Housing is a human right.
It’s a common and important refrain these days, but as elected officials we see firsthand how far our current system is from realizing that vision. Our government, at every level, has failed to adequately invest in housing for decades and the results are stark. This winter nearly 8,000 Minnesotans will be unsheltered or transient. Here in Hennepin County, about 2,600 residents are unhoused. Nearly a quarter are children, and over 80% are Black, Indigenous, or People of Color.
The housing crisis is a systemic problem, and when there are systemic problems, everyone has someone else to blame for the lack of solutions. There’s no better example of this than public housing in America. Public housing is primarily funded at the federal level, but it is run at the local level by Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). Starting in the 1970s, coordinated attacks on public housing funding and administration policy have massively undermined the government’s ability to create, maintain, and preserve public housing.
Because public housing is funded and operated in multi-jurisdictional structures, it’s easy to pass the blame for systemic underfunding. But what it really means is that all policymakers, at every level of government, have an obligation to fully use all the tools available to them if we want to solve the housing crisis. None of us can fix a systemic problem alone, but if we get serious about taking action on every level, the problem can be fixed.
There is no solution to the housing crisis without public housing. Our current housing system is premised on making profits, even if it comes at the expense of people’s needs. Public housing operates outside of the profit motive and resists commodification, which means it has a unique role to play in achieving universal housing. Public housing must be a priority for any elected official who believes housing is a human right.
Currently, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA) struggles to maintain our existing 7,000 units. Persistent underfunding has created a capital repair backlog of over $200 million. That translates to maintenance issues for residents ranging from urgent problems like mold, pests, and heat to quality-of-life issues like community rooms without any furniture.
The capital backlog doesn’t just mean worse conditions for residents, it fundamentally jeopardizes public housing itself. Unaddressed maintenance issues snowball into increasingly disruptive and expensive problems, damaging public housing’s reputation as high quality, stable, and desirable. It is a textbook example of the neoliberal tactic of underfunding a program, letting outcomes deteriorate, and then deeming it a failure as a pretext for privatization.
This has already happened with public housing around the country and right here in Minneapolis. The RAD program, which makes private financing options available to Public Housing Authorities, is often the only available option for PHAs to obtain needed funding. But in an effort to meet immediate needs, it opens the door to the private sector owning public housing units. Already some public housing projects have seen lack of oversight in the RAD program that has caused some residents to lose their housing because of increased rents or lack of tenant protections after the conversion from public housing to subsidized housing. The long term results could be that within a matter of years, residents can lose their housing while private developers profit from a once-public good.
Yet if governments can step in with the funds that local authorities like MPHA need to address the capital backlog, it will improve residents’ lives directly rather than jumping through the logistical hoops of programs like RAD, and without opening the door to privatization.
But it’s not just about protecting what we have — it’s about building more.
PHAs around the country are capped at the number of public housing units they can have because of the federal Faircloth Amendment. In Minneapolis, the current waitlist has about 8,000 families and many more waiting to even sign up for the waitlist. Until the Faircloth Amendment is repealed federally, PHAs are unable to meet the full need for public housing. Yet, even with this limitation, many PHAs are still under their cap. The MPHA has the authority to build about 900 more units of public housing, which could mean 900 more families from the waitlist who could be housed.
New public housing isn’t sufficiently subsidized on the federal level, which means other levels of government need to step up to deliver the needed funding while federal legislators work to improve federal funding policy. In Minneapolis, this means using our budget process to meet critical public housing needs, as the City Council did this budget cycle in approving $1.2 million for completing the installation of fire suppression in public housing towers. It also means using the city’s public housing levy to generate funds. It also means getting creative with ways the state, county, and city can support their local PHA with funding and policy.
There’s no need to settle for unpredictable solutions like RAD/Section 18 when we have the resources, collectively, to take on the housing crisis. The state has a $17.6 billion surplus. A significant portion of those funds should be used to address Minnesotans’ housing needs.
The problem isn’t resources. The problem until now has been a lack of political will to fully fund public housing. As elected officials, we are committed to working together at all levels of government, with anyone from any party who believes that housing is a human right, and to make that a reality.
