The Housing Crisis: Is Housing a Guaranteed Right?

The Housing Crisis

With approximately 150 million people globally that remain unhoused, the housing crisis is one of many social issues the public is aware of. The right to adequate housing is recognised as a human right as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. However, with efforts from governments to house the unhoused amidst a never ending surge of people without shelter, is housing a guaranteed right? Today, with additional analysis from us, we explore the intense Grand-Finals Debate between West Los Angeles Violet and Western Ohio Blue in NSDA Nationals 2022 under the motion:

This house believes that housing is a guaranteed right

This motion sparks necessary discussions regarding the housing crisis and sets the right direction for society to take actions in aiding it. Let us know your take on the motion!

Framing

One of several main clashing viewpoints in this debate is the interpretation of the motion. While proponents argue that the debate is about whether guaranteeing housing as a right is a good belief, opponents propose that the debate is about the truism of housing being a guaranteed right.

With proponents setting their case on the belief that housing ought to be a guaranteed right, they contextualise the house as a moral society where adequate housing will be provided to the unhoused. They concede that guaranteeing housing rights will not automatically solve the global housing crisis. Nevertheless, they tell us this belief leads to increased capital, resources and support for organisations solving the housing crisis. They also say that since policy makers are realist in nature, they are responsible and responsive to what society believes. The dispersion of the belief that the unhoused are humans too in broader society spurs political, economic, ideological and practical change.

Opponents refute the proposition's take on the motion, stating that there's a stark difference between a right that ought to be given to individuals versus something being a human right. They imply that some basic rights such as access to food and water ought to be given to each individual for survival – assertion that housing is a human right doesn't prove why it's a guaranteed right.

#1 Reasons to support / oppose the motion

Proponents present an argument on the principle of human dignity where they tell us that housing is fundamentally a human right and therefore is guaranteed. This is true for multiple reasons: firstly, basic necessities are key tenets of well-being and life and are definitively also human rights. It’s the reason why things like food, water, basic autonomy and free thought are principally core standards that constitute human life as opposed to inanimate or wildlife. Secondly, the social definition of human has always concerned communal relationships. In order to have safety and dignity, one must not be ostracised and coercively isolated by the rest of society. It’s morally repugnant and inhumane to banish certain people as outcasts simply because they don’t live in a “decent manner” enough as a society would like them to. Moreover, housing is instrumental to human self-dignity and self-concept. Our homes are primary aspects of our identity and serve as a materialisation of our place in society; we predicate much of our perceptive value on them. Lastly, there exists material disparities between unhoused people and the rest of society. This looks like education, healthcare, food, water, and sanitation. Injustice and discrimination that unequal access to housing upholds is a form of structural violence against human beings.

So, why does housing being a human right mean that it should be guaranteed? Having mechanised that housing is a human right, every human should pragmatically have access to a home; it is facilitated when it is guaranteed. Besides that, proposition argues that a human right is synonymous to a guaranteed right where each describes a set of standards and protections applicable to all humans simply because of their existence as humans. This impacts of supporting the motion is no matter the belief on the feasibility of this motion, the declaration of housing as a guaranteed right is principally good when housing propagates inhumane structural disparities and deprives many of self-concept and worth.

Opponents negate this argument by telling us that there is currently no effort to guarantee housing as a right by governments worldwide and shed light on the infeasibility of guaranteeing this right. 26.6 million people worldwide are unhoused despite the “guarantee” from nations whose responsibility is to provide for these citizens. Nations implement policies for mitigating homelessness without truly upholding the right to housing. For example, in Scotland, the government recognises the guaranteed right of housing yet only pay up to 125,000 Euros in relief funds compared to the 236,000 it costs to rent an average single one-room apartment. Additionally, they tell us about the separation between the minimal government programs and private housing market. Only 37 affordable and available homes exist every 100 extremely low income renter households in 2019. Even if the US government sought to pay for the rents of homes of all of these citizens, there would not be enough housing to ensure this right, especially due to housing scarcities in the market to ensure maximum profits and economic growth in the private sector.

