”. But the framers did not intend that amending the constitution be easy. Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you it is not easy at all to amend the U. S. Constitution.
I also think the framers of the U. S. Constitution built into it a system of checks and balances that for better or worse, intentionally make it difficult for the country to move in any one direction very quickly. Hence since the American people appear at the present time deeply divided as to the direction the country should take, we are presently locked in a kind political “tug-of-war” for control of the direction of the country’s political direction, and Congress is only reflecting that paralysis. That’s why we are seeing such intractable grid-lock in Washington.
I happen to think also that this “tug-of-war” over the direction of the country revolves primarily around money, which I view as the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Many other issues emerge in any discussion of direction (like gun control and climate change, etc.), but answers to these issues will not emerge until the core issue is resolved first.
I believe any country’s political system is intrinsically tied to its monetary or economic system. You cannot separate the two. The U.S. needs a new monetary system more than it needs a new constitution. Until we deal with the elephant in the room, nothing will change.
Jefferson said the Constitution should be changed every 19 years. For a lot of countries it’s more often than that. As far as the mechanics of how one does it there is help available.
This from the Economist:
A new online tool called Constitute compares 189 constitutions, tagging them on 300-plus themes. Google Ideas, a research and do-gooding outfit attached to the search-engine giant, supported its production. The Comparative Constitutions Project, an academic consortium, runs it. Search topics can be as narrow, and potentially explosive, as the tax status of religious institutions.
Easy search should save time and effort for the business of drafting.
Back to the topic at hand… I happen to believe that there will be no solution to the problem of homelessness (and many other problems)until we adopt a better economic system first. Improvements usually cost money, and all those who oppose spending their money to improve the lives of others oppose most change. That’s what we’re stuck with now. That’s what the tug-of-war I referred to in an earlier post is all about. And it will not change until that ubiquitous American evil known as greed is re-balanced. The current American economic paradigm legitimizes greed… it’s every man or woman for him or herself, first. Everyone else comes only after I am satiated. That mentality is what has to change before we can even have an intelligent discussion about all the other problems we face as a country.
I agree, Paul, and it wasn’t always that way. Reagan legitimized greed. Greed, he said, was good. Before that the WW II generation was all in it together. Movie stars went on tour to sell war bonds to average Americans not to Wall Street hedge fund types and billionaire investors.
The Reagan appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan was an acolyte of Ayn Rand who preached that selfishness was the greatest virtue. Rand’s funeral was attended by some of her prominent followers, including Alan Greenspan who placed a 6-foot floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign near her casket.
interesting…
… but 40+ years of capitalist greed has really set this country back. Where do we go from here?
We need leaders to deemphasize greed and selfishness and reemphasize cooperation and compassion. There needs to be opportunities to serve other than the military and get paid for it. The emphasis on the well off paying their fair share of taxes in order that the not so well off can have a decent life needs to be reiterated. Hillary and Bernie need to keep that mantra going.
What follows are excerpts from a recent private email conversation between John Lawrence and myself. I feel most of the conversation is germain to the topic at hand and may stimulate further conversation on the topic. I’m sorry it is so long!
John: I think a Constitution is very important. It has to make clear that some economic values are guaranteed. That’s enough to put a damper on capitalism and point the country in a different direction.
Paul: By saying “It has to make clear that some economic values are guaranteed.”, aren’t you saying that an new amendment to the U. S. Constitution ensuring that all citizens are guaranteed a home will in fact do away with homelessness?
Whether anything a constitution can say will “put a damper on capitalism and point the country in a different direction” goes to the question I was raising as to my view that country’s political system is intrinsically tied to its economic system.
I’m not so sure that will solve the problem unless an amendment can be crafted that will put an end to the circular “cat-and-mouse” game of free-market capitalism kept in-line by government regulation. The reason Reagan succeeded in his deregulation efforts was because many people in this country had grown weary of the heavy regulation of business ever since WW-2 to curb the never-ending excesses of capitalism, and the country was tiring of the endless regulation it took to keep the excesses of a greedy business community at bay. Reagan thought he had a solution to that: deregulation and “trickle-down” economics. Obviously, Reagan’s ideas were not a solution at all. It only lead us to the mess we’re in today.