[image_caption]State Rep. Esther Agbaje, Minneapolis City Council member Robin Wonsley, and Minneapolis Board of Estimation and Taxation president Samantha Pree-Stinson[/image_caption]
Oh, how the political right loves things like this:
Housing is a human right.
Food security in a human right.
Healthcare is a human right.
So, right out of the box all the needs for human survival are guaranteed by the state for life. Sorry folks: It ain’t gonna happen and articles like this detract more than add to a solution.
How about:
A housing safety net is a human right.
A food security safety net is a human right.
A healthcare safety net is a human right.
This is an 80% approval statement. The argument comes on the extent of the safety net. If someone is bleeding out on the street without healthcare, only a minority of far right extremists take the “Let them die” position.
In the case of housing it is a need to define the problem and propose attainable solutions. The hierarchy of need:
1. On the street with no interest in complying with the rules of a safeplace to shelter (most often due to drug and mental illness problems). The Eric Adams NYC conundrum.
2. On the street due to economic circumstances and an inability to find a night to night shelter space.
3. In a night to night shelter and in need of a more consistent solution than showing up and getting a new bed every night: a short term living space.
4. A mostly permanent housing solution subsidized by the state to make it financially feasible.
5. An unsubsidized housing solution.
6. Home ownership.
How many at each level, how do we get to the next level and how much?
“You will own nothing and you will be happy!” – World Economic Forum
Dennis, first off, this comment is based on a misinformation campaign regarding the World Economic Forum. I’m no fan of that organization, but the idea that they want to end private property is absurd. I’ve provided a link to a fact check below this reply. Hopefully you will do better research before commenting in the future. Second, the point isn’t even relevant. Proposing that the government guarantee everyone is housed by producing substantial amounts of public housing does not in any way mean that you would ban private housing. It would just offer a backstop or option for those who cannot afford or do not want to own a house privately.
Fact Check Link: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef/fact-check-the-world-economic-forum-does-not-have-a-stated-goal-to-have-people-own-nothing-by-2030-idUSKBN2AP2T0
I have two issues with this point.
First, on a practical level, what solutions do you think those who say “housing is a human right” are proposing? No one, not a soul, is saying every person should live in public housing, but rather that enough public housing should be built that those who fall down on their luck have a safety net. You are just restating their point, not rebutting it.
Second, conceptually, you prematurely dismiss the idea that all the necessities for life are rights. The vast majority of countries at the UN have consistently voted to make food, housing, healthcare, etc. human rights, and the UN Declaration of Human rights protects them. Major human rights legislation in the EU and other regions/countries has also enshrined some of them into law. I think there is a very valid argument to be made that a society that respects humanity should guarantee that all its people are fed, housed, and provided healthcare. We can debate how a society can best meet those needs, but saying that they are human rights is merely a statement about the moral necessity to do so.
Being the nostalgic old fool that I am, I recall a time when policy advanced on achieving a reasoned compromise. And good old sleepy Joe Biden also must share the same because COVID relief, infrastructure, and the Chips Act all demonstrate the art of reasoned compromise.
There is hope! Well maybe not in Kevin McCarthy’s tenure, but his failure will move us to another chance.
And as much as I may agree with you, I know any sentence beginning with:
“The United Nations says”
Will not be a fruitful place to start.
I’m not sure what compromise has to do with this. I said that the saying certain necessities are human rights are not necessarily crazy positions, and that you may have misunderstood what policies were intended by people saying them. Additionally, I think you might want to read my sentence before dismissing it because it includes the phrase “United Nations.” My point was not “it’s a good idea because the UN says so.” My point was that the idea of food, shelter, healthcare, etc. being human rights is not some pie in the sky fantasy as you made it out to be, but rather something dozens of countries already agree with and use as a basis for policymaking.
“I’m not sure what compromise has to do with this.”
What is a filibuster?
In the Senate, a filibuster is an attempt to delay or block a vote on a piece of legislation or a confirmation. To understand the filibuster, it’s necessary first to consider how the Senate passes a bill. When a senator or a group of senators introduces a new bill, it goes to the appropriate committee for discussion, hearings, and amendments. If a majority of that committee votes in favor, the bill moves to the Senate floor for debate.
