Housing

While some blame supply shortages or overseas investors, the primary factor contributing to this crisis is the outsized role of investment properties. Too many individuals and corporations have purchased properties solely for investment purposes, driving up prices and exacerbating the shortage of affordable housing. These investment properties sit idle or are rented out at exorbitant prices, and regular citizens can no longer find affordable homes.

The housing crisis is both an economic and a human rights issue. Housing is a basic necessity for life, health, and dignity. When treated as a speculative financial asset rather than a social good, inequality grows, and vulnerable populations suffer.

To address this crisis, we need bold solutions that answer the scale of the problem. By implementing progressive taxation, incentivizing the conversion of investment properties, and introducing anti-speculation regulations, there is a path to revolutionize the housing market and make affordable housing a reality for all. But it’s going to take fundamental, uncomfortable and unpopular change. Band-aid fixes and minor policy tweaks will not cut it.

In recent decades, many Sun Belt cities—like Atlanta, Houston, and Phoenix—have seen growing populations, while populations have tended to remain stable or decrease in places in the Midwest or Northeast—like Chicago, Detroit, and Pittsburgh.

But despite their lack of population growth, Chicago, Detroit, and Pittsburgh have been gaining households in recent years. In Chicago, the population has remained stable, but the number of households has increased by 6.2 percent. In Detroit, while population dropped 5.5 percent between 2010 and 2018, the number of households has increased by 4.4 percent. And in Pittsburgh, even though the population dipped during the same period, the number of households increased by 9.3 percent.

This issue of Interface, on community housing models, speaks directly to the contrast of increasing luxury and corresponding prices on one hand, and displacement on the other. Taking up the question of what is needed to support, sustain, and expand the non-market-driven housing sector, the papers provide insight into housing provided through community leadership and cooperative ownership models. Each author in this Interface is an experienced practitioner and researcher. They are writing from the Anglo-American perspective – England, the UK, Canada, and the US – facing housing systems that are inadequate to the level of need for secure and affordable housing access.

The reflections in this Interface seek to define the core elements of community housing and to illustrate the diversity of its forms and its aims. The papers suggest that rationales for community-led housing are found in a wide range of ideological positions – from revolutionary and anti-colonial, to seeking equitable participation in democracy, to mainstream cost-benefit analyses of the benefits of this form of affordable housing provision. All, however, agree that at the core is the leadership and enfranchisement of the people living in the community, in housing that is not buffeted by market forces.

The limited number of existing units, combined with low turnover rates, make co-op housing an unviable option for most Canadians, despite being so in-demand.

Consequently, since market landlords aren’t competing against the affordability of co-op housing, they are free to jack rents as high as the market will bear, Thomas said. She points to pressure from industry lobbying the government against investing in non-market housing.

Geordie Dent, executive director of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations in Toronto, told Ricochet that’s an accurate assessment of what happened behind the scenes, that lobbying by landlords certainly played a key role.

“I don't think anyone ever came out publicly and said that,” he said. “It was always pitched as ‘market efficiency’ to the public, while I think privately, a bunch of landlords realized they were going to make a ton of money down the road. The government just swallowed everything they said and they didn't care if it was true or not.”

Nearly 160,000 people are living in hidden, often overcrowded and sometimes dangerous bedsit-style accommodation across England, analysis has found.

Intelligence compiled by councils suggests there are almost 32,000 unlicensed large houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). These are believed to be home to at least 159,340 tenants, who are often drawn by cheaper rents amid the cost of living crisis.

Conditions can be dire, with examples of more than 10 people sharing a single bathroom, squalid conditions and little protection in place should a fire break out.

Landlords have doubled their borrowing to invest in HMOs since 2018. A landlord renting to a single family can expect to generate 5% of the property’s value in annual rent, whereas a licensed HMO typically produces about 7.5%, and in some cases 10%. Profits in unlicensed bedsits are likely to be even higher, as landlords can cram in more tenants and do not have to comply with licensing standards.

The proposed development will include 129 studio apartments for low-income people and those experiencing homelessness. A minimum of 50 per cent of units will be held for people who are currently homeless and on income assistance, with the other half for people earning earning between $15,000 and $30,000 per year.

More than 200 people signed up to speak to the city’s public hearing, with emotions high on both sides. Opponents argued the project was a “failed model of housing,” that would “warehouse” a high-proportion of proposed residents with complex issues. Opponents also raised concern about nearby schools.

Thursday’s ruling un-pauses the original judicial review application against the city, which was suspended in September pending the outcome of the MEVA 5 challenge.

Michael Fotheringham, the director of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, says the number of corporate landlords is increasing and should “in theory’” offer more stability to tenants.

“Institutional investors behave slightly differently [to small-scale investors], in that they’re more focused on rental yield and the longer term, and therefore tend to be more friendly to longer leases,” he says. “And because they’re often partners in the development of sites, [the buildings are] often higher quality.”

But because corporate landlords are “regulated exactly as well as small-scale investors”, there is no more protection for renters that would ensure “a guarantee of good behaviour”, Fotheringham says.

The executive director of advocacy organisation Better Renting, Joel Dignam, says Victoria should pull itself into line with the ACT and expand its rental protections to also ban no-grounds evictions after the first 12 months of a lease.

“[Forcing people out of a rental is] really hard to justify for a corporate landlord,” Dignam says. “They’re clearly not moving in, they’re not selling the property.”

The situation is particularly dire for people on low incomes, with a single person on jobseeker having to spend at least 78% of their income to rent a one-bedroom apartment in any capital city. In Sydney, a one-bedroom apartment would on average cost 137% of their $22,100 annual income, making it the least affordable place in the country.

A single pensioner would need to spend 50% of their income to rent in all capitals except Adelaide and Hobart and at least 32% of their income in regional areas.

Here's how policymakers from the past thought about housing and citizenship and economic rights:

   "We consider that a dwelling of good standard and equipment is not only the need but the right of every citizen – whether the dwelling is to be rented or purchased, no tenant or purchaser should be exploited for excessive profit."

That was written in 1944 by the Commonwealth Housing Commission.

[…]

It said we had to get Australians into homes, and those homes should be affordable and adequate — not sites of exploitation for profit.

Does any of that feel familiar?

Well, last week the NSW Housing Minister, Rose Jackson, said we'll have to treat housing as a "fundamental human right" if we're to fix our current housing crisis.

Commonwealth Government engagement in housing was very limited until the war of 1939-45 when the conditions were ripe for its leadership. Reviewing the nation’s social security system, Parliament concluded that housing was important in achieving a fairer society.

The Commonwealth Housing Commission (CHC) in the letter of transmittal accompanying its final report said:

We consider that a dwelling of good standard and equipment is not only the need but the right of every citizen – whether the dwelling is to be rented or purchased, no tenant or purchaser should be exploited for excessive profit (Emphasis in original) CHC 25 August 1944) 

The CHC statement summarised the aspirations that had energised housing reformers as they responded to the privations of the previous half century. The Commonwealth’s development of a public housing program was seen as a way of giving effect to the CHC’s assertion.

This paper charts the departure from that lofty ambition since 1945 revealed as a series of episodes around the periodic Commonwealth State Housing Agreements (CSHAs) from 1945 to 2000