The reason that more regulation in my view is a short-term solution at best is that regulated free-market capitalism is like an endless “cat-and-mouse” game because it leaves in place the incentives to the business community to exploit every situation to its own advantage by seeking to curb the inevitable excesses of capitalism by setting constraints on exploitation once it has become apparent that people are being exploited. By then it’s too late… people have already been exploited. We increased gov’t regulation of business from WW-2 thru the 60’s, but then the people tired of endless regulation and business saw an opportunity to slow that regulation down in Ronald Reagan. The tiring of extensive regulation took place in the 70’s, so by the time Reagan got into office in the 80s, he could give the business community what it wanted by promoting deregulation and “trickle-down” economics as the “solution” to the country’s ills. The business community saw an opportunity to reduce regulation in Ronald Reagan, so they used him to get what they wanted, and Reagan justified deregulation by telling us not to worry because enough money would “trickle-down” from the wealthy few to keep the rest of us at least quiet, if not happy. We see now where “trickle-down” economic theory got us.
So, the pendulum of regulated free-market capitalism has swung too far in one direction and you seem to be suggesting that the answer is to push it back the other way. That may solve the problem temporarily, until we get tired of too much regulation again and the pendulum swings too far in the other direction!
But maybe if the Constitution speaks to the moral issue of money in society, we can finally put an end to this cat-and-mouse game of regulated free-market capitalism. The answer in my view is definitely NOT more regulation, but a carefully crafted Constitutional Amendment… maybe.
I have felt for a while that the best answer to this problem of the cyclical nature of over-regulation lies in a new economic paradigm, one that incentivizes business management to give equal consideration to ALL of the stakeholders in a business (stockholders (ownership), management, labor, customers and vendors) and not prioritize the interests of stockholders above the rest, as fiduciary law has required of the management of public corporations since the creation of the public stock exchange. Not being an economist, I don’t know exactly what that new economic paradigm is, but I fell it must give us a more effective economic system than the one we have.
The Chairman of the Board of Exxon said it best on the Today Show shortly after hurricane Katrina. After Matt Lauer questioned him at length as to whether Katrina created significant new costs for Exxon, the Chairman of Exxon said at that time on television for the world to hear, “My job is to make my stockholders as rich as I possibly can, so I’m going to raise the price of gas as much as I can.” Well, that about did it for me!Paul: Do you think that a constitution necessarily has to be the framework of a government and an expression of its moral values, as it seems ours is?
John: (talking about drafting a new constitution and quoting from The Economist magazine) “A new online tool called Constitute compares 189 constitutions, tagging them on 300-plus themes. Google Ideas, a research and do-gooding outfit attached to the search-engine giant, supported its production. The Comparative Constitutions Project, an academic consortium, runs it. Search topics can be as narrow, and potentially explosive, as the tax status of religious institutions. Easy search should save time and effort for the business of drafting.”
Paul: Just because a constitution makes no reference to the country’s economic system does not mean they are not integrally tied to each other. By “integrally tied” I mean that the resulting culture is defined by BOTH of them operating together. A country’s constitution cannot be viewed separately from its economic system in defining the culture of a country.
By that definition the U. S. Constitution itself outlines a form of government while its 27 amendments articulate the moral imperatives of the form of government defined in the body of the constitution itself, Article V of which defines the two ways by which the Constitution can be amended: if either the U. S. Congress proposes an amendment or the States propose an amendment. (Article V also says that either way an amendment is proposed 75% of the state legislatures must ratify the proposal for it to take effect. So, it still seems to me that sea-change can be effected here without scraping the entire constitution, but by adding new amendments to it. And if Congress is unlikely to act in a particular case, then use the Article V process to propose an amendment, or amendments. So, why not use the Article V process to introduce an Economic Bill of Rights to the Constitution? A piece by Bill Moyers is interesting, . He might even lend his support to such an effort. (Such efforts need a mouthpiece with widespread name recognition, like Moyers.)
I agree that a constitution should not attempt to dictate a country’s economic system. It seems to me that a constitution should only define a government’s relationship to the governed individuals.
What you are suggesting is to increase the graduated income tax we have now so that it raises more revenue from the wealthy rather than a flat tax (where the wealthy benefit) in order raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for a floor under the poor. You suggest this is a better way to deal with the poverty/homelessness issue in this country than proposing a CA on that particular subject. I agree only if a constitutional amendment is passed defining an economic floor and declaring that floor is a constitutional right to which all citizens are entitled.
Since proposing Roosevelt’s Economic Bill of Rights (or something similar) is not attempting to dictate an economic system because no particular economic method is being proposed, can’t such a proposal avoid a bloody revolution?
Btw, I firmly agree that the coop business movement is a step in the right direction. Incidentally, my wife has worked for 10 years at Equal Exchange in West Bridgewater, MA. EE, founded as a worker owned coop in 1984, remains the oldest all fair trade coop owned and operated business in the U.S. Through her longtime employment at EE I’ve come to know several people who are deeply committed to the coop business movement.