Once a bill gets to a vote on the Senate floor, it requires a simple majority of 51 votes to pass after debate has ended. But there’s a catch: before it can get to a vote, it actually takes 60 votes to cut off debate, which is why a 60-vote supermajority is now considered the de facto minimum for passing legislation in the Senate.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/filibuster-explained
I’m not defending it
I’m not supporting it
I think it needs to go away
In the meantime…
I know what a filibuster is, but we aren’t talking about federal policy. I’m talking about the moral premise of saying life necessities are human rights. I’ve said multiple times there’s room for compromise and negotiation within that premise, so I don’t see how saying “I want compromise” is responsive to the argument I actually made.
It’s not a right, human or otherwise, if someone else has to pay for it.
Housing is not a human right, it is a personal responsibility. 99% of folks take the responsibility of housing themselves, feeding themselves and generally taking care of themselves. If folks cannot take care of themselves due to a disability, absolutely we need to take care of them. If perfectly healthy folks cannot figure a way to take care of themselves in today’s safety net society, more emphasis on housing will not work. There are multiple programs in place today to help with low income housing. Depending on your income, they are basically fully funded now.
If most of the programs in place to help with low-income housing were adequate, the homelessness issue would be cut by more than half.
Yep, I agree. One more program will not help. That is the problem with “Just one more Government program”, it is NEVER just one more program!!!
So glad to see this out here! We need more of this conversation. This is a critical companion to price controls and wealth redistribution which are the only way to have a just future in the face of climate change and record inequality.
The chuds commenting “housing isn’t a human right” and such don’t realize that they have raised two whole generations who are housing insecure and know that our life is defined by precarity, while productivity is at record highs and more profits than ever have gone to billionaires and corporate shareholders.
We’re waking up, thank god.
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2022/10/st-paulites-agree-housing-is-a-human-right-city-council-needs-to-catch-up/
“This is a critical companion to price controls and wealth redistribution which are the only way to have a just future”
As a point of reference, could you identify the nation that best exemplifies your vision.
Thanks
And what about helping people keep that housing? I see many, usually with some sort of disability who then struggle to keep that public housing due to a number of reasons. It is hard to argue to the working and middle class to fund more subsidized housing when they struggle themselves to pay a mortgage or rent. Subsidized housing was originally meant for those with disabilities and seniors. Why should we subsidize companies that pay lousy wages? I would rather see more money put in placements for those with persistent mental health and drug issues and more transitional housing, meaning helping those for a year or 2 get the skills/housing so they can be on their own.
What I keep seeing is that all of our glaring problems are largely a result of the runaway deregulation of major corporations that started with Reagan and have only continued to erode democracy. The living conditions, wages, quality of life and safety net of the vast majority have been incrementally, systematically and relentlessly carved away by corporate machinery that does nothing all day but figure out more ways to squeeze more and more money out of the general population. Why don’t they pay taxes? The campaign finance system! The supreme court ruling that a corporation has the rights of a person is so completely wrong it’s a monstrous joke – the entire point of forming a corporation is so the people behind it aren’t personally liable for the corporation’s actions! Here’s an idea: No campaign financing from any source but public taxpayer money – including advertising of any kind. Once we get that we could demand that any corporation or billionaire who employs over a certain number of people have their books open to the public. How do we get there? Ranked choice voting could potentially break up the two-party system and get us closer to getting candidates that would offer what we actually need instead of the constant “lesser of 2 evils” choice we have today. Right now candidates are beholden to the rich far more than they are the taxpayers. And to bring this back to the subject at hand – developers are the anti-Christ when it come to public housing. Again – corporate regulation! We don’t have to wait for the feds to make it happen – we can do it in Minneapolis first. Or maybe just certain zones in Mpls. Let’s stop tearing down old buildings that can be converted to affordable housing. Tearing down the old Federal building was a prime example – it was built with longevity in mind and could have stood for another 50 years. New construction is built cheaply and will be junk in 20 years. Planned obsolescence just like cars, appliances, technology etc. etc. etc. Why not choose a depressed area of the city with a lot of older well-built buildings and contract local companies to bring them up to code and make them livable. They don’t have to be luxurious – just functional and AFFORDABLE OR FREE depending on the need. Let’s stop being rubes and suckers who expect for-profit corporations to solve problems without taking us to the cleaners!