#2 Impacts on the unhoused

Proposition poses to us the benefits of guaranteeing housing rights to the unhoused. Lacking shelter threatens the immediate safety and long-term livelihood of all those who are unhoused. This means that the lack of shelter makes the unhoused physically vulnerable to compromised health and bodily safety due to things like harsh weather conditions. From an additional standpoint, this guarantee mitigates the harm abusers can do to their victims in abusive relationships. In a domestically violent relationship, the abuser isolates their victims from their support network (family, friends and anyone who may provide resources to escape). When the abuser has complete financial control over their victims and require those finances, victims of domestic violence who leave the abusive relationship often end up unhoused. Because of this, individuals are deterred from escaping those situations in status quo and are forced to stay in those abusive relationships.

They also bring up the unhoused to jail pipeline as unhoused people are disproportionately antagonised due to the government criminalising actions that are necessary for unhoused individuals to survive day-to-day life. This in turn implicates socioeconomic mobility as jail time is an automatic turn off for employers. The lack of housing makes it impossible for unhoused people to forge their lives and permanently become entrenched in socioeconomic immobility. Social stigma towards the homeless means society runs rampant with negative perceptions about these individuals, calling them unclean and lazy. This worsens situations for the unhoused.

Opposition reminds us of the inability to guarantee people can keep their homes for a long period of time even if the housing crisis was aided. They point out the underlying assumption of guaranteeing housing is those who are fortunate enough to have a place to call home are able to keep it. Even governments who say they guarantee housing often fall prey to eviction, eminent domain, and war or use them to their advantage to deprive people of the housing that they occupy. To ground this, 84 million people globally were removed from their home countries in 2021, most of these people consisting of internally displaced citizens, refugees, and asylum seekers. This is proved by the reputation of landlords for often showing no mercy to tenants who fail to pay rent. Other situations of individuals losing their homes look like displaced citizens being forced to watch the demolition of their homes for developmental purposes while their supposed guaranteed rights to housing were not upheld.

They tell us countries do not value the presence of all lives. For instance, Somalia, Sudan, The Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan carry upwards of 68% of the world’s refugees yet they continuously fight over who ought to take in these refugees. This power struggle leaves the people without homes. If a person who has housing today cannot be guaranteed that they will have it within the next year, how can governments possibly guarantee housing for those who don’t even have homes in the first place?

#3 Changes brought on

Proposition strengthen their case by arguing the acknowledgement of housing as a guaranteed right evokes change. The declaration of something as a right compels more popular support especially from policy makers and galvanises change. Large paradigm shifts of resources only occur when society believes something is important. To illustrate, there was only a codified incentive to view the abolishment of slavery, protection of gay marriage and the institution of women's rights as important when people adopted the morally unconditional belief that these ought to be guaranteed. The impact of this is the proclamation of housing as a human right leads to better policy making by applying the newfound declaration internationally and across issues.

Opposition gives us more insight on the issue, believing that this is a false guarantee for refugees. As refugees travel from one country to another, countries face a dilemma of harbouring a refugee that doesn’t fall under the authority due to the inefficiencies of laws and governments. International and domestic laws both denote that as long as a refugee migrant is not within an egregiously small radius of a country’s chosen location, that the said refugee is not under the country’s authority. Refugees struggle to enter a country and fall under the gaze of any legislation, and countries get to toss around responsibility concerning a refugee’s livelihood.

Burden of Proofs

With differing takes on the motion from both sides, it's your turn to think of which side you agree more with.

Proponents take on the burden of proving why guaranteeing housing rights is a good belief.

Opponents believe they need to prove why housing is not a guaranteed right in status quo.

Do you think housing rights should be guaranteed to the public and that it is possible to achieve? Do you think housing rights are guaranteed rights in the first place?