John: I agree that something should be added to the Constitution regarding economic rights. An amendment is probably the best bet. Maybe Bernie Sanders’ movement could get behind this.
Paul: Just because a constitution makes no reference to the country’s economic system does not mean they are not integrally tied to each other. By “integrally tied” I mean that the resulting culture is defined by BOTH of them operating together. A country’s constitution cannot be viewed separately from its economic system in defining the culture of a country.
By that definition the U. S. Constitution itself outlines a form of government while its 27 amendments articulate the moral imperatives of the form of government defined in the body of the constitution itself, Article V of which defines the two ways by which the Constitution can be amended: if either the U. S. Congress proposes an amendment or the States propose an amendment. (Article V also says that either way an amendment is proposed 75% of the state legislatures must ratify the proposal for it to take effect. So, it still seems to me that sea-change can be effected here without scraping the entire constitution, but by adding new amendments to it. And if Congress is unlikely to act in a particular case, then use the Article V process to propose an amendment, or amendments. So, why not use the Article V process to introduce an Economic Bill of Rights to the Constitution? A piece by Bill Moyers is interesting, . He might even lend his support to such an effort. (Such efforts need a mouthpiece with widespread name recognition, like Moyers.)
John: The reason I said that a new Constitution guaranteeing some economic rights would put an end to or, more appropriately, put a damper on free market capitalism is that it would legitimize putting a floor under economic outcomes without defining a new economic system right in the Constitution. The experiment in which capitalism was outlawed and communism or socialism was written directly in the Constitution didn’t turn out so well and required a bloody revolution to bring about. That, I think, can be avoided by not defining socialism or any other economic system in the Constitution itself. After all capitalism is not defined into the Constitution. Our economic system is left undefined by the Constitution.
The 1948 UN definition of human rights and also FDR’s 1944 speech which suggested an Economic Bill of Rights are historical precedents. The relevant passage from that speech is the following:
“In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.”
There is ample precedent for enacting a new Constitution which would point the country away from free market capitalism without fomenting an all out bloody revolution to do so. It would still be up to the governments at various levels to act, and it would still be up to the people to vote for people who represented their interests.
This Constitution should do away with homelessness if the politicians acted in accordance with it. Of course some will try their best to pervert it, not allocate any funding to it etc etc. You say that our political system is intrinsically tied to our economic system. I beg to differ. There is nothing in our Constitution that even mentions the free market system or capitalism. I doubt that capitalism was even a word in 1776.
The issue is not whether more regulation is needed to keep business in line; the issue is whether the rich can be taxed enough to put a floor under poverty. If a new Constitution guaranteed an economic Bill of Rights, it would speak to the moral issue of money in society, I think.
I am all in favor of the co-op movement in which workers, not shareholders are given primary consideration, but I don’t think a Constitution should define the nature of a corporation. That would invalidate most corporations as they now exist. And that would mean a huge economic upheaval if not a bloody revolution. Putting a floor under poverty by taxing the rich combined with laws that limit lobbying activities and end tax loopholes, enacting a financial transactions tax etc should put a damper on the most egregious things going on in the current capitalist system.
Paul: I agree that a constitution should not attempt to dictate a country’s economic system. It seems to me that a constitution should only define a government’s relationship to the governed individuals.
What you are suggesting is to increase the graduated income tax we have now so that it raises more revenue from the wealthy rather than a flat tax (where the wealthy benefit) in order raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for a floor under the poor. You suggest this is a better way to deal with the poverty/homelessness issue in this country than proposing a CA on that particular subject. I agree only if a constitutional amendment is passed defining an economic floor and declaring that floor is a constitutional right to which all citizens are entitled.
Since proposing Roosevelt’s Economic Bill of Rights (or something similar) is not attempting to dictate an economic system because no particular economic method is being proposed, can’t such a proposal avoid a bloody revolution?
Btw, I firmly agree that the coop business movement is a step in the right direction. Incidentally, my wife has worked for 10 years at Equal Exchange in West Bridgewater, MA. EE, founded as a worker owned coop in 1984, remains the oldest all fair trade coop owned and operated business in the U.S. Through her longtime employment at EE I’ve come to know several people who are deeply committed to the coop business movement.
I think given the structure of the U.S. Constitution, the amendment process is the best way to achieve these economic goals.
John: I agree that something should be added to the Constitution regarding economic rights. An amendment is probably the best bet. Maybe Bernie Sanders’ movement could get behind this.